Is all Russia just one...
Henry Alminas
For educational purposes only:
... huge nuthouse?
Best - - Henry
From: Regnum.ru
Russian MP proposed to Estonian president
to rent places where Soviet soldiers are
buried
Russian MP, President of the National Investment Council
(Russia) and owner of the National Reserves Corporation
Alexander Lebedev sent a letter to Estonian President Toomas
Hendrik Ilves asking him to grant a possibility of renting or
buying areas where memorials or monuments to Soviet
soldiers buried in Estonia are located.
As the letter, copy of which was received by REGNUM,
runs, ""there are 4,300 military memorials in the territory
of European countries, where 2,533,000 Soviet soldiers
killed in World War II were buried. Among them 940 burial
places (about 75,000 people) are in Hungary, 907 burial
places (603,000 people) are in Germany, 583 burial places
(85,000 people) are in Poland"" and ""questions of maintaining
and care for the Soviet and today Russian military memorials
and monuments to soldiers killed in the years of World War II
in the countries of the united Europe by different, but
invariably civilized methods."" Mentioning the decision of
the Estonian parliament to pass the law on protection of
military burial places that established a legal basis for
dismantling monuments to soldiers killed in World War II,
Lebedev, ""as President of the National Investment Council
(Russia) and owner of the National Reserves Corporation,""
asked the Estonian president to consider a possibility of
giving him a right for a long-term rent or redemption of
areas in the territory of the Estonian Republic, where
memorials and monuments to the Soviet
soldiers buried in Estonia are located.
Lebedev expressed his readiness to bear all costs connected
with maintenance, restoration and guard of the monuments.
He also promised to grant free access to any person who
would like to pay homage to Soviet soldiers.
martin
Okay, in my view a fair price would be $1 and official Russian
recognition and apology that the Baltic states were occupied and
illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union.
Regards,
Martin
MTRP™
> Okay, in my view a fair price would be $1 and official Russian
> recognition and apology that the Baltic states were occupied and
> illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union.
Yes to recognition, but why the hell apology? Let Latvia first
apologize for Latvian Riflemen! This comedy kinda reminds me of poor
Japanese who used to apologize for every little thing before they can
actually start a conversation ...
vello
Well Mir, Latvia as state has never send some riflemen to Russia, so
there is no need for apology. Riflemen acted for Lenin as Swiss guard
for pope. Still one was Russia (RSFR those days officially) other is
Vatican.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
Don't forget that the Riflemen fought for Russia... and harder than
most Russians did, in fact --
http://lettonica.blogspot.com/2006/12/christmas-battles.html
As to the Red Riflemen, MTRP should read the 1920 treaty. Excerpts --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Concerning the present designations in the Russian army of
certain army units that are part of the "Latvian Riflemen Division",
both Parties acknowledge that such designations shall have a historical
meaning only. These units do not have and shall not have in the future
a mainly Latvian contingent and, regardless of their designation, they
shall have no relation to the Latvian nation or the Latvian State.
Therefore Latvia shall not consider the retention of such historical
designations a breach of this Article.
The Parties shall not create new designations for their army units
derived from the geographical or national names of the other Party.
[...]
Both Parties shall mutually forego any claims by the other Party in
respect of compensation for their war expenditures, namely the
expenditure by the State to wage war, or in respect of compensation for
war losses, namely, such losses caused to them or their citizens by war
activities, including any kind of requisitions which the other Party
has imposed on their respective territories.
http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/peace-treaty/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue, in other words, was already resolved. Latvia didn't violate
that treaty -- Russia did.
Regards,
/P
Kalmenas
Henry Alminas wrote:
> For educational purposes only:
>
>
>
> ... huge nuthouse?
>
> Best - - Henry
>
> Lebedev expressed his readiness to bear all costs connected
> with maintenance, restoration and guard of the monuments.
> He also promised to grant free access to any person who
> would like to pay homage to Soviet soldiers.
There is 'Russia' ( as of this writing this means Putin and his KGB
cronies) and then there is "Russia" , that is everybody else
including ~400 Duma every one of whom is looking for attention.
Zhirinovski is probably gritting his teeth that he did not think
of this attention getting gimmick first, Lebedev did.
This happens in other countries as well and we do not pay
much atttention, in Russias case we inevitably think how
much is 'Kremlin inspired'. Well, I certainly do not know.
Based on recent evidence (Georgia, Moldova, Belarus)
thinking is not a strong point there.
Estland
Good point Pēteris
Maris
You don't appear to be able to distinguish between activities
initiated by a state and those by individuals.
Maris
MTRP™
LOL. Swiss guards are decent guys ... well, most of them.
> Still one was Russia (RSFR those days officially) other is
> Vatican.
??? Still confusing SU with Russia? Besides SU was ruled by 2 Georgians
(Stalin and Beria) by the time of occupation, so go and ask for
Georgia's apology, weirdo.
MTRP™
LOL. MTRP™'s logic is always precise like his satellite-controlled
Swiss watch. Try to argue if you can, but first notice that Russia did
not exist as a state by the time of occupation. That's why Putin is
lol(ing) @ that entire apology biz. BTW the question whether the
occupation was justified or not is still open ...
MTRP™
> > MTRP™ wrote:
> > > martin wrote:
> > > > Okay, in my view a fair price would be $1 and official Russian
> > > > recognition and apology that the Baltic states were occupied and
> > > > illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union.
> > > Yes to recognition, but why the hell apology? Let Latvia first
> > > apologize for Latvian Riflemen! This comedy kinda reminds me of poor
> > > Japanese who used to apologize for every little thing before they can
> > > actually start a conversation ...
> > Well Mir, Latvia as state has never send some riflemen to Russia, so
> > there is no need for apology. Riflemen acted for Lenin as Swiss guard
> > for pope. Still one was Russia (RSFR those days officially) other is
> > Vatican.
> Don't forget that the Riflemen fought for Russia... and harder than
> most Russians did, in fact --
> http://lettonica.blogspot.com/2006/12/christmas-battles.html
OK. They were good guys who turned into bad guys later ... like Saddam
(PBUH), say. Not that Russia's involvement into WW1 made any sense
though ...
> As to the Red Riflemen, MTRP should read the 1920 treaty. Excerpts --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Note: Concerning the present designations in the Russian army of
> certain army units that are part of the "Latvian Riflemen Division",
> both Parties acknowledge that such designations shall have a historical
> meaning only. These units do not have and shall not have in the future
> a mainly Latvian contingent and, regardless of their designation, they
> shall have no relation to the Latvian nation or the Latvian State.
> Therefore Latvia shall not consider the retention of such historical
> designations a breach of this Article.
> The Parties shall not create new designations for their army units
> derived from the geographical or national names of the other Party.
> [...]
> Both Parties shall mutually forego any claims by the other Party in
> respect of compensation for their war expenditures, namely the
> expenditure by the State to wage war, or in respect of compensation for
> war losses, namely, such losses caused to them or their citizens by war
> activities, including any kind of requisitions which the other Party
> has imposed on their respective territories.
> http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/peace-treaty/
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The issue, in other words, was already resolved. Latvia didn't violate
> that treaty -- Russia did.
Russia did not exist in 1920 cuz it has been killed by intercommies
(incl. Latvian Riflemen) already in 1917. Ergo this treaty is worthless.
The Black Monk
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> > MTRP™ wrote:
> > > martin wrote:
> > > > Okay, in my view a fair price would be $1 and official Russian
> > > > recognition and apology that the Baltic states were occupied and
> > > > illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union.
> > >
> > > Yes to recognition, but why the hell apology? Let Latvia first
> > > apologize for Latvian Riflemen! This comedy kinda reminds me of poor
> > > Japanese who used to apologize for every little thing before they can
> > > actually start a conversation ...
> >
> > Well Mir, Latvia as state has never send some riflemen to Russia, so
> > there is no need for apology. Riflemen acted for Lenin as Swiss guard
> > for pope. Still one was Russia (RSFR those days officially) other is
> > Vatican.
>
> Don't forget that the Riflemen fought for Russia... and harder than
> most Russians did, in fact --
They did not fight "for Russia" but for the gang of criminals in the
process of taking over Russia. And Latvians formed a
disproportionately large percentage of that gang.
> http://lettonica.blogspot.com/2006/12/christmas-battles.html
Absolutely right. This makes Latvia proportionately more culpable for
Communism and its crimes than is Russia, per population.
> As to the Red Riflemen, MTRP should read the 1920 treaty. Excerpts --
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Note: Concerning the present designations in the Russian army of
> certain army units that are part of the "Latvian Riflemen Division",
> both Parties acknowledge that such designations shall have a historical
> meaning only. These units do not have and shall not have in the future
> a mainly Latvian contingent and, regardless of their designation, they
> shall have no relation to the Latvian nation or the Latvian State.
>
> Therefore Latvia shall not consider the retention of such historical
> designations a breach of this Article.
>
> The Parties shall not create new designations for their army units
> derived from the geographical or national names of the other Party.
>
> [...]
>
> Both Parties shall mutually forego any claims by the other Party in
> respect of compensation for their war expenditures, namely the
> expenditure by the State to wage war, or in respect of compensation for
> war losses, namely, such losses caused to them or their citizens by war
> activities, including any kind of requisitions which the other Party
> has imposed on their respective territories.
>
> http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/peace-treaty/
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your argument assumes that the gang who took over Russia and signed
such treaties was a legitimate government representing Russia, which at
the time of the treaty signing it clearly was not. The Commie gang did
not win any elections, nor in 1920 could it claim any legitimacy
through tradition (in fact, it was in a bitter war with the tradtional,
legitmate government's representives). But I'm just elaborating MTRP's
good points.
regards,
BM
J. Anderson
Now what kind of childish discussion is this? Russia has declared herself to
be the successor state of the Soviet Union, and the Soviet leadership
existed already when the 1920 peace treaties were made. There is no specific
point on the time span between the Bolsheviks' seizing of power in November
1917 and the end of the USSR in 1991 where the legal responsibility of the
government in power would have been temporarily interrupted.
Regards,
John
MTRP™
> Russia has declared herself to be the successor state of the Soviet Union,
Only in some discilplines - like ex-soviet foreign debts and nukes (and
only by drunken Yeltsin). But nobody (not even drunken Y.) claimed
Russia's responsibility for all ex-soviet misdeeds.
MTRP™
> There is no specific
> point on the time span between the Bolsheviks' seizing of power in November
> 1917 and the end of the USSR in 1991 where the legal responsibility of the
> government in power would have been temporarily interrupted.
Yup. Moreover all govts ruling over Russia's cadaver during the said
time period were illegal. Does it help?
martin
Oh, and the seat in the UN Security Council, foreign diplomatic
property, all territorial adjustments made during the Soviet period,
all the war booty, including Kaliningrad. Ukraine and Belarus were also
members of the SU, so how come they didn't get a piece of Kaliningrad?
Even the soldiers that may be buried in down town Tallinn are claimed
by Russia, even though they could have been Ukrainian, Belarusan or
even Estonian conscripts. All the benefits of Soviet misdeeds, but none
of the responsibility.
Regards,
Martin
Timedrifter
It was in exchange for Russia assuming the total foreign debt of the
USSR. It was the total debt as of Jan 1991, and not any subsequent
claims. Also Ukraine and Belarus did get to keep the territory they
gained as a result of being part of the USSR. Ukraine got to keep
Crimea and the western third of the country that belonged to Poland
previoulsy. Belarus the same thing. All and all Russia came out very
poorly in the territory department, only Kaliningrad in the west, Tuva
in Siberia and the southern Kurile Islands.
martin
You forgot to mention Russia also gained Estonian and Latvian
territory. Estonia is still waiting for Russia to return the
presidential regalia and the Tartu University collection stolen by the
Soviet Union before WW2.
Regards,
Martin
martin
And Finnish territory too, including Finland's second largest city.
Regards,
Martin
Estland
"""The Black Monk писал(а):
"""
> Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> > vello wrote:
Well, I agree. Once the gebnya gang is overthrown, I am sure solid
policy would be to scrap the treaty and give a sit to Zhdanokas of
Latvia at the same bench in the courtroom with Putin and Patrushov
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
The Black Monk wrote:
> Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> > vello wrote:
> > > MTRP™ wrote:
> > > > martin wrote:
> > > > > Okay, in my view a fair price would be $1 and official Russian
> > > > > recognition and apology that the Baltic states were occupied and
> > > > > illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union.
> > > >
> > > > Yes to recognition, but why the hell apology? Let Latvia first
> > > > apologize for Latvian Riflemen! This comedy kinda reminds me of poor
> > > > Japanese who used to apologize for every little thing before they can
> > > > actually start a conversation ...
> > >
> > > Well Mir, Latvia as state has never send some riflemen to Russia, so
> > > there is no need for apology. Riflemen acted for Lenin as Swiss guard
> > > for pope. Still one was Russia (RSFR those days officially) other is
> > > Vatican.
> >
> > Don't forget that the Riflemen fought for Russia... and harder than
> > most Russians did, in fact --
>
> They did not fight "for Russia" but for the gang of criminals in the
> process of taking over Russia.
Please read more closely, Black Monk! I was distinguishing the Riflemen
as a whole from the Red Riflemen, i.e., those who went over to the
Bolsheviks after the Revolution. The Riflemen did indeed fight for
Russia against Germany, from 1915 -- better and harder than most
Russians did. The commander of the Northern Front and the Moscow press
praised their valour, calling them the most patriotic of all of the
peoples of the Empire, etc. This stands to reason -- they hated the
Germans the most. What did they get in return? They were sent into
suicidal battles by the poor commanders of a régime that was even more
imbued with Great Russian chauvinism than it had been before the war
began -- their gains were not exploited, reinforcements did not come or
came too late, and they suffered massive losses for nothing. Meanwhile,
the country was stripped of its wealth and the population terrorized.
That many Riflemen were then receptive to Bolshevik organizers is
hardly surprising. Even so, many of the Riflemen, including the vast
majority of the officers, joined the Latvian National Army and not the
Reds.
> And Latvians formed a
> disproportionately large percentage of that gang.
>
> > http://lettonica.blogspot.com/2006/12/christmas-battles.html
>
> Absolutely right. This makes Latvia proportionately more culpable for
> Communism and its crimes than is Russia, per population.
If you think only along ethnic lines, probably so -- but the Red
Riflemen were never Latvian citizens; they were, practically and
formally, Russian subjects, and Latvia is not culpable for their
actions in the least.
I don't find the revolutionary strivings at all surprising -- there was
plenty of Russophilia among Latvians at the outset of the national
movement in the 1850s; it disappeared due to tsarist policies in the
1880s (coercive russification), and the reaction to 1905 (the punitive
expeditions, etc.) was the final sundering of any threads of affection
for the Tsar. One of the major thinkers in the national movement,
Kronvaldu Atis, looked upon the relationship between the Latvian nation
and the Russian Empire as a two-way street, taking the arguments of
"the Tsar's loyal Germans" as his model -- Latvians are loyal to
Russia, which protects Latvians, their language, and their culture.
Russia became a prison house of nations instead, and one cannot be
expected to be loyal to a prison.
When a country is in a civil war, its neighbors put their chips on the
gang they think will win (see Angola, for example). Latvia put its
chips in the right place, obviously -- the Bolsheviks won and would be
the recognized government to which today's Russia is the successor.
There is no reason in the world why Latvia should have backed any other
gang -- those arrayed on the other side were worse than the Reds _for
Latvians_, resisting not only calls for limited autonomy but even the
demand that Latgallia, Latvia's eastern region, be joined to the Baltic
Provinces. Then there was Bermondt-Avalov, who dreamt of a feudal state
under Russia's protection.
Radical revolutions do not take place in states that are ruled well.
Bolshevism was basically blowback for tsarist misrule. Latvia called a
constituent assembly and established a liberal democracy. You can't
really argue that a heavily Lettish gang of hardcore Reds took over the
largest country in the world -- unless the largest country in the world
had all of the strength of the United States in _The Mouse That
Roared_. This was repeated in the late 1980s and after -- most people
here understand that it's better to go our own way, getting as far as
possible from a behemoth that is historically incapable of even halfway
decent government. If some stay in Russia, e.g., Colonel Alksnis --
they're Russians, not Latvians.
Regards,
/P
Timedrifter
<ced...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Radical revolutions do not take place in states that are ruled well.
>Bolshevism was basically blowback for tsarist misrule.
>
>Regards,
>/P
>
>http://lettonica.blogspot.com/
Countries that are losing a war do tend to have revolutions that
overthrow the existing order. It has happened at one time or the other
in about every country in Europe. Germany was a very well run country
before WWI. Germans have always had a reputation for good order after
all. Yet the Kaiser was overthrown and a republic was established. I
just don't buy that the old order was doomed to be overthrown if that
war had not happened. Without a major war the Hohenzollerons,
Habsburgs, and Romanovs are probably still sitting on their thrones
today.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
Timedrifter wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2007 17:38:44 -0800, "Pçteris Cedriòð (Peteris Cedrins)"
But the more radical revolutionaries did not succeed in Germany in the
end, much to the Soviets' chagrin -- they didn't succed in Finland, the
Baltic States, Poland, etc., either, all of which established
democracies (not that those survived for very long in many of the
countries where they were constructed). Overthrowing the established
order is one thing -- what gets built in its place is another. Also,
the way these major wars get started is often part of the misrule,
isn't it? And then there is how these wars are prosecuted, and how one
deals with the outcome. Russia's refusal to change only a decade before
is illustrative -- you can say that the Russo-Japanese War was a major
factor in 1905, but there was a host of causes; the response was, with
few exceptions of brief duration, not adaptation and reform but
repression and stubborn absolutism. A series of practically powerless
Dumas do not a democracy make, and by the Great War came the reforms
that could have been made were no longer sufficient -- the Latvian
farmer, for example, demanded real democracy and, soon, a state or at
least autonomy, not the _zemstvo_ he'd asked for before. Again when
Gorbachev tried to reform the USSR -- too little, too late... and in
the final analysis, not really possible: too rotten to reform.
Regards,
/P
Kalmenas
Maris wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2007 14:54:32 -0800, "MTRP™" <Mir.To...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> >martin wrote:
> >> Okay, in my view a fair price would be $1 and official Russian
> >> recognition and apology that the Baltic states were occupied and
> >> illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union.
> >
> >Yes to recognition, but why the hell apology? Let Latvia first
> >apologize for Latvian Riflemen! This comedy kinda reminds me of poor
> >Japanese who used to apologize for every little thing before they can
> >actually start a conversation ...
I am not a big fan of Russia, but, please, the very idea that it is
the
Latvian riflemen who brought communism in Russia is such an insult
to the Russian people that I must protest. It implies no more, no less
that one latvian is worth 6400 (roughly) russians. That is based on
the
number of Latvien riflemen and the Russian male population.
. The number actually proven in combat is about
1 to 10 in the case of Fins, and seems to be roughly 1 to 8 in the case
of germans. Based on casualties. 1 to 6400 is too much to bear
and I implore those that make this insiduous suggestion to cease and
desist!!
The Black Monk
Kalmenas wrote:
> Maris wrote:
> > On 15 Jan 2007 14:54:32 -0800, "MTRP™" <Mir.To...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > >martin wrote:
> > >> Okay, in my view a fair price would be $1 and official Russian
> > >> recognition and apology that the Baltic states were occupied and
> > >> illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union.
> > >
> > >Yes to recognition, but why the hell apology? Let Latvia first
> > >apologize for Latvian Riflemen! This comedy kinda reminds me of poor
> > >Japanese who used to apologize for every little thing before they can
> > >actually start a conversation ...
> .
> I am not a big fan of Russia, but, please, the very idea that it is
> the
> Latvian riflemen who brought communism in Russia is such an insult
> to the Russian people that I must protest. It implies no more, no less
> that one latvian is worth 6400 (roughly) russians. That is based on
> the number of Latvien riflemen and the Russian male population.
Well, for example, it takes only 2 hijackers to subdue a plane of 200
people. You were being facetious, I know. In reality the Rusisan
revolution involved a small number of combatants on both sides (and
large number of victims). Due to the small numbers of people involved,
Latvian participation was decisive:
Latvian Red Riflemen friends of Bolsheviks
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Shortly before President Bush's planned visit to Latvia last weekend on
his way to Moscow to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the defeat of
Nazi Germany, the Latvian parliament passed a declaration demanding
compensation from Russia for losses caused by the Soviet Union.
A bit earlier, the U.S. House of Representative Committee on
International Relations received a resolution seeking an acknowledgment
from Russia that its occupation of the Baltic states was illegal. Reps.
John Shimkus, R-Ill., and Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, the authors of the
resolution, urge Russia to make a "clear and unequivocal statement on
acknowledgment and condemnation of the illegal occupation and
annexation of the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, by the
Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991."
Everybody wants an apology from Moscow these days, but nobody seems to
remember that the creation of the Soviet regime was accomplished
through international teamwork. And the Latvians, in particular, were
among the best players doing a very specific function during the first
days of the Soviet state.
In fact, they played a vital role in saving the Bolshevik regime at its
very beginning and helped it survive through its most critical period.
The Occupation Museum in the Latvian capital of Riga, with exhibits
which now "remind the world of the wrongdoings committed by foreign
powers against the state and the people of Latvia," was previously
devoted to the history of the Latvian Riflemen. Those units, formed
within the Czarist Russian Army with the beginning of World War I,
numbered about 40,000 by 1917. They sided with the Bolsheviks after the
revolution and became their strongest, most disciplined and loyal
supporters. Known as the Latvian Red Riflemen, they were the only
effective forces to whom Bolsheviks entrusted the most important
military and security operations.
The riflemen guarded the Smolny and the Kremlin, the Bolsheviks
headquarters in Petrograd and Moscow. They literally saved the regime
and the lives of Lenin, Trotsky and Dzerzhinsky in 1918 during the
anti-Bolshevik uprising in Moscow when the entire city, except for the
Kremlin, fell into the hands of rebels, and they then smashed a dozen
other uprisings throughout the country.
The riflemen fought in every significant battle during the Russian
Civil War. The 5th Latvian Regiment became the first Red Army unit to
be awarded the highest military recognition of that time, the Honorable
Red Flag of VTsIK (the Central Executive Committee of Soviets).
Harvard historian Richard Pipes writes in his book, "The Russian
Revolution," that the Latvian Riflemen "gradually turned into a
combination of the French Foreign Legion and the Nazi SS, a force to
protect the regime from internal as well as foreign enemies, partly an
army, partly a security police. Lenin trusted them much more than
Russians."
Jukums Vacietis, the former colonel of the Czarist Army, became the
first commander-in-chief of the Red Army. Janis Berzins was a creator
of Soviet intelligence service and spy networks in the West. One of the
oldest party leaders, Ivar Smilga, the leader of the Bolsheviks in the
Baltic Fleet and a confidant of Lenin, was a member of the Central
Committee of the Bolshevik Party and the Military Revolutionary
Committee. Another Latvian, Yakov Alksnis, was the first chief
commander of Red Army Air Forces. Martins Lacis, the senior official in
the CHEKA, (Extraordinary Commission, or the first Soviet political
police) was also the theoretician of the Red Terror, stating that
Bolsheviks "are not carrying out war against individuals. We are
exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We are not looking for
evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against the Soviet
power. The first question we ask is to what class does he belong, what
are his origins, upbringing, education or profession? These questions
define the fate of the accused. This is the essence of the Red Terror."
A revolution consumes its own spawn. By the time Stalin decided to
invade Latvia in 1940, thousands of Latvians, including those involved
in the Red Terror at the first-hand level - and millions of other
people - were murdered by the regime.
There is a long way to go for the peoples and countries that once made
up the Soviet Union to come to terms with Soviet history, that mix of
facts, biases, lies, perceptions and emotions. As it's always with
history, everybody has something to answer for.
Alex Peshkov, a staff writer for The Republican, emigrated from
Arkhangelsk in 2002. His column focuses on the Russian-American
community. He can be reached at apesh...@repub.com
-------------
BM
> . The number actually proven in combat is about
> 1 to 10 in the case of Fins, and seems to be roughly 1 to 8 in the case
> of germans. Based on casualties.
Only if you include civilan victims.
martin
The Black Monk wrote:
> Kalmenas wrote:
> > Maris wrote:
> > > On 15 Jan 2007 14:54:32 -0800, "MTRP™" <Mir.To...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > >martin wrote:
> > > >> Okay, in my view a fair price would be $1 and official Russian
> > > >> recognition and apology that the Baltic states were occupied and
> > > >> illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union.
> > > >
> > > >Yes to recognition, but why the hell apology? Let Latvia first
> > > >apologize for Latvian Riflemen! This comedy kinda reminds me of poor
> > > >Japanese who used to apologize for every little thing before they can
> > > >actually start a conversation ...
> > .
> > I am not a big fan of Russia, but, please, the very idea that it is
> > the
> > Latvian riflemen who brought communism in Russia is such an insult
> > to the Russian people that I must protest. It implies no more, no less
> > that one latvian is worth 6400 (roughly) russians. That is based on
> > the number of Latvien riflemen and the Russian male population.
>
> Well, for example, it takes only 2 hijackers to subdue a plane of 200
> people. You were being facetious, I know. In reality the Rusisan
> revolution involved a small number of combatants on both sides (and
> large number of victims). Due to the small numbers of people involved,
> Latvian participation was decisive:
Not all non-combatants were victims, many supported the bolsheviks in
their acquiessence. The Latvian Red Riflemen were merely hired guns,
the buck stops with the leadership of the Russian Social-Democratic
Labour Party (Bolshevik) and later the All-Russian Communist Party
(Bolsheviks).
Regards,
Martin
The Black Monk
Sure, just like any able-bodied victim of a hijacking who doesn't fight
back isn't really a victim.
> The Latvian Red Riflemen were merely hired guns,
They were often the only guns. Hired or not, it is likely that without
the Latvians the Bolsheviks would not have held onto power in the
crucial early stage of their takeover. You are implying that the
criminal Latvians' motives were different from that of the other
criminal Bolsheviks. But what relevence is that?
> the buck stops with the leadership of the Russian Social-Democratic
> Labour Party (Bolshevik) and later the All-Russian Communist Party
> (Bolsheviks).
The article you snipped showed the central leadership role that
Latvians played in the early Bolshevik movement and that Latvian
involvement went far beyond being merely "hired guns." And the guy
that ran the Ukrainian Cheka, for example, was a Latvian.
regards,
BM
> Regards,
> Martin
Timedrifter
<ced...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>But the more radical revolutionaries did not succeed in Germany in the
>end, much to the Soviets' chagrin -- they didn't succed in Finland, the
>Baltic States, Poland, etc., either, all of which established
>democracies (not that those survived for very long in many of the
>countries where they were constructed). Overthrowing the established
>order is one thing -- what gets built in its place is another. Also,
>the way these major wars get started is often part of the misrule,
>isn't it? And then there is how these wars are prosecuted, and how one
>deals with the outcome. Russia's refusal to change only a decade before
>is illustrative -- you can say that the Russo-Japanese War was a major
>factor in 1905, but there was a host of causes; the response was, with
>few exceptions of brief duration, not adaptation and reform but
>repression and stubborn absolutism. A series of practically powerless
>Dumas do not a democracy make, and by the Great War came the reforms
>that could have been made were no longer sufficient -- the Latvian
>farmer, for example, demanded real democracy and, soon, a state or at
>least autonomy, not the _zemstvo_ he'd asked for before. Again when
>Gorbachev tried to reform the USSR -- too little, too late... and in
>the final analysis, not really possible: too rotten to reform.
>
>Regards,
>/P
>
>http://lettonica.blogspot.com/
The reforms taken after 1905 were yielding positive results but were
of course derailed by the war. The problem Russia had was weak
leadership at the top. Whenever Russia has had a weak leader such as
Yeltsin or Nicholas II, things have fallen apart. Nicholas I tightened
the screws and despite losing the Crimean war, there was no internal
dissent in the Russian heartland. Alexander II began to loosen things
up and conspiratorial organizations ran rampant and eventually lead to
the death of the Tsar. Alexander III put an end to such nonsense and
peace reigned again, even though famines. I see no evidence that
democracy is a stabalizing force, especially in the case of Russia.
That is why Russians are very skeptical of the western version of
democracy. It means disorder and chaos and they have good reason to
believe stability will only be maintained through authoritarian
methods. You can have reform, but it has to be reform in the spirit
of Peter I and not that of Gorbachev.
Timedrifter
>
>.
> I am not a big fan of Russia, but, please, the very idea that it is
>the
>Latvian riflemen who brought communism in Russia is such an insult
>to the Russian people that I must protest. It implies no more, no less
>that one latvian is worth 6400 (roughly) russians. That is based on
>the
>number of Latvien riflemen and the Russian male population.
>. The number actually proven in combat is about
>1 to 10 in the case of Fins, and seems to be roughly 1 to 8 in the case
>of germans. Based on casualties. 1 to 6400 is too much to bear
>and I implore those that make this insiduous suggestion to cease and
>desist!!
The majority does not always prevail. After all the Bolsheviks got
less then 10 million votes out of 41 million cast for the Constituent
Assembly of 1917. The SR's got almost double the votes of the
Bolsheviks but lost. The Bolsheviks while not being the most popular,
were the most motivated. The Latvian Riflemen being one of the best
examples of that.
martin
Madeleine Albright is ethnic Czech. She served as US Secretary of State
and considerably influenced American policy on the Balkans. I suppose
you think that the Czech Republic ought to share responsibility with
USA in bombing Serbia during the Bosnian and Kosovo Wars?
Sure there were ethnic Latvians involved, but they saw themselves as
citizens of Soviet Russia, just as Albright is a citizen of the USA.
The Latvian and Czech republic are in no way accountable for the
actions of citizens of Soviet Russia or the USA.
Regards,
Martin
The Black Monk
I really suggest you reread the article I posted. Then you would know
that Latvian involvement went way beyond the level of individuals (for
this reason, Georgia and Poland, unlike Latvia and Russia, can in no
way be considered responsible for Bolshevism). What you are saying
above is true of Poland, Ukraine, America (there is an American
criminal entombed in the Kremlin wall), Georgia, etc. But not Latvia.
For your analogy to be correct, in addition to Madeline Albright Czech
military forces would have had to be essential for the Balkan
operations. Remember, if not for Latvians, the Bolsheviks would have
lost power:
The Occupation Museum in the Latvian capital of Riga, with exhibits
which now "remind the world of the wrongdoings committed by foreign
powers against the state and the people of Latvia," was previously
devoted to the history of the Latvian Riflemen. Those units, formed
within the Czarist Russian Army with the beginning of World War I,
numbered about 40,000 by 1917. They sided with the Bolsheviks after the
revolution and became their strongest, most disciplined and loyal
supporters. Known as the Latvian Red Riflemen, they were the only
effective forces to whom Bolsheviks entrusted the most important
military and security operations.
The riflemen guarded the Smolny and the Kremlin, the Bolsheviks
headquarters in Petrograd and Moscow. They literally saved the regime
and the lives of Lenin, Trotsky and Dzerzhinsky in 1918 during the
anti-Bolshevik uprising in Moscow when the entire city, except for the
Kremlin, fell into the hands of rebels, and they then smashed a dozen
other uprisings throughout the country...
> Sure there were ethnic Latvians involved, but they saw themselves as
> citizens of Soviet Russia,
No, they were internationalists and not "Soviet Russians."
regards,
BM
Henry Alminas
"Timedrifter" <tdh...@nospamcox.net> wrote in message
news:e1drq2tar9ccqmvvo...@4ax.com...
> On 16 Jan 2007 19:44:32 -0800, "P?teris Cedri?s (Peteris Cedrins)"
Your point, I take it, is that Russians
are genetically/culturally incapable
of sustaining a democracy.
In your opinion - did them nasty
Mongols bring this on or is it
something in the water?
Best - - Henry
J. Anderson
for whatever the Vlassov army did. Or blaming Ukraina for what happened in
Nazi camps because of the Ukrainian guards who participated.
I suggest that those who can't differentiate between a country and a random
bunch of individuals form a newsgroup of their own and continue their
nonsensical exchange there. Call it alt.idiots or something along those
lines.
MTRP™
> "martin" wrote:
> >MTRP™ wrote:
> >> J. Anderson wrote:
> >> > Russia has declared herself to be the successor state of the Soviet Union,
> >> Only in some discilplines - like ex-soviet foreign debts and nukes (and
> >> only by drunken Yeltsin). But nobody (not even drunken Y.) claimed
> >> Russia's responsibility for all ex-soviet misdeeds.
> >Oh, and the seat in the UN Security Council, foreign diplomatic
> >property, all territorial adjustments made during the Soviet period,
> >all the war booty, including Kaliningrad. Ukraine and Belarus were also
> >members of the SU, so how come they didn't get a piece of Kaliningrad?
> >Even the soldiers that may be buried in down town Tallinn are claimed
> >by Russia, even though they could have been Ukrainian, Belarusan or
> >even Estonian conscripts. All the benefits of Soviet misdeeds, but none
> >of the responsibility.
> USSR. It was the total debt as of Jan 1991, and not any subsequent
> claims. Also Ukraine and Belarus did get to keep the territory they
> gained as a result of being part of the USSR. Ukraine got to keep
> Crimea and the western third of the country that belonged to Poland
> previoulsy. Belarus the same thing. All and all Russia came out very
> poorly in the territory department, only Kaliningrad in the west, Tuva
> in Siberia and the southern Kurile Islands.
And hey who needs K-d anyway? Germany sez it has not a slightest
desire. Perhaps Ukraine and Belarus? LOL, then. I dunno about "Tuva in
Siberia" (WTF?), but who and why wanna own those Kuril guys? Japan lost
WW2, so it has no chance to get them by tour de force, while (unlike
Germany) it's not trying to be nice to Russia ...
MTRP™
As usual you are the main "idiot or something along those lines" here,
Johnny. Vlassov's and Uke's bad guys in questions obeyed German orders.
Egro Germany was to blame for their misdeed. By the time of Blatic
occupation SU was a dictatorship ruled by Georgian dictator Stalin (and
his Georgian buddy Beria), ergo (then nonexistent) country Russia can't
be blamed for Baltic occupation. So sez logic and confirms MTRP™...
The Black Monk
> The whole discussion is (again) as intelligent as blaming the Soviet Union
> for whatever the Vlassov army did. Or blaming Ukraina for what happened in
> Nazi camps because of the Ukrainian guards who participated.
I agree. Blaming Latvia or Russia for the actions of Bolshevik
criminals is somewhat like blaming the USSR for Vlasov. I was simply
pointing out that those who want to engage in that foolish game have to
put Latvia in the same position as Russia (or, per capita, in an even
worse position than Russia). More info:
http://www.centropa.org/reports.asp?rep=HR&ID=6879&TypeID=0
The second All-Russian Congress of Soviets met in St. Petersburg on
November 7, 1917 (October 25 old style), the day of the coup. The
American journalist John Reed, present as an observer, relates a speech
by delegate Karlis Petersons, a representative of the Latvian Riflemen,
who in 1918 became commander of the Red Army's Latvian Division and a
member of the Revolutionary Tribunal of the All-Russian Central
Executive Committee. According to Reed (Ten Days that Shook the World,
New York, The Modem Library, 1960, p. 130), Petersons concluded his
rousing speech with the following words:
I tell you now, the Lettish [Latvian] soldiers have said many times,
"No more resolutions' No more talk! We want deeds -- the Power must be
in our hands! "Let these impostor dele gates [who opposed the Bolshevik
coup] leave the Congress! The Army is not with them!
And John Reed remarks, "The hall rocked with cheering."
Indeed, the Latvian Red Riflemen were in fact the strongest pillar
supporting the Bolsheviks. They were the Bolsheviks' Praetorian guard.
As the Latvian historian Uldis Germanis, who lives in Stockholm, points
out (in Oberst Vacietis und die Lettischen Schuetzen im Weltkrieg und
in der Oktoberrevolution, Stockholm, Amqvist & Wiksell, 1974), Lenin
could rely on neither the disorganized Russian troops in St.
Petersburg, nor the famous sailors at Kronstadt with their growing
anarchistic tendencies, nor the militarily weak Red Guard, composed of
workers. The Bolshevik headquarters in St. Petersburg, the Smolny
Institute building, which contained Lenin's office, were guarded by a
special company of Latvian Riflemen (officially called Svodnoya rota
Latyshskich Strelkov pri VCIK i Sovnarkome). When the Soviet government
moved to Moscow in March of 1918, these faithful bodyguards of the
Bolshevik leadership, now known as the United Latvian Riflemen's
Battalion, were assigned to guard the Kremlin.
Here it would be appropriate to recall the White Russian émigré
saying mentioned in the introduction: "What destroyed Russia? Jewish
brains, Latvian bayonets, and Russian stupidity."
...
In St. Petersburg, Peteris Stucka, Martins Lacis and Jekabs Peterss
were members of the committee that prepared the Bolshevik coup. Ivars
Smilga agitated for the Bolsheviks among Russian army units in Finland.
The seaman E. Bergs led an attack by Russian marines on the Winter
Palace, site of the Provisional Government. In Moscow the Bolshevik
uprising was led by Lieutenant O. Berzins; chief of staff of the Red
Guards was J. Piece.
The Latvian Riflemen's regiments of the Red Army, later united as the
"Latdivision," participated in all the crucial battles of the Russian
civil war, especially in the Ukraine and in storming the fortified zone
at Perekop, which blocked the way to the Crimea. The Red Army's
victories are unthinkable without the Latvian Riflemen. As the Russian
communist poet Demyan Bedny (Pridvorov) wrote at the time, "Any flank
is secure if Latvians are there! (Ljubyje flangi obespetcheni, kogda na
flangachlatyshi.)" It is a proven fact that the Riflemen saved the
Bolshevik regime in July 1918, when the Left SR revolt broke out
and the lives of Lenin, Trotsky, and Dzerzhinsky were hanging by a
thread. As mentioned in the introduction, the protection of important
buildings and persons in Moscow, especially in the Kremlin, was
entrusted to the Latvian Riflemen. The famous Latvian military leader
Jukums Vacietis and his men restored order in Moscow. As J. Porietis
records in his book Strelnieku legendaras gaitas (The Riflemen's
legendary deeds, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1966), units of Latvians smashed
anti-Bolshevik rebellions in other cities as well -- the Third Regiment
in Kaluga, the Fifth Regiment in Bologoye, the Sixth Regiment inSt.
Petersburg (Petrograd), the Seventh Regiment in Staraya Russa and St.
Petersburg, the Eighth Regiment in Vologda and Yaroslav, and so on.
Furthermore, the father of Soviet military aviation was the Latvian
Jekabs Alksnis.
Along with Jews and Poles such as Dzerzhinsky and Menzhinsky, Latvians
played a role in forming that fearsome instrument of Red terror, the
Cheka. George Leggett notes this in his book The Cheka, Lenin's
Political Police 1917-1922 (Oxford 1981). He quotes Trotsky as saying
at a Politburo meeting on April 18,1918, that Latvians and Jews
comprised the largest percentages of the Cheek's employees at the
front, in the rear, and in Soviet institutions in the center. Jekabs
Peterss, who was a close associate of the founder of the Cheka,
Dzerzhinsky, and Martins Lacis-Sudrabs, who was the theoretician of the
Red terror, were the most monstrous of the Latvian Chekists. The
British journalist Reginald 0. G. Urch, who was well-versed in Baltic
and Soviet affairs, mentions Lacis-Sudrabs in his book The Rabbit King
of Russia (London 1939). Urch cites an article by Lacis-Sudrabs in
which he wrote: "The Central Executive Committee has abolished the
Cheka, but it has created and placed on duty a new sentinel -- the GPU.
The Cheka has done its work.... And you, the new sentinel, be alert."
In the twenties and thirties, Latvians continued to be active in the
Soviet Union's political police and intelligence service. The creator
of Soviet spy networks in the West was Berzins, who was also the
supervisor and mentor of the famous spy RichardSorge. Another Berzins
supervised the slave labor camp system at Kolyma, the Dal'stroy, which
was the Soviet predecessor to and equivalent of Auschwitz.
Solzhenitsyn remarks in The Gulag Archipelago: "The Estonians and
Lithuanians are close to my own soul.... They never harmed anyone,
lived quietly, in good conditions, morally more honestly than we. As it
turned out, they were guilty of living next to us and cutting us off
from the sea.... As for Latvians, my attitude is somewhat more
complicated. There is an element of fate. It was they, after all, who
started the whole thing."
Solzhenitsyn is emotionally biased. He cannot forget the Latvian
bayonets.
-------------------------
regards,
BM
J. Anderson
"MTRPT" <Mir.To...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1169049020.4...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
J. Anderson wrote:
>> The whole discussion is (again) as intelligent
>> as blaming the Soviet Union for whatever the
>> Vlassov army did. Or blaming Ukraina for what
>> happened in Nazi camps because of the Ukrainian
>> guards who participated. I suggest that those
>> who can't differentiate between a country and
>> a random bunch of individuals form a newsgroup
>> of their own and continue their nonsensical
>> exchange there. Call it alt.idiots or something
>> along those lines.
> As usual you are the main "idiot or something
> along those lines" here, Johnny.
Sure, krauthead. The definition of an idiot is somebody who is visiting Rio
de Janeiro but spending his time in newsgroups.
> Vlassov's and Uke's bad guys in questions obeyed German orders.
You probably think that the Latvian Riflemen acted on Latvia's orders.
> By the time of Blatic occupation SU was a dictatorship
> ruled by Georgian dictator Stalin (and his Georgian
> buddy Beria), ergo (then nonexistent) country Russia
> can't be blamed for Baltic occupation.
Of course. And Nazi Germany was an Austrian dictatorship ruled by the
Austrians Hitler, Kaltenbrunner, Eichmann & co.
> So sez logic and confirms MTRPT...
Sigh.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
I have to concur with Henry for a change. I read your post a few times,
"Timedrifter," and finally I decided it didn't merit a response -- but,
hey, so long as Henry speaketh, why not.
There's a very amusing article that touches upon this subject here --
http://www.slate.com/id/2141640/
Personally, I don't think Russians are genetically or culturally
incapable of sustaining a democracy. People with your views seem to be
incapable of even dreaming of democracy, but these views are widely
held in Russia -- and so Russia wallows in its misery as it always has.
I hear this type of stuff often enough ("Stalin made Russia great"),
and I think all Balts know this stance quite well -- do please forgive
us, then, for taking a pass.
Прощай, немытая Россия,
Страна рабов, страна господ,
И вы, мундиры голубы,
И ты, им преданный народ.
Regards,
/P
http://lettonica.blogspot.com/ [updated]
vello
The Black Monk wrote:
> Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> > vello wrote:
> > > > martin wrote:
> > > > > Okay, in my view a fair price would be $1 and official Russian
> > > > > recognition and apology that the Baltic states were occupied and
> > > > > illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union.
> > > >
> > > > Yes to recognition, but why the hell apology? Let Latvia first
> > > > apologize for Latvian Riflemen! This comedy kinda reminds me of poor
> > > > Japanese who used to apologize for every little thing before they can
> > > > actually start a conversation ...
> > >
> > > there is no need for apology. Riflemen acted for Lenin as Swiss guard
> > > for pope. Still one was Russia (RSFR those days officially) other is
> > > Vatican.
> >
> > Don't forget that the Riflemen fought for Russia... and harder than
> > most Russians did, in fact --
>
> process of taking over Russia. And Latvians formed a
> disproportionately large percentage of that gang.
>
> > http://lettonica.blogspot.com/2006/12/christmas-battles.html
>
> Absolutely right. This makes Latvia proportionately more culpable for
> Communism and its crimes than is Russia, per population.
>
Kuveit etc) also by your wiewpoint there was no nations in Europe
mostly up to the 20 century. and all history of Russia also disappears
- there have not been Russia exept from February to October 1917 and
from 1991 - all other time "there was no Russia but chriminal gangs
ruling over people". In some period unelected families like Romanovs,
in some period unelected commies.
MTRP™
> MTRP™ wrote: i
> > J. Anderson wrote:
> >> The whole discussion is (again) as intelligent
> >> as blaming the Soviet Union for whatever the
> >> Vlassov army did. Or blaming Ukraina for what
> >> happened in Nazi camps because of the Ukrainian
> >> guards who participated. I suggest that those
> >> who can't differentiate between a country and
> >> a random bunch of individuals form a newsgroup
> >> of their own and continue their nonsensical
> >> exchange there. Call it alt.idiots or something
> >> along those lines.
> > As usual you are the main "idiot or something
> > along those lines" here, Johnny.
> Sure, krauthead. The definition of an idiot is somebody
> who is visiting Rio de Janeiro but spending his time in
> newsgroups.
Hey I'm temporarily WORKING in Rio. This means: cool breakfast with
mucho exotic fruits at 8:00, then cool entertainment on the beach -
till 12:00, then cool lunch and some biznes in my office plus a bit
entertainment in SCR + SCB. Afterwards - yes, ya got it - cool dinner
and cool entertainment on the beach and beyond (the carnival is
approaching). And no hard work at night!
> > Vlassov's and Uke's bad guys in questions obeyed German orders.
> You probably think that the Latvian Riflemen acted on Latvia's orders.
??? WTF is Latvia's orders? I interrupted Martin-Johnny's ritual
brainless bitching about the lack of Russia's apology for ex-SU
misdeeds by comparing that nonsense with analogous NONSENSE concerning
Latvian Riflemen. It's logic, Johnny.
> > By the time of Blatic occupation SU was a dictatorship
> > ruled by Georgian dictator Stalin (and his Georgian
> > buddy Beria), ergo (then nonexistent) country Russia
> > can't be blamed for Baltic occupation.
> Of course. And Nazi Germany was an Austrian dictatorship ruled by the
> Austrians Hitler, Kaltenbrunner, Eichmann & co.
No way. Unlike SU, The Third Reich evolved from German Weimar Democracy
by purely democratic means. Ergo Hitler's dictatorship in Germany was
legitimate - Lenin-Stalin's dictatorship in Russia and beyond was not.
That why's German Bonn Democracy took formal responsibility for
Hitler's misdeeeds, but Russia has no formal obligation to do the same
with regard to SU. It's logic, Johnny.
> > So sez logic and confirms MTRPT...
> Sigh.
Don't despair, Johnny, it's never too late to learn basic logic.
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk wrote:
> >
> Well this way a lot of countries become "nonexisting" (Saudi Arabia,
> Kuveit etc) also by your wiewpoint there was no nations in Europe
> mostly up to the 20 century. and all history of Russia also disappears
> - there have not been Russia exept from February to October 1917 and
> from 1991 - all other time "there was no Russia but chriminal gangs
> ruling over people". In some period unelected families like Romanovs,
> in some period unelected commies.
Why do you equate unelected families with "criminal gangs?" The
Romanovs had been legitmate Russian rulers. The Provisional government
was more questionable; however it at least had the confirmation of the
elections and it enjoyed universal foreign recognition. In contrast
the Bolsheviks were criminal usurpers who in 1920 had not even
finalized their takeover of Russia.
As illustrated in the articles I posted on this thread, Latvians made
up a disproportionate number of those criminals. So logically, if
you're going to blame Russia for Bolshevism, you should blame Latvia
just as much, if not more. If you call for reparations from Russia,
Latvia should also pay. And on a per capita basis, it should pay more
than Russia.
Personally, I think that neither country is responsible for the actions
of, relative to the population, small band of criminals without
widespread popular support whose rule was based on terror. But if you
choose to hold Russia responsible and not Latvia, you prove that your
supposed search for justice is really nothing more than Russophobia.
Incidentally, does the monument to the monstrous Latvian Red Rifles
still stand in Riga?
regards,
BM
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
The Black Monk wrote:
> J. Anderson wrote:
> > The whole discussion is (again) as intelligent as blaming the Soviet Union
> > for whatever the Vlassov army did. Or blaming Ukraina for what happened in
> > Nazi camps because of the Ukrainian guards who participated.
>
> I agree. Blaming Latvia or Russia for the actions of Bolshevik
> criminals is somewhat like blaming the USSR for Vlasov. I was simply
> pointing out that those who want to engage in that foolish game have to
> put Latvia in the same position as Russia (or, per capita, in an even
> worse position than Russia). More info:
No, sorry. As has been pointed our more than once, you seem to be
having trouble distinguishing nations, ethnicities, governments, and
individuals. Latvia hadn't even been proclaimed independence in 1917,
much less was it a functioning nation-state. Martin's flawed analogy
doesn't take that into account. The Red Riflemen were not Latvian
citizens, and they never fought for Latvia. You wanna talk about the
Iskolat Republic or sumfin'? Excuse me, but this is getting mighty
tawdry -- a more comparable world-view would be the one Russian
chauvinists tend to come up with at every murky breakfast: Russians are
great, but evil Jews and muscled Letts and assorted devious Freemasons
subjugate them and stall their glory. Sorry, but that's somewhat
pathetic. Blame every Jew for the invasion of Lebanon, etc.
Frightening, when not boring.
You can say the same things about the Nazis -- gang of thugs, took
power, victimized Austria, etc. Germany has no problem with apologizing
-- in fact, Germany even pays compensation. Russia not only doesn't
apologize -- it denies historical fact, supports the Stalinist
distortions of history that make it feel good about itself, and limps
along like the proverbial person with bad breath arguing that his
breath smells like violets.
Do you know who Frank(s) Gordon(s) is -- the man you are quoting? I
respect the man, but he is an extreme right-winger in Tel Aviv, someone
who thinks Latvia should be like Likud's Israel. He has expressed
profound sympathy for the far right in Latvia, e.g., "Visu Latvijai!"
Baltic Russians are as Palestinian Arabs to him, in some sense. Do you
know how many people in the "Latvian" units that reached the Crimea
were actually Latvian, ethnically?
But, again -- a state does not bear responsibility for an _ethnos_,
period. The Treaty of Rīga gave everybody a choice -- Russians could
go to Russia, Latvians to Latvia, and citizenship was freely granted.
Prior to that, all Latvians were Russian subjects. The Republic of
Latvia never even influenced the Red Riflemen, much less controlled
them. You, Topolski, and many others would like to pretend that Russia
was hijacked by an internationalist Soviet Union Russians do not bear
any responsibility for -- that's bullshit, sorry, because the seat of
power was in the Kremlin, and the New Soviet Man would speak Russian.
If it was a gang in 1917 (as opposed to the gang of "Whites," which I
see as at least as gangsterish as the Bolshevik gang), it was an
internationally recognized gang in full controlof Russian territory
only a few years later, and Russia inherited its UN seat. The most
moving nostalgia for the Soviet Union is in Russia. You can call Stalin
"Georgian" all you like -- Stalin personally supervised the rape of
Georgia by Soviet Russia.
I agree with John, as usual -- you guys should start a more relevant
group. alt.dinosaurs.russo-soviet? alt.19th.c.slavophilia.updated?
soc.culture.czarist.forget.me.nots?
Regards,
/P
MTRP™
> You can say the same things about the Nazis -- gang of thugs, took
> power
Not "took power" - they got elected to rule over Germany according to
then legal democratic procedure. Nothing like that ever happened in
Russia with regard to Intercommies and their communist successors.
MTRP™
> You, Topolski, and many others would like to pretend that Russia
> was hijacked by an internationalist Soviet Union Russians do not bear
> any responsibility for -- that's bullshit, sorry, because the seat of
> power was in the Kremlin, and the New Soviet Man would speak Russian.
Wrong logic, Petya. Cuz the Intercommies also hijacked the Kremlin and
learned to speak Russian. Russia does not bear any responsibilty for
this (hint: by comparison think about English speaking Liberia, etc.)
Henry Alminas
**********
Poor "germanic" Topolski!
So nervous, these days, that he even forgets
to cite his of quoted russkie "science".
Relax, Ivan, things will get even worse.
Best - - Henry
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins)
The Black Monk wrote:
[snip]
> Incidentally, does the monument to the monstrous Latvian Red Rifles
> still stand in Riga?
Yes, it does, though the nearby museum formerly devoted to them is now
the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia.
But I don't find the Red Riflemen monstrous at all. I think they were
_menschlich, allzumenschlich_.
Thanks for reminding me, though -- I didn't mention that lovely red
granite trio in my condensed survey of controversial monuments --
http://lettonica.blogspot.com/
By the way, I met Colonel Dardzans as a child. He didn't seem like a
monster at all -- he wasn't, you see. You take young, strong, valiant,
landless farm-boys who want to be free, throw them at Germans in the
manner Russians have always thrown humans at their empire's enemies, as
cannon fodder, and then let them loose in a hellish autocracy that is
coming apart, and guess what you get. As even Hui knows, the Troitsk
and Imanta Regiments returned the long way. If you think we should
regret toppling the Tsar -- nah, sorry. That was something Latvians
were determined to do for a very long time, as Akuraters so clearly
expressed in his 1905 poem, "With battle cries upon our lips..." Kill
the tyrant upon the throne. We are as proud of that as we are of
destroying the Soviet Union, and Lithuanians and Western Ukrainians
kiss us. Many of the Riflemen fought for Latvia, and the fact that some
got lost is simply evidence of what Martin said -- they weren't in
charge. Akuraters wrote an excellent novel about that.
Regards,
/P
MTRP™
> "MTRP™ wrote:
> > Peteris Cedrins wrote:
> > > You can say the same things about the Nazis -- gang of thugs, took
> > > power
> > Not "took power" - they got elected to rule over Germany according to
> > then legal democratic procedure. Nothing like that ever happened in
> > Russia with regard to Intercommies and their communist successors.
> So nervous, these days, that he even forgets
> to cite his of quoted russkie "science".
> Relax, Ivan, things will get even worse.
lol(ing)@drunken_henry. My purely germanic real name is neither Ivan
nor Topolski, dumbo. WTF do ya mean anyway? Which sources do ya miss so
badly?
The Black Monk
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> The Black Monk wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Incidentally, does the monument to the monstrous Latvian Red Rifles
> > still stand in Riga?
>
> Yes, it does, though the nearby museum formerly devoted to them is now
> the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia.
>
> But I don't find the Red Riflemen monstrous at all. I think they were
> _menschlich, allzumenschlich_.
And Hitler was very kind towards children and animals.
During the Russian Civil War the Soviet government had trouble
enforcing its will on the Ukrainian peasants. Too many of the Russian
conscripts had trouble terrorizing the local population who resembled
their own relatives back home. The solution was to send in the
Latvians who were disciplined and unwavering in butchering the
anti-Commie Ukrainian peasants.
> Thanks for reminding me, though -- I didn't mention that lovely red
> granite trio in my condensed survey of controversial monuments --
>
> http://lettonica.blogspot.com/
>
> By the way, I met Colonel Dardzans as a child. He didn't seem like a
> monster at all -- he wasn't, you see. You take young, strong, valiant,
> landless farm-boys who want to be free, throw them at Germans in the
> manner Russians have always thrown humans at their empire's enemies, as
> cannon fodder, and then let them loose in a hellish autocracy that is
> coming apart, and guess what you get.
And I've heard similar excuses about monstrous young German volunteers
in concentration camps. Decent people, earnest, who took upon
themselves the burden of a difficult task for the ultimate betterment
of humanity.
I find it amazing that a country that still maintains a monument for,
and whose people have sympathy for, monsters without whom the Soviet
victory would have been impossible, has the insolence to demand some
sort of reparations. Imagine if the Nazis had come to power in Germany
not through free elections as they did in reality, but through a bloody
coup and civil war that claimed millions of German lives. Imagine
furthermore if many of the Nazi inner circle were Czechs, the architect
of the concentration camps was a Czech, and if the entire SA and SS
were Czechs. Do you think the Czech republic would then have the gall
to demand reparations of Germany?
regards,
BM
MTRP™
> lol(ing)@drunken_henry. My purely germanic real name is neither Ivan
> nor Topolski, dumbo. WTF do ya mean anyway? Which sources do ya miss so
> badly?
P.S. How's the weather in your Colorado desert, Henry? Here in Rio we
had a cloudy morning and merely 23°C, but now the sun is breaking
through and is getting warmer ... I hope for mucho sun and over 30°C
tomorrow ...
J. Anderson
> Which sources do ya miss so badly?
Probably this one:
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Law/LawSori.htm
MTRP is always babbling about logic, but obviously his idea idea of logic
differs from 'ours'. Galina Sorina from the Moscow State Pedagogical
University shows in her thesis (which is described in the link above) that
there is a lack of logical culture in Russia. The consequences are quite
sad.
MTRP™
> MTRP™ wrote:
> Probably this one:
> http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Law/LawSori.htm
??? No way, Henry can grasp only pradva.ru.
> MTRP is always babbling about logic, but obviously his idea idea of logic
> differs from 'ours'.
Ya mean from Johnny & Henry's logic? LOL, this kinda reminds me of
Beavis & Butthead cartoons ...
vello
The Black Monk wrote:
> vello wrote:
> > The Black Monk wrote:
> .
> > >
> > Well this way a lot of countries become "nonexisting" (Saudi Arabia,
> > Kuveit etc) also by your wiewpoint there was no nations in Europe
> > mostly up to the 20 century. and all history of Russia also disappears
> > - there have not been Russia exept from February to October 1917 and
> > from 1991 - all other time "there was no Russia but chriminal gangs
> > ruling over people". In some period unelected families like Romanovs,
> > in some period unelected commies.
>
> Why do you equate unelected families with "criminal gangs?" The
> Romanovs had been legitmate Russian rulers.
How? How any not elected person may be "legitimate"? It happens in the
past some family was stronger then their competition, so after some
bloodshed a new "dynasty" was created. What's different with commies?
> The Provisional government
> was more questionable; however it at least had the confirmation of the
> elections and it enjoyed universal foreign recognition. In contrast
> the Bolsheviks were criminal usurpers who in 1920 had not even
> finalized their takeover of Russia.
All not elected rulers are usurpators - it's up to anyone who he will
consider as "criminal" or as "legitimate".
>
> As illustrated in the articles I posted on this thread, Latvians made
> up a disproportionate number of those criminals. So logically, if
> you're going to blame Russia for Bolshevism, you should blame Latvia
> just as much, if not more. If you call for reparations from Russia,
> Latvia should also pay. And on a per capita basis, it should pay more
> than Russia.
So, logically, if there was a lot of other tribes aside mongols in Batu
khan's army, it was not mongol invasion?
>
> Personally, I think that neither country is responsible for the actions
> of, relative to the population, small band of criminals without
> widespread popular support whose rule was based on terror. But if you
> choose to hold Russia responsible and not Latvia, you prove that your
> supposed search for justice is really nothing more than Russophobia.
> Incidentally, does the monument to the monstrous Latvian Red Rifles
> still stand in Riga?
Sure no country is responsible for mistakes of bygone generations. But
for generation living now it is wise to show that they clearly distance
himself from horrors of the past. Surely Russia today is not
responsible for acts of Soviet Russia (called Soviet Union for a
period). We can talk just about moral responsibility.
Don't know about Riflemen in Stone :-) - ask Peteris.
>
> regards,
>
> BM
J. Anderson
> LOL, this kinda reminds me of
> Beavis & Butthead cartoons ...
I'm not surprised. Which one would be you?
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
referred to by the Black Monk? Were they ethnically Chinese, or Estonians,
etc.? Why did they have Latvian in their names?
Your arguments seem to have the same tone and flavour as the arguments
by Russians denying the responsibility of Russia for the Soviet Union.
--
Rostyk
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
[snip]
> Your arguments seem to have the same tone and flavour as the arguments
> by Russians denying the responsibility of Russia for the Soviet Union.
> --
> Rostyk
Dear Rostyk,
They do? That's truly fascinating! Pray tell.
One thing some people can't seem to get through their heads is that
ethnicity and nationality are quite different. Nationalism was retarded
here [sic!].
As to the ethnic composition of those units -- maybe those arguing
could read a (non-Soviet) book instead of Googling and holding forth?
Maybe not.
Regards,
/P
The Black Monk
vello wrote:
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > vello wrote:
> > > The Black Monk wrote:
> > .
> > > >
> > > Well this way a lot of countries become "nonexisting" (Saudi Arabia,
> > > Kuveit etc) also by your wiewpoint there was no nations in Europe
> > > mostly up to the 20 century. and all history of Russia also disappears
> > > - there have not been Russia exept from February to October 1917 and
> > > from 1991 - all other time "there was no Russia but chriminal gangs
> > > ruling over people". In some period unelected families like Romanovs,
> > > in some period unelected commies.
> >
> > Why do you equate unelected families with "criminal gangs?" The
> > Romanovs had been legitmate Russian rulers.
>
> How? How any not elected person may be "legitimate"? It happens in the
> past some family was stronger then their competition, so after some
> bloodshed a new "dynasty" was created. What's different with commies?
In traditional societies there is a consensual relationship between the
governed and the monarchs. It is pure propoganda to suggest that
monarchies existed as such due to fear. In contrast, that is a pretty
realistic appraisal of the Bolsheviks circa 1920.
> > The Provisional government
> > was more questionable; however it at least had the confirmation of the
> > elections and it enjoyed universal foreign recognition. In contrast
> > the Bolsheviks were criminal usurpers who in 1920 had not even
> > finalized their takeover of Russia.
>
> All not elected rulers are usurpators - it's up to anyone who he will
> consider as "criminal" or as "legitimate".
This your private belief that, frankly, is rather wierd. Equating
Nicholas II or Franz Josef or modern Elizabeth II with the likes of
Lenin is really twisting things.
> > As illustrated in the articles I posted on this thread, Latvians made
> > up a disproportionate number of those criminals. So logically, if
> > you're going to blame Russia for Bolshevism, you should blame Latvia
> > just as much, if not more. If you call for reparations from Russia,
> > Latvia should also pay. And on a per capita basis, it should pay more
> > than Russia.
>
> So, logically, if there was a lot of other tribes aside mongols in Batu
> khan's army, it was not mongol invasion?
Logically, if some particular tribe played an essential and major role
in that invasion, that particular tribe has no right to demand
reparations of the Mongols and, should reparations be paid out, it
should be among the payers.
> > Personally, I think that neither country is responsible for the actions
> > of, relative to the population, small band of criminals without
> > widespread popular support whose rule was based on terror. But if you
> > choose to hold Russia responsible and not Latvia, you prove that your
> > supposed search for justice is really nothing more than Russophobia.
> > Incidentally, does the monument to the monstrous Latvian Red Rifles
> > still stand in Riga?
>
> Sure no country is responsible for mistakes of bygone generations. But
> for generation living now it is wise to show that they clearly distance
> himself from horrors of the past.
I agree. Furthermore, in the case of both Russia and Latvia, the
Bolsheviks were not the most popular party and rather represented a
disciplined, ruthless terrorist/criminal minority. Blaming the Russian
people for the Revolution is a lot like blaming the passengers of those
airplanes for the destruction of the World Trade Center. Unlike in the
case of the Germans who brought Hitler to power legally and
democratically, or Americans with respect to the regime that destroyed
Iraq, neither the Russian nor the Latvian people (and by extension
their governments) in my opinion bear responsibility for the Revolution
and its aftermath.
Unfortunately many Latvians seem to apply a double standard. Latvians
should repudiate their Riflemen as severely as they want Russians to
repudiate their own commies. But the continued existence of the statue
in Riga, and Peter's post, suggest that Latvians don't do this. If
that's the case, they are no better than those Russians who pine for
Stalin-era glory.
regards,
BM
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins)
The Black Monk wrote:
[snip]
> In traditional societies there is a consensual relationship between the
> governed and the monarchs.
I am so sorry I ever even opened my mouth -- I had thought we were in
the 21st C, what with the Internet and all.
/P
The Black Monk
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> > J. Anderson wrote:
> > > The whole discussion is (again) as intelligent as blaming the Soviet Union
> > > for whatever the Vlassov army did. Or blaming Ukraina for what happened in
> > > Nazi camps because of the Ukrainian guards who participated.
> >
> > I agree. Blaming Latvia or Russia for the actions of Bolshevik
> > criminals is somewhat like blaming the USSR for Vlasov. I was simply
> > pointing out that those who want to engage in that foolish game have to
> > put Latvia in the same position as Russia (or, per capita, in an even
> > worse position than Russia). More info:
>
> No, sorry. As has been pointed our more than once, you seem to be
> having trouble distinguishing nations, ethnicities, governments, and
> individuals.
Not at all. Rather, you seem to to have trouble differentiating a
government or a nation from a criminal gang. To make a rough analogy,
the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers had passengers and
hijackers. Don't blame the former for the destruction caused by the
latter.
> Latvia hadn't even been proclaimed independence in 1917,
> much less was it a functioning nation-state. Martin's flawed analogy
> doesn't take that into account. The Red Riflemen were not Latvian
> citizens, and they never fought for Latvia.
And the Russian Soviets did not fight for Russia but for the
Internationalist Soviet project. Indeed they fought against Russia
alongside their Latvian and other colleagues.
> You wanna talk about the
> Iskolat Republic or sumfin'? Excuse me, but this is getting mighty
> tawdry -- a more comparable world-view would be the one Russian
> chauvinists tend to come up with at every murky breakfast: Russians are
> great, but evil Jews and muscled Letts and assorted devious Freemasons
> subjugate them and stall their glory. Sorry, but that's somewhat
> pathetic. Blame every Jew for the invasion of Lebanon, etc.
Sorry, I was quite clear in not blaming Latvians in generalm, and by
extension, Latvia, for the crimes of the monstrous Latvian Riflemen. I
was just pointing out yours (and others') double standard in doing the
same for Russia.
> Frightening, when not boring.
>
> You can say the same things about the Nazis -- gang of thugs, took
> power, victimized Austria, etc.
As MTRP pointed out to you, those guys came to power legally in
democratic elections.
> Germany has no problem with apologizing
> -- in fact, Germany even pays compensation. Russia not only doesn't
> apologize --
Does Latvia whose statue in Riga dedicated to Latvian Riflemen is every
bit as offensive as those for Lenin still standing in Russia or eastern
Ukraine? Then why should Russia apologize.
> it denies historical fact, supports the Stalinist
> distortions of history that make it feel good about itself,
Which facts are distorted in this specific thread?
> and limps along like the proverbial person with bad breath arguing that his
> breath smells like violets.
>
> Do you know who Frank(s) Gordon(s) is -- the man you are quoting? I
> respect the man, but he is an extreme right-winger in Tel Aviv, someone
> who thinks Latvia should be like Likud's Israel.
Why not. That is an honorable opinion. More importantly, why do you
avoid what he said and instead shift the focus to the author's
political orientation.
> He has expressed profound sympathy for the far right in Latvia, e.g., "Visu Latvijai!"
> Baltic Russians are as Palestinian Arabs to him, in some sense.
In the case of Lithuanians or Estonians or western Ukrainians that is
fine with me. With Latvians, perhaps - although like Solzhenitzin part
of me thinks that this is a sort of cruel trick of fate.
> Do you know how many people in the "Latvian" units that reached the Crimea
> were actually Latvian, ethnically?
I am more interested in how many in the Latvian units who saved the
Bolshevik regime in 1918 were ethnically Latvians. And I know that
most fo the ones slaughtering Ukrainian peasants were ethnic Latvians
(that's specifically why they were there).
> But, again -- a state does not bear responsibility for an _ethnos_,
I agree. Which is why neither Latvia nor Russia bear responsibility
for the ethnic makeup of the international band of criminals who
hijacked Russia in 1917.
> period. The Treaty of Rîga gave everybody a choice -- Russians could
> go to Russia, Latvians to Latvia, and citizenship was freely granted.
> Prior to that, all Latvians were Russian subjects. The Republic of
> Latvia never even influenced the Red Riflemen, much less controlled
> them.
As if any legitimate Russian governemnt controlled them either?
> You, Topolski, and many others would like to pretend that Russia
> was hijacked by an internationalist Soviet Union Russians do not bear
> any responsibility for
They bear about as much or less responsibility as Latvians, when
considering the number of participants in the hijacking relative to
population.
> -- that's bullshit, sorry, because the seat of
> power was in the Kremlin,
Well, the international gang wasn't going to take over the world based
from Riga, were they?
> and the New Soviet Man would speak Russian.
In many cases, after learning it.
> If it was a gang in 1917 (as opposed to the gang of "Whites," which I
> see as at least as gangsterish as the Bolshevik gang), it was an
> internationally recognized gang in full controlof Russian territory
> only a few years later, and Russia inherited its UN seat.
Let's not get chronologically mixed up here. Soviet rule wasn't
recognized until years after the Revolution. This leads to an
interesting point though. Having secured power, at what point did the
entity that was clearly in the early years a gang ruling a terrified
population through violence become a legitmate government of the
Russian people. I suspect that this was a process that only began with
Lenin's death. Stalin's reversal of national communist movement and
his complete destruction of the other internationalists (virtually all
of the original revolutionaries) was a necessary first step in this
process. On a broad social level, the generations that had grown up in
Russia had to die off and be replaced by those who only understood the
Soviet reality. The Great Patriotic War may have been the event that
finally ushered in the new transformed Russian man. Or maybe it's the
same old story of Russia's many utter transformations. A lot of
cultured, educated late-Soviet intelligentsia speaking of the
post-Soviet gangsters are so similar to Bulgakov's good doctor speaking
fo the new Soviet rabble. But this is a completely different topic...
> The most moving nostalgia for the Soviet Union is in Russia.
Yes, but would the Russian people have felt this way in 1919 or 1939?
regards,
BM
J. Anderson
"Maris" <lat...@london.com> wrote in message
news:hp8pq2hp69nvlje2d...@4ax.com...
> You don't appear to be able to distinguish between activities
> initiated by a state and those by individuals.
Precisely. Having read the discussion in this thread, this is what it boils
down to.
And amazingly, there were 74 years of Soviet rule that an overwhelming
majority of the population refuses to take any responsibility for. The 150
million Russian 'victims' were for decades and decades held in an iron grip
by the ghosts of a few thousand Latvians from the beginning of the 1920s!
I must say that I'm starting to admire the Red Riflemen. They must have been
one helluva bunch to have achieved all that they are being blamed for.
Regards,
John
J. Anderson
"The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169073175.5...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> This leads to an interesting point though. Having secured power,
> at what point did the entity that was clearly in the early years a gang
> ruling a terrified population through violence become a legitmate
> government of the Russian people.
Now you're talking.
And, interestingly, as far as Germany is concerned we can reverse the
question: at what point did the 'democratically elected' Nazi rulership
cease to be the legitimate government of Germany?
Regards,
John
martin
Not if these Czechs were German citizens, just as the members of the
Latvian Red Rifles considered themselves citizens of Soviet Russia.
Many of the Nazi inner circle, including the leader, were Austrian.
Nobody has demanded reparations from the Austrian republic. Many
members of the SS were Dutch and Norwegian yet Norway and the
Netherlands are considered victims of Nazi German agression.
Regards,
Martin
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins)
DK wrote:
> The riflemen division was drafted exclusively in Latvia and Latvians
> where overwhelming majority in Latvia then.
The little problem with this idea is that there was no Latvia -- I
don't see why it seems so difficult for some to grok this. To join
Martin in looking for analogies -- let's say I'm an ethnic Croat, but
devoted to a Socialist Yugoslavia and then to a Greater Serbia.
Yugoslavia breaks up, and I go join the courageous Serbian forces. I
spit upon Croatia and join my beloved Serbs in crushing the unwashed
Albanians of Kosova for the greater glory of Slavic brotherhood, etc.
Excuse me, but how would Republika Hrvatska be responsible?
The Republic of Latvia wasn't even _proclaimed_ until 18 November 1918.
It had never existed before -- there were the Baltic Provinces of
Courland and Livonia, and eastern Latvia was part of Votebsk and Pskov
_gubernii_.
Of the ca. 35 000 Riflemen active before the Christmas Battles, 4000
were killed or wounded, 200 joined the Troitsk or Imanta regiments, and
more than 25 000 were demobilized, many later joining the Latvian Army.
Of ca. 1000 officers, 770 took part in the Latvian War of Liberation.
Of the Reds -- of the 16 333 men in the "Latvian Division" that took
the Crimea, only 6278 were ethnic Latvians!
Some of you seem to be forgetting that Latvia fought _against_ the
Bolsheviks. There were plenty of Lettish Bolsheviks, yes, and many
reached high positions. They were _ethnic_ Latvians -- they were
_never_ Latvian citizens.
What's next? You want Israel to apologize for Jewish Bolsheviks, maybe?
> So, unless you come
> up with a solid proof otherwise, it is safe to think that majority of
> Riflemen were ethnic Latvian.
See any decent history book. Edgars Andersons, for example -- _Latvijas
vesture 1914-1920_, p. 591. Stockholm: Daugava, 1967.
Regards,
/P
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> > The Black Monk wrote:
> > > J. Anderson wrote:
> > > > The whole discussion is (again) as intelligent as blaming the Soviet Union
> > > > for whatever the Vlassov army did. Or blaming Ukraina for what happened in
> > > > Nazi camps because of the Ukrainian guards who participated.
> > >
> > > I agree. Blaming Latvia or Russia for the actions of Bolshevik
> > > criminals is somewhat like blaming the USSR for Vlasov. I was simply
> > > pointing out that those who want to engage in that foolish game have to
> > > put Latvia in the same position as Russia (or, per capita, in an even
> > > worse position than Russia). More info:
> >
> > No, sorry. As has been pointed our more than once, you seem to be
> > having trouble distinguishing nations, ethnicities, governments, and
> > individuals.
>
> Not at all. Rather, you seem to to have trouble differentiating a
> government or a nation from a criminal gang. To make a rough analogy,
> the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers had passengers and
> hijackers. Don't blame the former for the destruction caused by the
> latter.
I don't see how one could conduct foreign policy of any kind is if this
is how one insisted upon seeing the world. Every dictator is
illegitimate, then? Some are more legitimate than others, at some
level, sure -- but if a despot or a criminal gang sits on a throne long
enough, especially if that throne is a rich one, you have to deal with
it. Either that or cry "régime change!" and enjoy the quagmire...
> > Latvia hadn't even been proclaimed independence in 1917,
> > much less was it a functioning nation-state. Martin's flawed analogy
> > doesn't take that into account. The Red Riflemen were not Latvian
> > citizens, and they never fought for Latvia.
>
> And the Russian Soviets did not fight for Russia but for the
> Internationalist Soviet project. Indeed they fought against Russia
> alongside their Latvian and other colleagues.
This doesn't make much sense to me, Black Monk. Russia is the successor
state to the Soviet Union, as Soviet Russia was renamed, which was the
successor state to the Russian Empire. Not too may people tried to
restore the Empire -- they brought back some double-headed eagles and a
flag most Russians probably didn't even recognize unless to recoil, but
no Tsar returned to the throne and the structure stayed the same, with
some adaptations.
Your position makes about as much sense to me as that of some retro
Ottoman -- instead of fighting the invaders, he might whine about his
hatred for the tranformation of his Empire into a secular, Western,
nationalist, Turkish state. That's sort of the reverse, but I think you
can see why there's a parallel -- countries _do_ transform, and
backslide, and break up, and marry and give in marriage.
> > You wanna talk about the
> > Iskolat Republic or sumfin'? Excuse me, but this is getting mighty
> > tawdry -- a more comparable world-view would be the one Russian
> > chauvinists tend to come up with at every murky breakfast: Russians are
> > great, but evil Jews and muscled Letts and assorted devious Freemasons
> > subjugate them and stall their glory. Sorry, but that's somewhat
> > pathetic. Blame every Jew for the invasion of Lebanon, etc.
>
> Sorry, I was quite clear in not blaming Latvians in generalm, and by
> extension, Latvia, for the crimes of the monstrous Latvian Riflemen. I
> was just pointing out yours (and others') double standard in doing the
> same for Russia.
For the record, I've never asked for compensation -- in fact, I think
it's idiotic to ask for it, and I've said so many a time... I mean,
compensation from Russia to Latvia; _individuals_ who performed forced
labor _should_ be compensated, and Germany does pay --
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/30/europe/EU_GEN_Compensating_Nazi_Victims.php
(The woman quoted at the end is my mother-in-law, by the way -- today
is her 79th birthday!)
Relations between states follow guidelines, even if those are fluid --
we maintain relations with all sorts of gangs of thugs, don't we? Then
there are the gangs nobody (or almost nobody) recognizes -- Chechens,
the Taliban.
I have no trouble at all acknowledging the fact that lots of Latvians
did lots of evil things, whether as Red Riflemen or in Einsatzgruppen.
Hey, were we to tabulate it they probably got their recompense, as
Gordons would suggest, no?
> > Frightening, when not boring.
> >
> > You can say the same things about the Nazis -- gang of thugs, took
> > power, victimized Austria, etc.
>
> As MTRP pointed out to you, those guys came to power legally in
> democratic elections.
That doesn't really fly. The Nazis did indeed get a plurality of the
vote (never a majority), and they quickly perverted the system to
destroy the democracy that had brought them to power. As I've said
again and again in various debates here -- elections aren't all there
is to democracy. Putin came to power in democratic elections, and we're
about to embark upon the latest in Russian elections. Timedrifter
equates democracy with instability, and he thinks just like Lt. Col.
Putin does -- the sort of democracy the West has, especially in
Britain, just can't work in Russia. Well, at one level he is right --
democracy has its organic aspects, methinks. There's a massive inertia
in Russia. Latvia isn't exactly Iceland. Finland is fine, though, no?
Why? Historical reasons, not necessarily ethnic, I suppose -- don't you
think? But countries do change -- I mean, Spain was what three decades
ago? How did that happen? Look at where the Baltics are in the RSF
press freedom index, and look at where Russia is, or Ukraine is. Okay,
we're small, easier to fix things.
What's ultimately depressing is that so many Russians don't _want_ to
fix things -- we see that in this group, with Russians who almost
without exception have abandoned Russia, never to return. Look at what
they say, Black Monk. Are the Latvians, those ancient devotees of the
murderous Riflemen, defending Soviet mores? Such an interesting nation,
the Russian! On the one hand, those nasty Riflemen raped Mother Russia
-- on the other, the crimes of the USSR must be lied about, justified,
or minimized in comparison to the Native American genocide at every
turn. Why do you think that is?
> > Germany has no problem with apologizing
> > -- in fact, Germany even pays compensation. Russia not only doesn't
> > apologize --
>
> Does Latvia whose statue in Riga dedicated to Latvian Riflemen is every
> bit as offensive as those for Lenin still standing in Russia or eastern
> Ukraine? Then why should Russia apologize.
Please forgive us, but this is a democracy -- no tsar decides which
statue stands at which street-corner. The "three drunkards" (that's
their nickname, from when vodka cost three rubles and three
impoverished sots were needed to buy a bottle) stand there for the same
reason the Victory Monument does -- moving monuments is mighty iffy,
and screams ensue from various quarters when anyone touches them or
Brits piss on them. The proposal for the three drunkards, not too long
ago, was to move them to the so-called Moscow _rayon_, which is mostly
Russian. There are sites there that are more appropriate historically
-- and it so happens that many Russians in Latvia are rather more
Soviet than Letts are. The Red Riflemen were heroes a couple of decades
ago.
> > it denies historical fact, supports the Stalinist
> > distortions of history that make it feel good about itself,
>
> Which facts are distorted in this specific thread?
No comment.
> > and limps along like the proverbial person with bad breath arguing that his
> > breath smells like violets.
> >
> > Do you know who Frank(s) Gordon(s) is -- the man you are quoting? I
> > respect the man, but he is an extreme right-winger in Tel Aviv, someone
> > who thinks Latvia should be like Likud's Israel.
>
> Why not. That is an honorable opinion. More importantly, why do you
> avoid what he said and instead shift the focus to the author's
> political orientation.
It is an honorable opinion, indeed -- but I was wondering whether you
realize "where he's coming from," not trying to shift the focus. I just
don't think you know very much about the Riflemen, and you're leaving
out most of their history, conveniently -- you showed that when you
said they did not fight for Russia. Most did, Black Monk, and they
fought hard and suffered massive losses. You are talking about the
_Red_ Riflemen, a minority of Riflemen, and you cannot possibly
understand them until you know more about the Riflkemen as a whole.
You might enjoy this book, for instance --
http://www.amazon.com/Latvian-Impact-Bolshevik-Revolution/dp/088033035X
> > He has expressed profound sympathy for the far right in Latvia, e.g., "Visu Latvijai!"
> > Baltic Russians are as Palestinian Arabs to him, in some sense.
>
> In the case of Lithuanians or Estonians or western Ukrainians that is
> fine with me. With Latvians, perhaps - although like Solzhenitzin part
> of me thinks that this is a sort of cruel trick of fate.
It's _not_ fine with me. I find the far right fearsome, whether it's
Russian, Latvian, Ukrainian, or Lithuanian.
> > Do you know how many people in the "Latvian" units that reached the Crimea
> > were actually Latvian, ethnically?
>
> I am more interested in how many in the Latvian units who saved the
> Bolshevik regime in 1918 were ethnically Latvians. And I know that
> most fo the ones slaughtering Ukrainian peasants were ethnic Latvians
> (that's specifically why they were there).
Get the Ezergailis book, then. It's a great book.
> > But, again -- a state does not bear responsibility for an _ethnos_,
>
> I agree. Which is why neither Latvia nor Russia bear responsibility
> for the ethnic makeup of the international band of criminals who
> hijacked Russia in 1917.
To return to your earlier metaphor -- most hostages aren't held for
seventy years, Black Monk. If they are, they bear children and probably
have grandchildren.
> > period. The Treaty of Rîga gave everybody a choice -- Russians could
> > go to Russia, Latvians to Latvia, and citizenship was freely granted.
> > Prior to that, all Latvians were Russian subjects. The Republic of
> > Latvia never even influenced the Red Riflemen, much less controlled
> > them.
>
> As if any legitimate Russian governemnt controlled them either?
So you would like to call those seventy plus years illegitimate? I get
the point, Black Monk -- if we call half a century of occupation
illegitimate, you can disown the Soviets, as Topolski would like to do?
Sorry, but the comparison fails, and fails badly -- Latvia beat the
Bolsheviks and established a democracy that was hijacked by Ulmanis,
who didn't kill anybody. This state was and is perfectly legitimate.
Russia was plunged into Bolshevism, Stalinism, stagnation, etc., taking
Latvia along for the ride by force for some time. We restored the
Republic -- Russia features election billboards with Ivan, Peter,
Stalin, Putin, et al. Latvia's legitimacy derives from a constituent
assembly chosen in free elections in 1920. That assembly drafted the
constitution we use today.
> > You, Topolski, and many others would like to pretend that Russia
> > was hijacked by an internationalist Soviet Union Russians do not bear
> > any responsibility for
>
> They bear about as much or less responsibility as Latvians, when
> considering the number of participants in the hijacking relative to
> population.
Back to the beginning, Black Monk -- you seem to be having trouble
distinguishing between...
> > -- that's bullshit, sorry, because the seat of
> > power was in the Kremlin,
>
> Well, the international gang wasn't going to take over the world based
> from Riga, were they?
It slowly assumed the essence and the trappings of the Russian Empire.
> > and the New Soviet Man would speak Russian.
>
> In many cases, after learning it.
Um, yeah. So you have no problem with the far right, but you have
trouble with the fact that people experience language shift,
assimilate, and/or integrate? There really aren't many choices for a
federation or an empire -- you can brutally crush minorities, treat
them as subject peoples, etc. -- but the basic problem with taking over
more territory than anybody ever has is pretty basic, no? I mean,
Russia can either be cool and multinational, or it can engage in
nationalist orgies and attempt to russify everybody in the federation.
Strive for the golden mean maybe. I suppose it could also just give up
and shrivel into Muscovy, but I don't think that's in the cards.
> > If it was a gang in 1917 (as opposed to the gang of "Whites," which I
> > see as at least as gangsterish as the Bolshevik gang), it was an
> > internationally recognized gang in full controlof Russian territory
> > only a few years later, and Russia inherited its UN seat.
>
> Let's not get chronologically mixed up here. Soviet rule wasn't
> recognized until years after the Revolution.
But Latvia and Estonia were the first to recognize it, no? Didn't take
so many years, sorry.
> This leads to an
> interesting point though. Having secured power, at what point did the
> entity that was clearly in the early years a gang ruling a terrified
> population through violence become a legitmate government of the
> Russian people.
To us, this took place in 1920.
> I suspect that this was a process that only began with
> Lenin's death. Stalin's reversal of national communist movement and
> his complete destruction of the other internationalists (virtually all
> of the original revolutionaries) was a necessary first step in this
> process. On a broad social level, the generations that had grown up in
> Russia had to die off and be replaced by those who only understood the
> Soviet reality. The Great Patriotic War may have been the event that
> finally ushered in the new transformed Russian man. Or maybe it's the
> same old story of Russia's many utter transformations. A lot of
> cultured, educated late-Soviet intelligentsia speaking of the
> post-Soviet gangsters are so similar to Bulgakov's good doctor speaking
> fo the new Soviet rabble. But this is a completely different topic...
>
> > The most moving nostalgia for the Soviet Union is in Russia.
>
> Yes, but would the Russian people have felt this way in 1919 or 1939?
My dear Black Monk (I wish you had a real name so I could address you
more familiarly -- by the way, one of the best restaurants in Rīga is
reportedly Melnie Mūki... I don't know if it really is that great
'cause I can't afford it -- to what does your nick refer?), _probably
not_ is my answer. The very brief period of Bolshevik rule in Latvia
ca. 1919 was enough to spoil the fun of communism for most Letts.
Fabriciuss (nice name, eh?) swore to build barricades made of bourgeois
bodies.
One of my favorite stories is that of the redoubtable Ilya Ehrenburg,
starving, staying on the train that stopped in Rīga despite the
inviting smell of the food, so as not to disgrace Soviet Man.
Do you really believe that Russia underwent utter transformations? I am
not so certain -- revolutions eat their children, to be sure, but they
also have a tendency to grow into trees that are not so very different
from the trees that their first fervent revolutionaries tried to chop
down.
Warm regards,
/P
captain.
"J. Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:TEqrh.6057$337....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> The whole discussion is (again) as intelligent as blaming the Soviet Union
> for whatever the Vlassov army did. Or blaming Ukraina for what happened in
> Nazi camps because of the Ukrainian guards who participated.
>
> random bunch of individuals form a newsgroup of their own and continue
> their nonsensical exchange there. Call it alt.idiots or something along
> those lines.
>
>
i'm sure it already exists :)
captain.
Henry Alminas wrote:
-lol. are you only pretending to be german mir?
captain.
>
> MTRP is always babbling about logic, but obviously his idea idea of logic
> differs from 'ours'.
as i've said many times.
then when his logic and sci mix together things can really start to get out
of hand. eh mir?
Galina Sorina from the Moscow State Pedagogical
> University shows in her thesis (which is described in the link above) that
> there is a lack of logical culture in Russia. The consequences are quite
> sad.
many great mathmaticians there.
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins)
DK wrote:
> In article <1169095816.5...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "=?iso-8859-1?q?Peteris_Cedrin=9A_(Peteris_Cedrins)?=" <ced...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >DK wrote:
> >> In article <1169069120....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "=?windows-1257?q?P=E7teris_Cedri=F2=F0_(Peteris_Cedrins)?="
> > <ced...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >> Your arguments seem to have the same tone and flavour as the arguments
> >> >> by Russians denying the responsibility of Russia for the Soviet Union.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Rostyk
> >> >
> >> >Dear Rostyk,
> >> >
> >> >They do? That's truly fascinating! Pray tell.
> >> >
> >> >One thing some people can't seem to get through their heads is that
> >> >ethnicity and nationality are quite different. Nationalism was retarded
> >> >here [sic!].
> >> >
> >> >As to the ethnic composition of those units -- maybe those arguing
> >> >could read a (non-Soviet) book instead of Googling and holding forth?
> >> >Maybe not.
> >>
> >> Vacietis, Judens, Peters, Klutsis - they were not Latvian?
> >> The riflemen division was drafted exclusively in Latvia and Latvians
> >
> >The little problem with this idea is that there was no Latvia -- I
> >don't see why it seems so difficult for some to grok this.
>
> independent country. Well, O.K., to make you happy, please
> substitute above "Latvia" with "territory that approximately
> corresponds to what now is a Latvian Republic". Sheesh.
Sheesh? Excuse me, but becoming a nation-state requires rather more
than a territory and a tribe. So, hey, if Latvia is a "territory that
approximately corresponds to..." -- you blame territories for what
happens? I mean, it must have been blank oblast' that hurt the Russians
so. Brandenburg should be enemy number one? Sheesh!
You fail to get the point -- Latvia was part of Russia. The Latvian
nation, in the modern sense, just turned 150. That's pretty young,
don't you think? 150 years ago it wasn't a political entity at all. It
wasn't yet a political entity in 1917, even. Russia didn't occupy
Latvia in the 18th C -- it absorbed statelets and sub-statelets that
were administered by Germans, who mostly remained faithful to retarded
feudal ideas even unto 1919. Courland was never a nation-state -- get
it?
> >To join
> >Martin in looking for analogies -- let's say I'm an ethnic Croat, but
> >devoted to a Socialist Yugoslavia and then to a Greater Serbia.
> >Yugoslavia breaks up, and I go join the courageous Serbian forces. I
> >spit upon Croatia and join my beloved Serbs in crushing the unwashed
> >Albanians of Kosova for the greater glory of Slavic brotherhood, etc.
> >Excuse me, but how would Republika Hrvatska be responsible?
> >
> >The Republic of Latvia wasn't even _proclaimed_ until 18 November 1918.
> >It had never existed before -- there were the Baltic Provinces of
> >Courland and Livonia, and eastern Latvia was part of Votebsk and Pskov
> >_gubernii_.
> >
> >Of the ca. 35 000 Riflemen active before the Christmas Battles, 4000
> >were killed or wounded, 200 joined the Troitsk or Imanta regiments, and
> >more than 25 000 were demobilized, many later joining the Latvian Army.
> >Of ca. 1000 officers, 770 took part in the Latvian War of Liberation.
> >
> >Of the Reds -- of the 16 333 men in the "Latvian Division" that took
> >the Crimea, only 6278 were ethnic Latvians!
>
> "Only" :-) But lets not forget that that was the end of the division
> existence. What about Jan 1918, Petrograd? - they went straight from
> Latvia there. How about Moscow, summer 1918? Does your book list
> these numbers?
I see no reason to pursue the argument ifyou can't tell the difference
between an ethnic Latvian and a Latvian national, sorry. Maybe you
would like the numbers of ethnic Russians in the Waffen-SS? What would
that do for you?
> >Some of you seem to be forgetting that Latvia fought _against_ the
> >Bolsheviks. There were plenty of Lettish Bolsheviks, yes, and many
> >reached high positions. They were _ethnic_ Latvians -- they were
> >_never_ Latvian citizens.
> >
> >What's next? You want Israel to apologize for Jewish Bolsheviks, maybe?
>
> Get a grip. I don't want anyone to apologize for anything. Certainly
> a state apologizing for its past deeds is a very stupid thing.
Oh, I have a grasp, methinks, even if tenuous. I'm just trying to
follow your logic.
Let us a seek a heavenly allegory, no matter how hellish. I, Vanya,
part Viking but resolutely Russkie, expand like a pretty balloon. Here
is this nice house, dominated by Hans. I take it. There are these
savages running about, Jani. I make a deal with Hans. Janis never
had much to do with it, except that the storm called the enlightenment
swept over this house and the savages happened to be considerably more
literate than I, and thus consumed Marxism. My giant house fell apart,
and Janis is partly to blame -- but Janis went home and fixed his
house whilst I indulged in red orgies. Any Jani in my house, which
experienced the bliss of electrification like a blessed virgin might,
were Ivans. Threatened by Hans, I made friends with Hans. I then took
over the tiny house of this pesky Janis. Hans betrayed me and scorched
my earth. But I had hidden reserves and trounced Hans, and so those
dirty Jani were once again in my hands. Lo and behold, my beautiful
_khrushchovka_ finally collapsed. Again, that filthy Janis got away
and fixes his house! Oil bubbles beneath me, and so does my resentment.
Nobody respects me, and this disrespect compounds my resentment.
> I am, like others, just pointing out to you that you *demand* a double
> standard - Russians have to apologize for everything and Latvians
> don't have anything to apologize for.
When did I ever ask Russians to apologize for anything?
Were I a Russian, I should like to be able to face myself in the
mirror. That could be quite difficult.
Double standards? Where? Sorry, but the Reds lost in Latvia.
> If you want *citizens* to apologize then, if you insist on Russians
> apologizing now, all Latvians who lived in the USSR have to
> apologize as well - after all, they *were* citizens! Also, keep in
> mind that a large part of Red Riflemen went back to Latvia after
> 1920 and was granted a *Latvian citizenship*. So, here you go,
> even your objection "they were not Latvians because Latvia
> did not exist" does not formally hold.
Yes, many came back. Maybe you should consider the Israel comparison
more closely? The Treaty, which I already quoted, is quite clear -- it
drew a line through what each did to the other. Maybe you will pirsue
these arguments with every nation that came into being? I mean, those
vile AmeriKKKans ruined part of the British Empire!
The difference there is that America is a democracy and rather rich.
Russia is a bardak with petrorubles.
> >> So, unless you come
> >> up with a solid proof otherwise, it is safe to think that majority of
> >> Riflemen were ethnic Latvian.
> >
> >See any decent history book. Edgars Andersons, for example -- _Latvijas
> >vesture 1914-1920_, p. 591. Stockholm: Daugava, 1967.
>
> I'll check it out when I get time to go to a library. Will also try to find
> other sources.
Check it out, please. But the point is one you just can't seem to
swallow -- no book will help you with that.
Regards,
/P
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk wrote:
> >
> > And I've heard similar excuses about monstrous young German volunteers
> > in concentration camps. Decent people, earnest, who took upon
> > themselves the burden of a difficult task for the ultimate betterment
> > of humanity.
> >
> > I find it amazing that a country that still maintains a monument for,
> > and whose people have sympathy for, monsters without whom the Soviet
> > victory would have been impossible, has the insolence to demand some
> > sort of reparations. Imagine if the Nazis had come to power in Germany
> > not through free elections as they did in reality, but through a bloody
> > coup and civil war that claimed millions of German lives. Imagine
> > furthermore if many of the Nazi inner circle were Czechs, the architect
> > of the concentration camps was a Czech, and if the entire SA and SS
> > were Czechs. Do you think the Czech republic would then have the gall
> > to demand reparations of Germany?
>
> Not if these Czechs were German citizens, just as the members of the
> Latvian Red Rifles considered themselves citizens of Soviet Russia.
They were internationalists - Soviets - not "Soviet Russians". They
were Russian citizens in the same sense that anybody else born in
Latvia before 1917 was a Russian citizen.
> Many of the Nazi inner circle, including the leader, were Austrian.
> Nobody has demanded reparations from the Austrian republic.
Again, Latvian involvement was much more substantial than that of a few
individuals. For the analogy to be correct, the entire SA and SS would
have had to consist of Austrian units.
And although nobody has demanded reparation from Austria, at the same
time Austria doesn't get reparations from Germany.
> Many members of the SS were Dutch and Norwegian yet Norway and the
> Netherlands are considered victims of Nazi German agression.
Again, the Latvian Red Rifles played a central and critical role in the
Bolshevik enterprise (unlike that of Dutch, Baltic or Galician Waffen
SS units within the German armed forces in WWII). So important, that
without them the Bolshevik takeover would have likely failed.
regards,
BM
>
> Regards,
> Martin
The Black Monk
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
Well, since the legitimacy of the Romanovs was being questioned the
issue didn't concernt his century. Or shall we in our arrogance apply
the standards of 21st century western Europe towards all of history and
geography?
regards,
BM
>
> /P
The Black Monk
There is no reason to suspect that it lacked the broad support of most
of Germany's people until the very end of the war. Certainly, at the
time of the most of its crimes, it was Germany's legitimate government
and therefore those crimes were the collective responsibility of the
German people.
In contrast, the crimes committed by the Soviet regime in the 1920's
and 1930's were those of a government that was hated by most of the
people, never chosen by them, and which only came to power over them
and subsequently controlled them through mass murder and terror. And
guess what - all of this was made possible thanks to crucial Latvian
support.
regards,
BM
>
> Regards,
> John
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > > No, sorry. As has been pointed our more than once, you seem to be
> > > having trouble distinguishing nations, ethnicities, governments, and
> > > individuals.
> >
> > Not at all. Rather, you seem to to have trouble differentiating a
> > government or a nation from a criminal gang. To make a rough analogy,
> > the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers had passengers and
> > hijackers. Don't blame the former for the destruction caused by the
> > latter.
>
> I don't see how one could conduct foreign policy of any kind is if this
> is how one insisted upon seeing the world. Every dictator is
> illegitimate, then? Some are more legitimate than others, at some
> level, sure -- but if a despot or a criminal gang sits on a throne long
> enough, especially if that throne is a rich one, you have to deal with
> it. Either that or cry "régime change!" and enjoy the quagmire...
Sure. But in 1917 or 1920 the gang had not been sitting on Russia's
throne long enough to be legitimized by any standard of what that means
(indeed, the struggle for that throne had not yet ended in 1920). It
wasn't diplomatically recognized by most European countries until 1924
and the US until 1933.
But besides diplomatic recognition out of necessity isn't a standard
that equals culpability. Recognizing a regime in order to be able to
work with it is not the same thing as recognizing that this regime
represents the will of its population and thus that the population must
pay for the regime's crimes (say, through demands of compensation from
their post-regime government, which means that the Russian taxpayers
will pay).
This is why no normal Czech would blame Poland, Hungary etc. for the
invasion of 1968. And why a normal Latvian or Ukrainian shouldn't
blame Russia for things that happened in the 1920's and 1930's. OTOH
blaming the Communist parties and seeking compensation from them is
another story...
> > > Latvia hadn't even been proclaimed independence in 1917,
> > > much less was it a functioning nation-state. Martin's flawed analogy
> > > doesn't take that into account. The Red Riflemen were not Latvian
> > > citizens, and they never fought for Latvia.
> >
> > And the Russian Soviets did not fight for Russia but for the
> > Internationalist Soviet project. Indeed they fought against Russia
> > alongside their Latvian and other colleagues.
>
> This doesn't make much sense to me, Black Monk. Russia is the successor
> state to the Soviet Union, as Soviet Russia was renamed, which was the
> successor state to the Russian Empire.
In order to create Soviet Russia it was necessary to destroy the old
society "root and branch." A brutal war was waged by a small minority
of Russians who considered themselves first and foremost
internationalists, along with Latvians and others against the Russian
aristocracy, the Russian Church, the Russian peasantry, the Russian
workers, and the Russian middle classes who constituted Russia. The
USSR was the successor state to the Russian Empire in the sense that it
was created like a Frankenstein monster out of that Empire's corpse, by
that Empire's murderers.
So, blame the murderers and creators of the monster. No _nation_ was
responsible. Indeed, all nations that came into contact with those
murderers were victims, including the Russian nation. Among the gang
of murderers responsible for those crimes were a large number of
Latvians.
...cut...
> Your position makes about as much sense to me as that of some retro
> Ottoman -- instead of fighting the invaders, he might whine about his
> hatred for the tranformation of his Empire into a secular, Western,
> nationalist, Turkish state. That's sort of the reverse, but I think you
> can see why there's a parallel -- countries _do_ transform, and
> backslide, and break up, and marry and give in marriage.
The difference here is that Ataturk didn't come to power against the
will of the Turkish people. But let's bring this topic back to its
original focus: alleged culpability for Soviet crimes. In 1917-1920
Russia could have been transformed into many things, such as a
constitutional democracy, a constitutional monarchy, or something
resembling Hortha's Hungarian White government.
Instead, it became the Soviet Union due to a process in which the
participation of the Latvian Red Rifles was critical.
...cut...
> > Sorry, I was quite clear in not blaming Latvians in generalm, and by
> > extension, Latvia, for the crimes of the monstrous Latvian Riflemen. I
> > was just pointing out yours (and others') double standard in doing the
> > same for Russia.
>
> For the record, I've never asked for compensation -- in fact, I think
> it's idiotic to ask for it, and I've said so many a time... I mean,
> compensation from Russia to Latvia; _individuals_ who performed forced
> labor _should_ be compensated, and Germany does pay --
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/30/europe/EU_GEN_Compensating_Nazi_Victims.php
>
> (The woman quoted at the end is my mother-in-law, by the way -- today
> is her 79th birthday!)
I have no problem with compensating individuals for their suffering.
But the payer should not be the Russian state (i.e., Russian taxpayers)
because as has been said many many times the Russian people were not
responsible for the crimes. Unlike the Germans who do bear
responsibilty for the acts of their chosen and beloved government.
> Relations between states follow guidelines, even if those are fluid --
> we maintain relations with all sorts of gangs of thugs, don't we? Then
> there are the gangs nobody (or almost nobody) recognizes -- Chechens,
> the Taliban.
>
> I have no trouble at all acknowledging the fact that lots of Latvians
> did lots of evil things, whether as Red Riflemen or in Einsatzgruppen.
> Hey, were we to tabulate it they probably got their recompense, as
> Gordons would suggest, no?
Probably...
> > > Frightening, when not boring.
> > >
> > > You can say the same things about the Nazis -- gang of thugs, took
> > > power, victimized Austria, etc.
> >
> > As MTRP pointed out to you, those guys came to power legally in
> > democratic elections.
>
> That doesn't really fly. The Nazis did indeed get a plurality of the
> vote (never a majority), and they quickly perverted the system to
> destroy the democracy that had brought them to power.
To an extent. OTOH there is no reason to suggest that the Germans
didn't like this perversion. A similar but much softer process
happened in the US following 9-11. But nobody's suggesting that Bush
2004 was somehow less legitimate than Bush 2002 in proportion to the
curtailing of certailing of certain freedoms.
(I find the rest quite interesting but beyond the scope of this topic,
so I will comment later)
regards,
BM
MTRP™
> J. Anderson wrote:
> > question: at what point did the 'democratically elected' Nazi rulership
> > cease to be the legitimate government of Germany?
> There is no reason to suspect that it lacked the broad support of most
> of Germany's people until the very end of the war. Certainly, at the
> time of the most of its crimes, it was Germany's legitimate government
> and therefore those crimes were the collective responsibility of the
> German people.
That's right. Hitler's govt was legal and legitimate from the very
beginning in 1933 until his suicide in the fuehrerbunker in 1945. As
for the broad support, statistics sez that 'Adolf' was the most popular
male baby name in Germany between 1933 and the Stalingrad debacle in
1942-43.
> In contrast, the crimes committed by the Soviet regime in the 1920's
> and 1930's were those of a government that was hated by most of the
> people, never chosen by them, and which only came to power over them
> and subsequently controlled them through mass murder and terror. And
> guess what - all of this was made possible thanks to crucial Latvian
> support.
Yep, nothing to add here.
MTRP™
> MTRP™ wrote:
> > Henry Alminas wrote:
> > > MTRP™ wrote:
> > > > Peteris Cedrins wrote:
> > > > > You can say the same things about the Nazis -- gang of thugs, took
> > > > > power
> > > > Not "took power" - they got elected to rule over Germany according to
> > > > then legal democratic procedure. Nothing like that ever happened in
> > > > Russia with regard to Intercommies and their communist successors.
> > > Poor "germanic" Topolski!
> > > So nervous, these days, that he even forgets
> > > to cite his of quoted russkie "science".
> > > Relax, Ivan, things will get even worse.
> > lol(ing)@drunken_henry. My purely germanic real name is neither Ivan
> > nor Topolski, dumbo. WTF do ya mean anyway? Which sources do ya miss so
> > badly?
> -lol. are you only pretending to be german mir?
lol(ing)@stupid_krapo. MTRP™ is not pretending to be anything but a
blueblooded alien visitor. Actually at the moment we're thinking about
buying a house here in Rio. Cuz Rio is mucho cool!
MTRP™
> as i've said many times.
> then when his logic and sci mix together things can really start to get out
> of hand. eh mir?
lol(ing)@multidropout_krapo. Just shaddup and remember that MTRP™
always knows everything better.
> "J. Anderson" wrote:
> > Galina Sorina from the Moscow State Pedagogical
> > University shows in her thesis (which is described in the link above) that
> > there is a lack of logical culture in Russia. The consequences are quite
> > sad.
> many great mathmaticians there.
... as well as chess players. But math is not the point here. Sorina's
thesis is old hat - written back in Yeltsin's masochistic times.
Actually "logical culture" is an oxymoron, but yes, formal logic (as
well as theology and rhetoric) was underdeveloped in Old Russia. Cuz
original (ancient Greek) logic was first reanimated in the West by the
Catholic Church and further developed there by theologists and (later)
secular scientists. That path was lost in Russia due to several hmm ...
authoritarian reasons, while Soviet logic was obviously infested with
general totalitarism. But nowadays there are strong logicians even in
Johnny's Grand Duchy.
MTRP™
> I must say that I'm starting to admire the Red Riflemen. They must have been
> one helluva bunch to have achieved all that they are being blamed for.
Q.E.D.
http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/pages/real-moron.html
MTRP™
> Russia's rejection of Lithuania occupation claims final -ministry
> 19:03 | 18/ 01/ 2007
> MOSCOW, January 18 (RIA Novosti) - Moscow does not intend to
> revisit the issue of Lithuania's compensation demands to Russia
> for what it terms the "Soviet occupation," the Foreign Ministry
> said Thursday.
> The Lithuanian parliament passed Tuesday a resolution
> demanding compensation for damage caused by the Soviet
> occupation.
> "Our position is well known and has been stated repeatedly,"
> the ministry said. "The assertions about Lithuania's 'occupation'
> by the Soviet Union and the related claims ignore all legal,
> historical and political realities, and are therefore utterly
> groundless."
> Moscow expressed its profound regret over the resolution passed
> by Lithuanian lawmakers upholding the compensation claim.
> "To us, the issue is closed, and Russia does not intend to reopen
> it," the ministry said.
> The alleged occupation has long marred relations between Russia,
> the legal successor to the Soviet Union, and the three Baltic
> States. In 2000, the Lithuanian parliament enacted a law demanding
> compensation from Russia. Parliament instructed the government
> to evaluate the damage, form a delegation for negotiations and
> approach Russia. A special committee determined that Russia
> should pay Lithuania more than $28 billion.
martin
The Black Monk wrote:
> martin wrote:
> > The Black Monk wrote:
>
> > >
> > > And I've heard similar excuses about monstrous young German volunteers
> > > in concentration camps. Decent people, earnest, who took upon
> > > themselves the burden of a difficult task for the ultimate betterment
> > > of humanity.
> > >
> > > I find it amazing that a country that still maintains a monument for,
> > > and whose people have sympathy for, monsters without whom the Soviet
> > > victory would have been impossible, has the insolence to demand some
> > > sort of reparations. Imagine if the Nazis had come to power in Germany
> > > not through free elections as they did in reality, but through a bloody
> > > coup and civil war that claimed millions of German lives. Imagine
> > > furthermore if many of the Nazi inner circle were Czechs, the architect
> > > of the concentration camps was a Czech, and if the entire SA and SS
> > > were Czechs. Do you think the Czech republic would then have the gall
> > > to demand reparations of Germany?
> >
> > Not if these Czechs were German citizens, just as the members of the
> > Latvian Red Rifles considered themselves citizens of Soviet Russia.
>
> They were internationalists - Soviets - not "Soviet Russians".
It was called Soviet Russia at the time, was it not? The name change to
Soviet Union only came later.
>They
> were Russian citizens in the same sense that anybody else born in
> Latvia before 1917 was a Russian citizen.
Yes, precisely. These Latvian Red Riflemen were also opposed the
independent Latvian state and fought against its establishment
>
> > Many of the Nazi inner circle, including the leader, were Austrian.
> > Nobody has demanded reparations from the Austrian republic.
>
> Again, Latvian involvement was much more substantial than that of a few
> individuals. For the analogy to be correct, the entire SA and SS would
> have had to consist of Austrian units.
>
> And although nobody has demanded reparation from Austria, at the same
> time Austria doesn't get reparations from Germany.
Yet the SU demanded reparations, even though Vaslov contributed a whole
army to the Nazi cause.
>
> > Many members of the SS were Dutch and Norwegian yet Norway and the
> > Netherlands are considered victims of Nazi German agression.
>
> Again, the Latvian Red Rifles played a central and critical role in the
> Bolshevik enterprise (unlike that of Dutch, Baltic or Galician Waffen
> SS units within the German armed forces in WWII). So important, that
> without them the Bolshevik takeover would have likely failed.
I doubt that, it was Trotsky's reorganisation of the Red Army that
saved the Bolshevik revolution, with over 5 million under arms at its
peak during the civil war. The Latvian Red Rifles were only a small
fraction of that, more comparable in size to one of the foreign units
in the Waffen SS, certainly not the entire SA and SS which numbered in
the millions and comprised of many divisions.
Regards,
Martin
martin
And loved by the current Russian leadership, which declared the
collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geo-political tragedy of the
20th century.
>And
> guess what - all of this was made possible thanks to crucial Latvian
> support.
And also the support of Trotsky and his 5 million Red Army combatants.
Regards,
Martin
MTRP™
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > and 1930's were those of a government that was hated by most of the
> > people, never chosen by them, and which only came to power over them
> > and subsequently controlled them through mass murder and terror.
> And loved by the current Russian leadership, which declared the
> collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geo-political tragedy of the
> 20th century.
That's just your newest illogical interpretation. Of course the
collapse of SU was one of the greatest geopolitical tragedies of the
20th century. Even the collapse of East Germany was a geopolitical
tragedy (not a great one though). But it does not imply that Putin (the
author of your citation) loves ex-communist bosses. Actually he's
trying to "silently" rehabilitate Russian White Guard ... and
reportedly he already tried (but failed) to kick out Lenin's cadaver
from the Mausoleum. It just takes time.
Vladimir Makarenko
Well, after disastrous internal and foreign implications of the
Lithuanian current regime, an attempt of cheating in diplomacy poker
left as the only option to make money for living. Rather embarrassing,
Sharikov style behavior. Russia should suspend all relations but
economic till Lithuania critically evaluate its behavior and apologize.
VM.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
>
B.M. To satisfy Mr. Cedrins you must make sure to specify
Ethnic Latvians (with a further description), vs Latvians in the Latvian
nationals sense (with further qualifications) ;) and explain the position
of those supporters within the boundaries of those disctinct but overlapping
definitions. ;)
Also keep in mind the arguements (defenses, denials) of the Russians
who claim that Russians were not responsible for the majority of the policies
and deeds of the Soviet Union.
--
Rostyk
o
Vladimir Makarenko
Which took action only once on the side of Czechs during uprising in
Praga and forced SS to retreat. A lot of contribution to Nazi regime.
VM.
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > J. Anderson wrote:
> > > "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1169073175.5...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > question: at what point did the 'democratically elected' Nazi rulership
> > > cease to be the legitimate government of Germany?
> >
> > There is no reason to suspect that it lacked the broad support of most
> > of Germany's people until the very end of the war. Certainly, at the
> > time of the most of its crimes, it was Germany's legitimate government
> > and therefore those crimes were the collective responsibility of the
> > German people.
> >
> > In contrast, the crimes committed by the Soviet regime in the 1920's
> > and 1930's were those of a government that was hated by most of the
> > people, never chosen by them, and which only came to power over them
> > and subsequently controlled them through mass murder and terror.
>
> And loved by the current Russian leadership, which declared the
> collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geo-political tragedy of the
> 20th century.
The USSR whose collapse was in that way described by Putin was not
exactly the same as the one from the 1920's and 30's. Can you find
quotes of Putin praising Stalin?
> >And guess what - all of this was made possible thanks to crucial Latvian
> > support.
>
> And also the support of Trotsky and his 5 million Red Army combatants.
You seem to have trouble with historical dates. The Red Army reached
five million at the end of the war. The Latvian involvement was
decisive in 1917 through the summer of 1918. Remember, it was the
Latvian Red Riflemen who crushed the revolt in Moscow that would have
led to Lenin's, Trotsky's, Dzerzhinsky's end. The Latvians literally
saved the Revolution. Without them it would have failed.
Conscription into the Red Army started in July 1918 and by the end of
that year the Red Army had 500,000 troops. Your 5 million are about as
relevent in this discussion as the 11.3 million Soviet troops in 1945.
I will quote extensively from historian Visvaldis Mangulis. The author
states that the Latvians were lied to by Lenin, etc. which is probably
true but irrelevent to the purpose of this discussion. I will only
quote, for your education, the actions conducted by the Latvians that
made the Bolshevik revolution successful:
http://www.historia.lv/publikacijas/gramat/mangulis/05.nod.htm
"The disarray and confusion of Russia after the downfall of the Czar
gave Lenin and his Bolshevik minority a chance to grab power. When he
did succeed in the establishment of a Bolshevik government, few people
expected that to last longer than a few weeks. It did last longer than
that largely because he had a military force - the Latvian Rifles -
which was unbeatable at the crucial early moments of the birth of the
Soviet Union."
...
"The Military Revolutionary Committee of the 12th Army was organized on
October 31 (18) with a Latvian chairman Juris Carinš and mostly
Latvian members[4], [6]. At the last moment Kerensky tried to improve
his relations with the Latvians by authorizing the unification of the
regiments into a Latvian Rifle Corps, something which Colonel Vacietis
and other officers had sought for a long time[7]. However, this gesture
was too little too late. It could not eradicate the bitterness
generated previously by Kerensky's hostility toward non-Russian
nationalities.
The Bolshevik uprising in Petrograd took place during the night from
November 6 to 7 (old style calendar, October 24 to 25, hence it is
called the October Revolution). Troops loyal to Bolsheviks occupied
railway stations, banks, and the telephone exchange. Kerensky fled for
the front. The Provisional Government in the [page 27] Winter Palace
surrendered during the night from November 7 to 8 to a force of Red
Guards, sailors, and soldiers. The sailors were led by the Latvian
Eižens Bergs[8].
The Second Congress of Soviets met in the great hall of the Smolny
Institute in the evening of November 7 while the Winter Palace was
still under siege. The Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries
denounced the uprising. A delegate from the 12th Army protested the
revolution as a stab in the back of the army and a crime against the
people. Khinchuk, an officer from the 5th Army, declared that the
Congress of Soviets was not necessary because a Constituent Assembly
was scheduled to be held in three weeks. Khinchuk read a Menshevik
declaration of withdrawal from the Congress. The delegates hesitated -
perhaps the Bolsheviks did stand alone, and perhaps the army was
marching on Petrograd. Then, as described by the American correspondent
John Reed[9], a delegate of the Latvian Rifles, Karlis Petersons,
leaped upon the speaker's platform:
"Comrades!" he cried and there was a hush. "My name is Petersons
- I speak for the 2nd Latvian Rifles. You have heard the statements of
two representatives of the Army committees; these statements would have
some value if their authors had been representatives of the Army."
Wild applause. "But they do not represent the soldiers! ... Our
Committee refused to call a meeting of the representatives of the
masses until the end of September, so that the reactionaries could
elect their own false delegates to this Congress. I tell you now, the
Latvian soldiers have many times said, 'No more resolutions! No more
talk! We want deeds-the Power must be in our hands!' Let these
impostor delegates leave the Congress! The Army is not with them!"
According to John Reed the hall rocked with cheering and suddenly the
delegates stopped wavering-this seemed to be the voice of soldiers. In
reality most of the 12th Army was either neutral or against the
Bolsheviks, and the Latvian Rifles (plus a few Russian regiments) were
the only ones actively supporting them, misled by Lenin's promises of
self-determination for all nationalities.
However, the Bolshevik foothold in Russia was still small and
precarious. The Menshevik majority in the Executive Committee of the
Soldiers' Soviet of the 12th Army in the Latvian town of Valka
declared itself against the new Bolshevik government on November 8.
However, the Latvian Rifles purged their regiments of anti-Bolshevik
officers and occupied Cesis on November 9, Valmiera on November 11.
They frustrated the attempts of the 12th Army Headquarters to send
troops to Petrograd and, in the words of the Russian General
Baronovskii, terrified the whole 12th Army. The reserve regiment,
stationed in Estonia, secured the town of Tartu. The last stronghold of
the anti-Bolsheviks, the 12th Army Headquarters in Valka, was occupied
by Latvian Rifles on November 20. To avoid the appearance of ethnic
warfare, a Russian regiment was sent along. The planner of the seizure
of Valka, Colonel Vacietis, was appointed Commander of the 12th Army.
Kerensky had gathered a small force and clashed with Red Guards
southwest of Petrograd on November 12-14 while officer cadets attempted
an unsuccessful uprising against the Bolsheviks inside the city.
Defeated, Kerensky fled into exile.
In Moscow the Latvian Ensign O.Berzinš became the Bolshevik
commandant of the Kremlin on November 7. The Kremlin was important both
as a fortress and as an arsenal for the Red Guards. The Chief of Staff
of the Moscow Red Guards was the Latvian Janis Piece. Fighting
between Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik forces ended on November 15 with
victory by the Bolshevik Red Guards.
Since the German occupation of Latvia had dispersed Latvians throughout
Russia, they were active in the October Revolution from the Baltic Sea
to the Pacific Ocean. Ivars Smilga was the head of the Regional Soviet
Committee in Finland. Roberts Eidemanis was the vice-chairman of the
Siberian Executive Committee. The chairman of the Crimean Military
Revolutionary Committee was Juris Gavenis. The Commandant of Petrograd
was Augusts Klavs-Klavinš. Martinš Lacis, Jekabs Peterss,
Karlis Petersons, and Peteris Stucka were members of the Petrograd
Military Revolutionary Committee. Stucka became Commissar of Justice
(equivalent to a cabinet minister) at the end of November. In general
the oppressed non-Russians were prominent in the October Revolution:
Stalin and Ordzhonikidze were Georgians; Sverdlov, Trotsky, Kamenev,
Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, and Radek were Jews; etc.
During Kerensky's attack several regiments of the Petrograd garrison
had refused to take part in the battle against Kerensky. The Russian
soldiers were disorganized, the Kronstadt sailors were reluctant to
accept any authority, and the Red Guards were militarily weak. To
secure the Bolshevik position the Military Revolutionary Committee
asked for a transfer of some Latvian Rifle units to Petrograd.
Antonov-Ovseenko requested such units by telegram on November 19. A
special selected company for guard duty at the Smolny Institute (the
location of Lenin's government) arrived in Petrograd on December 9.
The 6th Latvian Rifle Regiment arrived on December 8 to perform general
guard duty in Petrograd. Similar requests for Latvian Rifles came from
Moscow and other cities because of their reputation as elite units. At
first the Rifles resisted such dismemberment into small detachments
scattered all over Russia, but by 1918 one could find Latvian regiments
on all fronts of the ensuing civil war.
....
The Russian Constituent Assembly convened on January 18 in Petrograd to
write the new constitution. The elections had given the Bolsheviks only
24% of the vote; the Socialist Revolutionaries had received 58% [43].
The Bolsheviks had supported the Assembly when they had hopes of
dominating it. Now they dispersed it by force, using sailors and
Latvian Rifles
....
And while the Germans occupied Latvia, the Latvian Rifles were
foolishly busy elsewhere. The 3rd Regiment seized Rostov, the capital
of the Don Cossacks, from the Volunteer Army and anti-Bolshevik
Cossacks on February 22 together with a Red Guard unit commanded by the
Latvian Rudolfs Siverss. The 1st Regiment and a battalion of the 4th
Regiment captured Rogachev from an anti-Bolshevik Polish Corps on
February 11. In March and April all Latvian Rifle Regiments were
transformed into regiments of a newly formed Russian Red Army and
combined into a division, known as Latdivision, commanded by Vacietis.
It was the first fully organized division of the new Red Army, although
it was scattered all over Russia: the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 9th
Regiments were in Moscow, 6th in Petrograd, 5th and 8th in Bologoye,
7th in Novgorod. The division also had units of cavalry, artillery,
aviation, and [page 33] engineers. The 9th Regiment was formed from the
special company of Lenin's bodyguards. Lenin and the rest of the
government moved to Moscow on March 12 since now the Germans were
uncomfortably close to Petrograd.
....
In June Bolsheviks had expelled Mensheviks and Right Socialist [page
36] Revolutionaries from all Soviets, leaving the Left Socialist
Revolutionaries (SRs) as the only non-Bolshevik legal political party.
The latter wanted to resume the war with Germany. Therefore, two Left
SR conspirators assassinated the German Ambassador in Moscow, Count
Mirbach, on July 6. The Left SRs seized the Moscow telegraph office and
sent messages to all Soviets declaring that the SRs were now in power.
Troops loyal to the SRs occupied a large part of Moscow and moved on
the Kremlin, the seat of the Bolshevik government, guarded by the 9th
Regiment of the Latvian Rifles. Other Latvian Regiments were stationed
outside Moscow. Lenin placed Vacietis in command of the Bolshevik
forces in Moscow[74]. Since the SR troops moved slowly and cautiously,
Vacietis was able to bring the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Latvian Rifle
Regiments into Moscow during the night and to counterattack on July 7.
A Latvian artillery unit, commanded by Eduards Berzinš, took up a
position directly across from the SR Staff Headquarters, and the first
shell landed in their conference room. By the end of the day the revolt
of the Left SRs was finished. The revolt in Petrograd was put down by
the 6th and 7th Latvian Rifle Regiments and other Red Army detachments.
....
Here is what an arrested Western spy said about the Red Latvians whom
you and others accused of being "Soviet Russians." Here is what they
thought of Russians:
"The Letts [Latvians] were the best [sentries]. Most of them were
contemptuous of the Russians, whom they regarded as inferiors. One Lett
informed me that, if Russia could have put a million non-Russian troops
into the trenches, she could not have failed to win the war. Every time
the Letts advanced, he said, they were let down by the Russians, who
failed invariably to support them. He despised, too, the dirt and
laziness of the Russian troops. On the other hand, he had a wholesome
respect for the Bolshevik leaders, whom he regarded as supermen."
....
The turning point in the Russian civil war came at Kazan, a city [page
40] on the Volga river, east of Moscow. The Red forces who had been
retreating from the periphery toward Moscow and Petrograd on all fronts
made a stand at Kazan and turned the tide.
Vacietis was appointed as commander of the entire Bolshevik Eastern
Front in July with his headquarters in Kazan. The 5th Regiment of the
Latvian Rifles was stationed in Kazan and repulsed the initial attack
by the Czecho-Slovak Corps on August 4. However, by August 6 the White
forces were gradually surrounding the Reds in Kazan, and the city was
passing into White hands in heavy street fighting. A White insurgent
underground appeared in the rear of the Reds, firing from rooftops and
windows. Several Red units, including Latvians, and even some of
Vacietis staff officers deserted to the White side.
Vacietis had decided to defend Kazan until the last man. His
headquarters with 180 Latvian Rifles, 2 artillery pieces, and 2 armored
cars was surrounded. He broke through the encirclement with 120 Rifles
and tried to reach the Kazan Kremlin (the citadel). However, when they
had almost reached it, the Kremlin garrison suddenly opened fire - they
had deserted to the Whites. The Rifles broke up into small groups and
attempted to fight their way out of Kazan. Vacietis group started out
with 27 Rifles; six made it to the Red lines, the rest were killed. The
Whites captured Kazan and the former gold reserve of the Imperial
Government which the Latvians had transported there from Petrograd.
The Latvians suffered heavy losses at Kazan. Even though they had to
surrender Kazan temporarily to the Whites, their stubborn stand gave
the Reds a chance to regroup and made the Whites cautious about further
advances. In exchange for this blood sacrifice the 5th Regiment was the
first in the Red Army to receive the new highest decoration - the Flag
of Honor.
Trotsky arrived at Sviyazhsk, near Kazan, and issued an order that
commanders and commissars (the Bolshevik political overseers of the
professional officers) of regiments which fled would be shot. The
Latvian Smilga and some other old Bolsheviks flatly refused to carry
out such orders.
The 1st and 6th and parts of the 2nd Latvian Rifle Regiment were
transferred to Sviyazhsk and stopped a White attempt to capture it on
August 28. On September 5 the Latvians counterattacked and retook Kazan
on September 10. It was heralded [page 41] throughout Bolshevik Russia
as the first major victory of the Red forces.
Trotsky appointed Vacietis as the Commander-in-Chief of all Armed
Forces on September 6
-----------------------
regards,
BM
> Regards,
> Martin
martin
Sure, they may have failed, but Hitler failed too in his first attempt
to grab power in 1923 via the Beerhall Putsch. Lenin was a resourceful
guy, he would have tried again later, probably via electoral means, as
did Hitler.
>
> Conscription into the Red Army started in July 1918 and by the end of
> that year the Red Army had 500,000 troops. Your 5 million are about as
> relevent in this discussion as the 11.3 million Soviet troops in 1945.
>
>
> I will quote extensively from historian Visvaldis Mangulis. The author
> states that the Latvians were lied to by Lenin, etc. which is probably
> true but irrelevent to the purpose of this discussion. I will only
> quote, for your education, the actions conducted by the Latvians that
> made the Bolshevik revolution successful:
>
> http://www.historia.lv/publikacijas/gramat/mangulis/05.nod.htm
>
> "The disarray and confusion of Russia after the downfall of the Czar
> gave Lenin and his Bolshevik minority a chance to grab power. When he
> did succeed in the establishment of a Bolshevik government, few people
> expected that to last longer than a few weeks. It did last longer than
> that largely because he had a military force - the Latvian Rifles -
> which was unbeatable at the crucial early moments of the birth of the
> Soviet Union."
Well you would expect a Latvian historian to over inflate the
importance of the Latvian Rifles in toppling the mighty Russian Empire.
Does official Soviet history view them in the same way?
Regards,
Martin
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
[deletions]
It's Russia that is at the forefront of efforts to quash or water
resolutions condemning communism, Black Monk. Russia is one of the
countries that has the most profound difficulties with facing the
Soviet past, except for select parts like its victory in the War.
Latvia was independent in the 1920s and 1930s -- there's nothing to
blame Russia for until 1939, except for its failure to fulfill the
terms of the 1920 Treaty and return things that were taken during the
First World War.
> > > > Latvia hadn't even been proclaimed independence in 1917,
> > > > much less was it a functioning nation-state. Martin's flawed analogy
> > > > doesn't take that into account. The Red Riflemen were not Latvian
> > > > citizens, and they never fought for Latvia.
> > >
> > > And the Russian Soviets did not fight for Russia but for the
> > > Internationalist Soviet project. Indeed they fought against Russia
> > > alongside their Latvian and other colleagues.
A certain Corsican didn't fight for the France of the "legitimate"
Bourbons, but we don't try to pretend that the First Empire wasn't
French. Not so dissimilar -- wild-eyed idealists destroy the _ancien
régime_ and institute terror. Later a man comes along and takes power.
> > This doesn't make much sense to me, Black Monk. Russia is the successor
> > state to the Soviet Union, as Soviet Russia was renamed, which was the
> > successor state to the Russian Empire.
>
> In order to create Soviet Russia it was necessary to destroy the old
> society "root and branch." A brutal war was waged by a small minority
> of Russians who considered themselves first and foremost
> internationalists, along with Latvians and others against the Russian
> aristocracy, the Russian Church, the Russian peasantry, the Russian
> workers, and the Russian middle classes who constituted Russia. The
> USSR was the successor state to the Russian Empire in the sense that it
> was created like a Frankenstein monster out of that Empire's corpse, by
> that Empire's murderers.
>
> So, blame the murderers and creators of the monster. No _nation_ was
> responsible. Indeed, all nations that came into contact with those
> murderers were victims, including the Russian nation. Among the gang
> of murderers responsible for those crimes were a large number of
> Latvians.
Not to get overly repetitive, but an empire is not a nation-state --
Latvians were citizens of the empire, and they fought very bravely for
the empire in a war that the empire prosecuted with the same ineptitude
by which that empire had long been misgoverned. There was a revolution,
and people, Latvians included, fought on different sides. Latvia has
three governments simultaneously for a period -- Stučka's Red one,
Ulmanis' Republic, and Niedra's German puppet government. Though the
Bolsheviks were very popular in 1917 (which was prior to Latvia's
independent existence even fomally), the brief period of Soviet rule in
part of the country quickly dissolved their support. Even the Latvian
Social Democratic party, then under Bolshevik control, was not
independent -- it was an autonomus _regional_ organization of the
Russian party from 1906, and the non-Bolshevik party wasn't
(re-)established until June 1918.
The Republic won in Latvia, but the Bolsheviks won in Russia -- by the
time the Republic was invaded, Russia/Soviet Russia/the USSR was
indisputably the new Russian Empire. That the empire still paid lip
service to "internationalism" and included many non-Russians doesn't
affect the _state_ in a meaningful way -- Russia is _still_ an empire,
isn't it, even if it's called a "federation"? The Bourbons were
returned to power in France, Haiti had become independent, we've seen a
number of republics, etc. -- it's still France, and if large numbers of
Haitians or pieds-noirs, citizens of France, had raped Monaco on behalf
of the nth Republic, taking their orders in French from Paris, we
wouldn't say that Monaco was invaded by Haiti or Algeria, would we?
> ...cut...
>
> > Your position makes about as much sense to me as that of some retro
> > Ottoman -- instead of fighting the invaders, he might whine about his
> > hatred for the tranformation of his Empire into a secular, Western,
> > nationalist, Turkish state. That's sort of the reverse, but I think you
> > can see why there's a parallel -- countries _do_ transform, and
> > backslide, and break up, and marry and give in marriage.
>
> The difference here is that Ataturk didn't come to power against the
> will of the Turkish people. But let's bring this topic back to its
> original focus: alleged culpability for Soviet crimes. In 1917-1920
> Russia could have been transformed into many things, such as a
> constitutional democracy, a constitutional monarchy, or something
> resembling Hortha's Hungarian White government.
What concerns me most is that it _wasn't_ -- I've read stuff like
Kerensky's memoirs, and of course I agree that Russia was victimized.
As a Latvian, though, I don't have much sympathy for Russian
monarchists, reactionaries, or even democrats (of that era; for those
in this era, I do) -- as I've mentioned before, almost none of them
seemed particularly sympathetic to the cause of the non-Russian
peoples. The Bolsheviks _were_, at least on paper, and that is part of
what made them so attractive to Letts. We have hindsight, but the
Riflemen didn't. Personally, I think it would have been very difficult
to make such a smooth transformation -- because of the level of
education in Russia proper, mostly, and because you had what Reds would
call a "revolutionary situation." The time to introduce a
constitutional monarchy was in 1905. Didn't really happen.
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins)
Well, on that score -- who were the Dvintsi? Maybe they were Latvians,
too?
/P
captain.
like he can :)
J. Anderson
at all for the Empire of Evil. They prefer to go back 80+ years in history
pointing out a few thousand Latvians as the real culprits.
In addition to the Riflemen, it's OK to blame the communists*, who for some
reason had no nationality. But in the case of Germany one shouldn't blame
only the Nazis but the whole German people.
*) There were 19 million party members end of the 80s. All totally innocent,
of course. Except the non-Russians, of course.
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk wrote:
>
>
> > Pçteris Cedriòð (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> > > The Black Monk wrote:
...cut...
> > But besides diplomatic recognition out of necessity isn't a standard
> > that equals culpability. Recognizing a regime in order to be able to
> > work with it is not the same thing as recognizing that this regime
> > represents the will of its population and thus that the population must
> > pay for the regime's crimes (say, through demands of compensation from
> > their post-regime government, which means that the Russian taxpayers
> > will pay).
> >
> > This is why no normal Czech would blame Poland, Hungary etc. for the
> > invasion of 1968. And why a normal Latvian or Ukrainian shouldn't
> > blame Russia for things that happened in the 1920's and 1930's. OTOH
> > blaming the Communist parties and seeking compensation from them is
> > another story...
>
> It's Russia that is at the forefront of efforts to quash or water
> resolutions condemning communism, Black Monk.
This modern phenomenon, to the extent that it is true, does not relate
to the Soviet regime of 1917 through the 1930's, the one responsible
for the crimes we are discussing.
> Russia is one of the
> countries that has the most profound difficulties with facing the
> Soviet past, except for select parts like its victory in the War.
I would say based on this thread that Latvians share this difficulty ;)
> Latvia was independent in the 1920s and 1930s -- there's nothing to
> blame Russia for until 1939, except for its failure to fulfill the
> terms of the 1920 Treaty and return things that were taken during the
> First World War.
>
> > > > > Latvia hadn't even been proclaimed independence in 1917,
> > > > > much less was it a functioning nation-state. Martin's flawed analogy
> > > > > doesn't take that into account. The Red Riflemen were not Latvian
> > > > > citizens, and they never fought for Latvia.
> > > >
> > > > And the Russian Soviets did not fight for Russia but for the
> > > > Internationalist Soviet project. Indeed they fought against Russia
> > > > alongside their Latvian and other colleagues.
>
> A certain Corsican didn't fight for the France of the "legitimate"
> Bourbons, but we don't try to pretend that the First Empire wasn't
> French.
Again, Latvian participation wasn't merely some important individuals
(unlike Polish or Georgian particpiation). It's not a good analogy for
this reason.
> Not so dissimilar -- wild-eyed idealists destroy the _ancien
> régime_ and institute terror. Later a man comes along and takes power.
There are many similarities between the Bolshevik terrorists and the
French Republican mass murderers. A difference is that the French
murders were mostly a local project and the vicitms were also mostly
local. The ones operating in Russia were an international gang
operating with an internationalist ideology. According to the an
imprisoned Western diplomat/spy:
"The Letts [Latvians] were the best [sentries]. Most of them were
contemptuous of the Russians, whom they regarded as inferiors. One Lett
informed me that, if Russia could have put a million non-Russian troops
into the trenches, she could not have failed to win the war. Every time
the Letts advanced, he said, they were let down by the Russians, who
failed invariably to support them. He despised, too, the dirt and
laziness of the Russian troops. On the other hand, he had a wholesome
respect for the Bolshevik leaders, whom he regarded as supermen."
> > > This doesn't make much sense to me, Black Monk. Russia is the successor
> > > state to the Soviet Union, as Soviet Russia was renamed, which was the
> > > successor state to the Russian Empire.
> >
> > In order to create Soviet Russia it was necessary to destroy the old
> > society "root and branch." A brutal war was waged by a small minority
> > of Russians who considered themselves first and foremost
> > internationalists, along with Latvians and others against the Russian
> > aristocracy, the Russian Church, the Russian peasantry, the Russian
> > workers, and the Russian middle classes who constituted Russia. The
> > USSR was the successor state to the Russian Empire in the sense that it
> > was created like a Frankenstein monster out of that Empire's corpse, by
> > that Empire's murderers.
> >
> > So, blame the murderers and creators of the monster. No _nation_ was
> > responsible. Indeed, all nations that came into contact with those
> > murderers were victims, including the Russian nation. Among the gang
> > of murderers responsible for those crimes were a large number of
> > Latvians.
>
> Not to get overly repetitive, but an empire is not a nation-state --
> Latvians were citizens of the empire, and they fought very bravely for
> the empire in a war that the empire prosecuted with the same ineptitude
> by which that empire had long been misgoverned. There was a revolution,
> and people, Latvians included, fought on different sides. Latvia has
> three governments simultaneously for a period -- Stuèka's Red one,
> Ulmanis' Republic, and Niedra's German puppet government. Though the
> Bolsheviks were very popular in 1917 (which was prior to Latvia's
> independent existence even fomally), the brief period of Soviet rule in
> part of the country quickly dissolved their support. Even the Latvian
> Social Democratic party, then under Bolshevik control, was not
> independent -- it was an autonomus _regional_ organization of the
> Russian party from 1906, and the non-Bolshevik party wasn't
> (re-)established until June 1918.
>
> The Republic won in Latvia, but the Bolsheviks won in Russia --
Thanks to Red Latvians.
> by the time the Republic was invaded, Russia/Soviet Russia/the USSR was
> indisputably the new Russian Empire.
Not at all. The Whites were still a significant force at that time.
> That the empire still paid lip
> service to "internationalism" and included many non-Russians doesn't
> affect the _state_ in a meaningful way -- Russia is _still_ an empire,
> isn't it, even if it's called a "federation"?
Actually the criminal Soviet Union was pretty internationalist until
Stalin's dominance. The original Bulgarian Commie ruler of Ukraine
cracked down on the local language but he was replaced. Soviet Ukraine
experienced somewhat of a cultural renaissance in the 1920's, before
most of the people involved were shot in the 1930's. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Skrypnyk#Ukrainization
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Khvylovy
A Soviet Latvia would have been similar, perhaps more priviledged given
the special place of Latvians among the old Bolsheviks (in contrast,
there were virtually no Ukrainians among the criminals responsible for
the establishment of the USSR, the only exception being
Antonov-Ovseenko).
> The Bourbons were
> returned to power in France, Haiti had become independent, we've seen a
> number of republics, etc. -- it's still France, and if large numbers of
> Haitians or pieds-noirs, citizens of France, had raped Monaco on behalf
> of the nth Republic, taking their orders in French from Paris, we
> wouldn't say that Monaco was invaded by Haiti or Algeria, would we?
How about if that government wasn't popular among the French to begin
with, and indeed was only in power through force? And how about if
Haitians were the ones without whom that guilty Republic would not be
in power? If a Haitian designed the first concentration camp, and the
local Monaco cheka was commanded by a Haitian. Sounds like Monaco
could demand compensation from both France and Haiti.
And of course, to complete the analogy if in addition to raping Monaco
that government raped France. Now imagine if that government later
invaded Haiti. Could Haiti demand reparations from the descendents of
the French victims due to crimes committed by a government that would
not have even been in power if not for Haitians?
> > The difference here is that Ataturk didn't come to power against the
> > will of the Turkish people. But let's bring this topic back to its
> > original focus: alleged culpability for Soviet crimes. In 1917-1920
> > Russia could have been transformed into many things, such as a
> > constitutional democracy, a constitutional monarchy, or something
> > resembling Hortha's Hungarian White government.
>
> What concerns me most is that it _wasn't_ -- I've read stuff like
> Kerensky's memoirs, and of course I agree that Russia was victimized.
> As a Latvian, though, I don't have much sympathy for Russian
> monarchists, reactionaries, or even democrats (of that era; for those
> in this era, I do) -- as I've mentioned before, almost none of them
> seemed particularly sympathetic to the cause of the non-Russian
> peoples.
In exchange for not pressing for outright independence Ukrainians were
given full autonomy under the provisional government, and the head of
the secretariat of the Central Rada, Vynnychenko, was de facto prime
minister. Was it different for Latvia?
Even if not, that doesn't erase Latvian culpability, it only explains
it.
> The Bolsheviks _were_, at least on paper, and that is part of
> what made them so attractive to Letts. We have hindsight, but the
> Riflemen didn't.
I agree with you here (moreover, Russian workers were fooled also).
But such or any explanations don't contradict the fact that the
Latvians did indeed play a central role in the Bolsheviks' Revolution's
success.
regards,
BM
vello
No-nationality idea disappears very soon. And for 1937 there was time
to kill down most non-russian commies. And let sing the anthem of that
"riflemen-created" empire: "Union of nations, created by Great Russia
etc etc"
The Black Monk
> It's useless, Peeteri. The 'victimized' Russians refuse to accept any guilt
> at all for the Empire of Evil.
What's it like looking in the mirror, John?
> They prefer to go back 80+ years in history
> pointing out a few thousand Latvians as the real culprits.
Well, who was responsbile? The Russian peasants, nobles, workers being
slaughtered by a regime that depended on Latvian bayonets for its
military survival?
> In addition to the Riflemen, it's OK to blame the communists*, who for some
> reason had no nationality.
They did. And Lativans were way overrepresented among their ranks.
> But in the case of Germany one shouldn't blame
> only the Nazis but the whole German people.
You can't tell the difference between a popular elected government and
an imposed one (imposed to a large extent by Latvians remember) ruling
a hostile population through fear?
> *) There were 19 million party members end of the 80s. All totally innocent,
> of course. Except the non-Russians, of course.
Are you implying that the millions of 1980's Russian Communist party
members time travelled and brought Bolshevism to Russia in 1917-1920?
Interesting.
BM
MTRP™
> The 'victimized' Russians refuse to accept any guilt
> at all for the Empire of Evil.
Eh? Why Russians? Even Krapo knows that the Empire of Evil is where
Evil, aka El Diablo, has his earthly residence. Now Hugo Chavez
enlightened us that El Diablo is sitting in the White House,
Washington, D.C.. BTW this morning MTRP™ was swimming together with
Hugo Chavez who's visiting Rio along with Evo Morales and other nice
gentlemen. The sun was shining and everything was just fine! Policia
Militar & Guarda Federal was busy chasing away unfriendly yanx, sharks
and piranhas. Greetings to Henry!
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> J. Anderson wrote:
>
>> It's useless, Peeteri. The 'victimized' Russians refuse to accept any guilt
>> at all for the Empire of Evil.
>
> What's it like looking in the mirror, John?
>
Yes the Latvians, for whatever reason, were there and instrumental in
the success of the Bolsheviks --> USSR.
But the Russians were there continuously. Were there in pre-revolution
Czarist Russia. Were there during the revolution and the USSR. And are
there now. Their imperialist tendencies have been constant.
So the 'image in the mirror' is not a true faithful reflection,
but not a completely different scene either.
The Black Monk
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > J. Anderson wrote:
> >
> >> It's useless, Peeteri. The 'victimized' Russians refuse to accept any guilt
> >> at all for the Empire of Evil.
> >
> > What's it like looking in the mirror, John?
> >
> B.M. I think that here you are being a bit vindictively unfair.
I respectfully disagree. With the specific case of the creation of
Soviet power Latvians were involved in that project to an extent that
was greater, per population, than that of Russians. Indeed, even
greater than were the Russians, at least in terms of military
assistance in those crucal first months. Although in the case of both
nations the commies were a small minority.
> Yes the Latvians, for whatever reason, were there and instrumental in
> the success of the Bolsheviks --> USSR.
> But the Russians were there continuously. Were there in pre-revolution
> Czarist Russia. Were there during the revolution and the USSR. And are
> there now. Their imperialist tendencies have been constant.
Sure. But there is a vast gulf between Commie imperialism and that of
the czarist kind, which objectively speaking was pretty mild as far as
European empires went. Compare the Ukrainians' fate with that of the
Irish, people of India, Africa, etc. for instance. And the best
-treated of all native Americans were the ones ruled by Russians in
Alaska.
> So the 'image in the mirror' is not a true faithful reflection, but not a completely different scene either.
Again, I respectfully disagree. A Latvian saying "it was the Russians,
not us", is essentially the same as a Russian saying, "it was the
Latvians, Jews and Georgians, not us." Actually, none of the nations
above should be blamed for the commie project, as it was the work of a
relatively small criminal gang. But singling out the Russians is like
singling out the Latvians, Jews or Georgians.
regards,
BM
vello
Poor Black, you constantly put ethnos and state in the same cattle.
Nobody accuses ethnic russians being responsible for Red Russias crimes
- crimes were commited by RUSSIAN STATE. Wise man Churchill says about
germans - their quilt is, they allowed to exist such a blood hungry
government. Same is true also for Russia. Being elected or not elected,
it makes no difference here. Germans don't voted for gass chambers and
world war back in 1933 - they voted for guy promising to bring Germany
up from misery, unemployment and corruption. Problem is, both nations
were unable to stop their govt, if it was clear that no worker's
paradise is coming nor in Berlin, nor in Moscow, but real hell for
neighbours (and nation himself). It puts some moral responsibility on
germans and russians.
Despite Pol Poth was mass murderer, Kampuchea was still Kampuchea
during his regime - or you say there was no Kampuchea but an anonymus
territory occupied by gang of bastards :-)
The Black Monk
vello wrote:
It's getting rather tedious repeating myself to you, but I'll go ahead:
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> Poor Black, you constantly put ethnos and state in the same cattle.
> Nobody accuses ethnic russians being responsible for Red Russias crimes
> - crimes were commited by RUSSIAN STATE.
No, it was explicitly not a RUSSIAN STATE. In was an Internationalist
one, based in Russia.
> Wise man Churchill says about
> germans - their quilt is, they allowed to exist such a blood hungry
> government. Same is true also for Russia.
No, because Russians didn't "allow" it to exist. It was forced on
them. Largely, by Latvians. Thus the civil war, thus the gulags
(designed by a Latvian), etc. etc. The Nazis didn't need all those
things to keep power over Germany because they were elected and
popular.
> Being elected or not elected, it makes no difference here.
Then don't complain about the actions of the non-elected Soviet Latvian
or Estonian puppet governments in your own countries. If a Soviet
government saved by Latvian Red Rifles is a legitimate Russian
government, than by the same logic a Latvian government that existed
thanks to the Russian military is also legitimate. Therefore, just as
Soviet crimes of the 1920's and 1940's are crimes for which
Russia/Russians are responsible, so the request by Latvia's government
to join the USSR was a Latvian act which is Latvia's/Latvians'
responsibility. After all, the Latvians "allowed" such a government.
Therefore, to apply your logic consistantly, the annexation of the
Baltics was legitimate.
Or is it okay for Latvians to determine another country's destiny but
not okay for Russians to do so.
> Germans don't voted for gass chambers and
> world war back in 1933 - they voted for guy promising to bring Germany
> up from misery, unemployment and corruption.
Fact is, they voted. Russians didn't. On the contrary, they were mass
murdered into submission. By a regime that only survived 1918 thanks
to Latvians.
> Problem is, both nations
> were unable to stop their govt, if it was clear that no worker's
> paradise is coming nor in Berlin, nor in Moscow, but real hell for
> neighbours (and nation himself).
Hitler was popular in Germany until the end of the war. I've been to
former (now Polish) German Silesia and even the old Germans there (who
no longer hide their identity) admit that the population was ecstatic
when Poland was invaded.
> It puts some moral responsibility on germans and russians.
Anybody but Latvians. When will Latvian politicians apologize to
Russia and Ukraine for the Latvian Red Rifles?
BM
vello
The Black Monk wrote:
> vello wrote:
> It's getting rather tedious repeating myself to you, but I'll go ahead:
>
> > The Black Monk wrote:
> > > Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
>
> > Poor Black, you constantly put ethnos and state in the same cattle.
> > Nobody accuses ethnic russians being responsible for Red Russias crimes
> > - crimes were commited by RUSSIAN STATE.
>
> No, it was explicitly not a RUSSIAN STATE. In was an Internationalist
> one, based in Russia.
Oh, you don't believe it by himself. RFSR was exactly the same state as
Russian Empire both by territory and population. What changes, was one
unelected group takes place from another unelected group (Romanov
family). Here one can use simple formula: anything happens inside some
country without intervention from abroad is internal problem of
particular country. Only then ,if regime will be changed by armed
forces from abroad, it may be international case taking responsibility
from people living in particular country.
>
> > Wise man Churchill says about
> > germans - their quilt is, they allowed to exist such a blood hungry
> > government. Same is true also for Russia.
>
> No, because Russians didn't "allow" it to exist. It was forced on
> them. Largely, by Latvians. Thus the civil war, thus the gulags
> (designed by a Latvian), etc. etc. The Nazis didn't need all those
> things to keep power over Germany because they were elected and
> popular.
So red-white civil war went this way by you: russians on one, red
latvians on other side? And Latvian side takes over? A few thousands of
riflemen beat nation of 150 000 000? Try to be serious?
For voting, there were some votings also in SU almost any year -
support to commies was normally 99,98% By my experience it was not easy
to find people in Russia thinking about Red Empire like we did - as a
criminal gang. Maybe support to Hitler was a bit higher - he really
pushed living standards up from Weimar level.
>
> > Being elected or not elected, it makes no difference here.
>
> Then don't complain about the actions of the non-elected Soviet Latvian
> or Estonian puppet governments in your own countries. If a Soviet
> government saved by Latvian Red Rifles is a legitimate Russian
> government, than by the same logic a Latvian government that existed
> thanks to the Russian military is also legitimate. Therefore, just as
> Soviet crimes of the 1920's and 1940's are crimes for which
> Russia/Russians are responsible, so the request by Latvia's government
> to join the USSR was a Latvian act which is Latvia's/Latvians'
> responsibility. After all, the Latvians "allowed" such a government.
> Therefore, to apply your logic consistantly, the annexation of the
> Baltics was legitimate.
Don't be childish! YES, coup d'Etate in Latvia, organised by latvian
citizens no matter of latvian, russian, georgian or jewish heritage
would be "Latvian thing" - like commie rebel in Russia. But with
Latvia, Poland, Estonia, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Netherlands
etc etc "force maior" comes from outside - civilized world call it
occupation
>
> Or is it okay for Latvians to determine another country's destiny but
> not okay for Russians to do so.
Again you are not up on level to understand that it is not about
ethnicity - commie rebel was performed by people of that some Russian
Empire. With Latvia, it was occupied by army from abroad.
>
> > Germans don't voted for gass chambers and
> > world war back in 1933 - they voted for guy promising to bring Germany
> > up from misery, unemployment and corruption.
>
> Fact is, they voted. Russians didn't. On the contrary, they were mass
> murdered into submission. By a regime that only survived 1918 thanks
> to Latvians.
We discussed earlier what that "vote" counts. And as I say, there was
some elections in SU almost any year - with 99+% support to red govt.
>
> > Problem is, both nations
> > were unable to stop their govt, if it was clear that no worker's
> > paradise is coming nor in Berlin, nor in Moscow, but real hell for
> > neighbours (and nation himself).
>
> Hitler was popular in Germany until the end of the war. I've been to
> former (now Polish) German Silesia and even the old Germans there (who
> no longer hide their identity) admit that the population was ecstatic
> when Poland was invaded.
And during Finnish war and occupation of Baltics there were mass
demonstrations against it in Moscow?
>
> > It puts some moral responsibility on germans and russians.
>
> Anybody but Latvians. When will Latvian politicians apologize to
> Russia and Ukraine for the Latvian Red Rifles?
No need to. Two years ago one madman from Russia kills in Estonia 5-6
persons during armed robbings. Was it Russia's fault? For sure no -
nobody thinks he acts by will of govt of Russian State. It was "private
business" of him. Same with the riflemen - they were not a unit of
Latvian State.
Henry Alminas
"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:1169248177.8...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The sad thing is that as long as the Kremlin
keeps pushing the BM version of "history"
Russians will not be able to leave the
"alternate reality" that they were trapped
in by the Russian schools. As you, no doubt,
have noticed most (if not all) the Russians
posting to this forum live outside of Russia
and thus have access to any information that
they might want. The brainwashing, however,
is so extensive that they simply do not
"want".
Frankly - I find this whole thread to be an exercise
in futility.
Best - - Henry