absolute and relative evil
Vladimir Makarenko
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <3590CB...@snoe.Solnyshko>, Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Historians concede that the Soviet Union killed considerably more of its
> own citizens, not to mention citizens of the countries it invaded and
> occupied, than Nazi Germany did.
Prove it. Give the references.
VM
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
Vladimir Makarenko
Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
As I got no references from Mr. Holman, I suppose that he meant himself when
wrote "Historians concede...". Good self-esteem, a little bit inflated, due to
splitted
personality possibly.
But anyway, Mr. Holman took a labor to enlighten audience on how one has really
to see the history:
Chapter 1. Finns and nazis.
Finland never was an ally of Germany. Because definition of the word "ally"
in all the dictionaries is wrong. It must imply mutual love, but not sharing
purposes
and mutual support. But as we know there were no love between the two.
And Finland had nothing to do with starving the
population of Leningrad. Indeed finns could even capture the city but as Mannerheim
fell into paralytic state of nostalgia they stopped their offense. It's just
coincidence that
it happened when Zhukov overtook the command of the city defense. Would the finns
wanted they took even Moscow, Stalingrad and win Kursk battle. Just like that.
But the state of nostalgia turned to be so deep that finns even returned the
territory they
got and moved back home.
And finns tried their best to help to supply the starving population. They were
sending
shells to pave the "life road" not to destroy it. That's all about Finland WW2
history.
Chapter 2. Waffen SS.
Here everything even more simple:
1. there were good SS - estonian.
2. there were not so good - latvian.
3. not good at all - all the others.
The latter waffen SS behaved themselves badly because they were corrupting cities
landscapes by hanging the damned russians on trees. Instead of hanging them
somewhere
else. That's all about waffen SS.
VM
Eugene Holman
In article <35942A98...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>, Vladimir Makarenko
<ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
> Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
>
> > Eugene Holman wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3590CB...@snoe.Solnyshko>, Vladimir
<K...@snoe.Solnyshko> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Historians concede that the Soviet Union killed considerably more of its
> > > own citizens, not to mention citizens of the countries it invaded and
> > > occupied, than Nazi Germany did.
> >
> > Prove it. Give the references.
No problem.
http://www.laissezfaire.org/pl7366.html
Most murderous governments in human history
DEATH BY GOVERNMENT
by R.J. Rummel
(Transaction Books, 1994)
(reviewed by Doug Bandow, May 1995)
President Bill Clinton thinks that criticizing government promotes a
climate of hate. Obviously he doesn't pay much attention to what government
actually does. This century, estimates political scientist R.J. Rummel, the
state has killed almost 170 million people. It's no wonder that four out of
ten
Americans say they fear for their liberties.
The basic problem, explains Rummel, is power: "Power kills; absolute Power
kills absolutely." Of course, mankind should have learned this lesson
without having to experience the 20th Century. Rummel estimates that some
133 million people were murdered over the first several thousand years of
human life, with China's emperors and the Mongols the top killers. These
depradations, along with African slavery, dispossession of native
Americans, Europe's Thirty Years' War, and much, much more resulted in
three times as many deaths as the number of battle-related casualties over
the same period. Observes Rummel: "governments‹particularly nondemocratic
governments‹clearly should come with a warning label: 'This power
may be a danger to your life and limb'."
Alas, experience hasn't stopped people from placing ever more power in
government. As a result, the 20th Century demonstrated the disastrous
consequence of the marriage of sinful men, omnipotent governments, and
technological progress.
The most murderous system was the "Soviet Gulag State," as Rummel refers to
it. Some 62 million died, many for no apparent reason. There was genocide,
such as the slaughter of the Don Cossacks, Ukrainian peasants, and
Estonians. There were the mass purges of the Communist Party. And there
were killings to fulfill, yes, quotas. Americans complain about ticket
quotas for cops. But in Soviet Russia, explains Rummel:
[M]urder and arrest quotas did not work well. Where to find the
"enemies of the people" they were to shoot was a particularly acute
problem for the local NKVD, which had been diligent in uncovering
"plots." They had to resort to shooting those arrested for the most
minor civil crimes, those previously arrested and released, and even
mothers and wives who appeared at NKVD headquarters for
information about their arrested loved ones.
Next come the Communist rulers of China, Mao Zedong in particular, long a
favorite of Western leftists. Beijing's roster of victims was modest only
when compared to that of the Soviet Union: 35 million. But the poor Chinese
have suffered even more throughout history than have the Russians, with
mass murder by emperors, warlords, and Chiang Kai- shek, long loved by the
American right, who was responsible for ten million deaths. And then
came the communists.
Number three on the list of mass murderers is Hitler, along with his
criminal gang of antisemites, misfits, misanthropes, and racists. Rummel
numbers
the Third Reich's victims at 21 million, heavily weighted towards
genocide‹of Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies, for instance, though few people
escaped the
Nazi jackboot.
*********************************************************
1. Consolidating Soviet power: approx. 7,500,000
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/russia/part1.html
Ted Grant: Russia: from revolution to counter-revolution
Part One: The Balance Sheet of October
"Epidemics spread easily. Contagious diseases that had not been brought
under full control at the beginning of the twentieth century again spread
rapidly. Between 1917 and 1922, about 22 million people contracted typhus;
in 1918-19, the official mortality for this disease was 1.5 million, and
the
census was probably incomplete. Cholera and scarlet fever caused fewer
deaths but affected 7 or 8 million Russians. The death rate was
astronomical
and, in the country as a whole, doubled. The birth-rate, on the other hand,
declined considerably, barely reaching 13 per thousand in the important
towns and 22 per thousand in the country. Between the end of 1918 and the
end of 1920, epidemics, hunger and cold had killed 7.5 million Russians;
world war had claimed 4 million victims." (Quoted by M. Liebman, Leninism
under Lenin, p. 346.)
2. Famine in the Ukraine: approx. 6,500,000
BLACK FAMINE IN UKRAINE 1932-33 A STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE
by Andrew Gregorovich http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/
HOW MANY DIED?
"CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES place the number of deaths in Ukraine due to this
enforced famine, at about 4,800,000. Many recognized scholars, however have
estimated the number between 5 million to 8 million."
3. Stalin's purges and Great Terror: approx. 750,000
The origins and consequences of Stalin's Great Terror
A lecture by Professor Vadim Z. Rogovin
http://www.socialequality.com/public_html/prioriss/iwb5-6/terror.htm
[CUT]
A clearer picture
If one combines all these sources, then the figure that emerges of
prisoners who were repressed for political reasons reaches approximately 4
million
during the Stalin period. Those actually shot number between 700,000 and
800,000. Of course, these are staggering figures by any standards, and
never in world history have such high numbers of people been repressed for
political reasons. Of those figures more than half fall within a two year
period: 1937-8. As far as those who were shot, the number executed during
that two year period was six times greater than the victims of all the
remaining years of Soviet history.
To this Ted Grant
(http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/russia/part3.html) adds:
"According to one estimate, one person in five in Leningrad was either
killed, imprisoned or exiled. Not a single genuine letter, not
a single document, not a single impeccable piece of evidence was presented
at the trials. The only "evidence" was the self confessions of the
defendants
- extracted under torture. Kamenev and Zinoviev, already morally broken by
capitulation, actually demanded their own execution, having been
promised that they would be spared. But Stalin betrayed them. They were the
first to be shot."
***********************************************************
Then there are the tens of millions who died in the gulags, more than a
million people from the Baltic countries who died from the rigors of
deportation to Siberia. the slaughter of the Don CosSACKS
Do I need to continue?
Do you see whay the people in the Baltic countries wanted to have
absolutely nothing to do with the Soviet Union when they 'voted' to join it
in 1940? Do you see why, after a year's experience with violently imposed
Soviet rule, which changed their countries into the type of murderous
*bardak* the USSR had been since its establishment, they would take aid
from *anyone* who could help them prevent the hated Soviets from returning
a second time?
>
> As I got no references from Mr. Holman, I suppose that he meant
himself when
> wrote "Historians concede...". Good self-esteem, a little bit inflated, due to
> splitted
> personality possibly.
>
> But anyway, Mr. Holman took a labor to enlighten audience on how one
has really
> to see the history:
>
> Chapter 1. Finns and nazis.
>
> Finland never was an ally of Germany. Because definition of the word
"ally"
> in all the dictionaries is wrong.
Finland was NOT an ally of Germany. No responsible historian has ever
claimed that Finland was an ally of Germany.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary/Thesaurus
2al€ly \"a-'l, e-"l\ noun pl allies (1598)
1 : a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league
2 : a plant or animal linked to another by genetic or taxonomic proximity
3 : one that is associated with another as a helper : auxiliary
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the USSR which had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
with Germany in 1939, WAS an ally of Germany right up until June 22, 1941.
Finland, in turn, was a *cobelligerent* of Germany:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary/Thesaurus
co€bel€lig€er€ent \'ko-be-"lij-rent, -"li-je-\ noun (1813)
: a country fighting with another power against a common enemy
cobelligerent adjective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Germans sneak-attacked the USSR on June 22, 1941. Finland hesitated for
a few days while its government weighed the options, then it also joined in
the attack against the USSR. Unlike the Germans, the Finns were fighting
for limited objectives: to regain the area it had been forced to cede to
the USSR after the 1939-40 Winter War. This is why this particular campaign
in Finnish historiography is referred to as 'The Continuation War'
(Jatkosota).
> It must imply mutual love, but not sharing
> purposes
> and mutual support. But as we know there were no love between the two.
> And Finland had nothing to do with starving the
> population of Leningrad. Indeed finns could even capture the city but as
Mannerheim
> fell into paralytic state of nostalgia they stopped their offense. It's just
> coincidence that
> it happened when Zhukov overtook the command of the city defense. Would
the finns
> wanted they took even Moscow, Stalingrad and win Kursk battle. Just like that.
> But the state of nostalgia turned to be so deep that finns even returned the
> territory they
> got and moved back home.
> And finns tried their best to help to supply the starving population.
They were
> sending
> shells to pave the "life road" not to destroy it. That's all about Finland WW2
> history.
This unfortunate episode in Finnish-Soviet relations would hardly have
taken place if the USSR had not cowardly attacked Finland in 1939 and
relieved it of 1/10 of its territory and saddling it with the problem of
1/8 of its population suddenly becoming homeless, impoverished refugees. Of
course Finland was going to use the opportunity offered by an all-out war
on the USSR to regain territory which had literally been stolen from it the
year before. The fact that Stalin's old buddy Hitler stabbed him in the
back is not Finland's fault, it just provided a convenient window of
opportunity.
Stalin's purge resulted in one in five persons in Leningrad being killed,
arrested or deported during the course of a few months. The siege of
Leningrad, during which 670,000 of approximately 3,500,000, also about 1 in
5, were killed over the course ofsomewhat less than three years. But, as
Mr. Kagalenko will be glad to corroborate, there are those of us
contributing to this discussion who regard people being killed by the
agents of a foreign government as somehow a more serious matter than people
being killed by their own government.
>
> Chapter 2. Waffen SS.
>
> Here everything even more simple:
>
> 1. there were good SS - estonian.
> 2. there were not so good - latvian.
> 3. not good at all - all the others.
>
> The latter waffen SS behaved themselves badly because they were
corrupting cities
> landscapes by hanging the damned russians on trees. Instead of hanging them
> somewhere
> else. That's all about waffen SS.
What was the Soviet Army doing invading other people's countries?
From the standpoint of Baltic history there were indeed 3 SS's:
1. Allgemeine SS: They maintained and guarded the concentration camps. They
consisted of Germans and locals.
2. Waffen SS: They had two distinct functions
a. The Waffen SS units in the Einsatzkommandos. These were German soldiers
whose job it was to round up and kill Jews, communists, and other
'undesirables'. In Latvia they were assisted by volunteer local groupings
such as the Ara-js commando. In Estonia and Lithuania they also received
help from local, anti-communist or anti-Semitic activists.
b. The Waffen SS units that were drawn up during the latter half of the
German occupation to replace the Baltic armies which had been liquidated by
the Soviets. For the most part, their ranks were filled by conscripts.
During the final phase of the war their responsibility was to buy time by
holding back the Soviets in the hopes that the successors to the legal
pre-war governments could be established.
You shed great salty tears for the Russians that were killed in Leningrad
or in the Baltics, but you conveniently forget that part of the attack on
Leningrad was in revenge for the sneak attack on Finland in 1939, and that
the Russians fighting in the Baltics were fighting on enemy territory
against an extremely hostile indigenous population. After what the USSR had
done to the Baltics in 1940 the local populations would have forged
alliances with the Devil himself to keep them out.
--
Best regards,
Eugene Holman
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <holman-ya02408000...@news.helsinki.fi>,
hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> You shed great salty tears for the Russians that were killed in Leningrad
> or in the Baltics, but you conveniently forget that part of the attack on
> Leningrad was in revenge for the sneak attack on Finland in 1939, and that
> the Russians fighting in the Baltics were fighting on enemy territory
> against an extremely hostile indigenous population. After what the USSR had
> done to the Baltics in 1940 the local populations would have forged
> alliances with the Devil himself to keep them out.
Eugene, your heartwarming story about Finns' revenge for the winter war and
Balts in general being sooo scared of Soviets' return as the basis of their
alliance with Nazi's has only one problem. According to your own statement
that I happen to agree with, the population of the Soviet Union as a whole
took on greater losses from the hands of its own state, than the any state
or external power. But with exception of ROA, a rather captive audience,
Nazis never had such enthusiastic grass-roots support from the Slavs as
they did from the Balts (although if you believe some Ukrainian
"ethnologists" Russians are Finns with extra Mongolian blood...). In other
words, you conveniently forget in your historical reconstructions the role
played by the fact that Balts were never considered by Nazis as an
extermination target. Poles were not much happier with the Reds than Finns
or Estonians but somehow I don't read much about Polish SS. Oh, yeh, they
were not allowed, right? - somehow them Germans felt that Estonians would
do a better job...
Regards,
V.
--
Vladimir Svetlov, Ph. D.
McArdle Lab for Cancer Research
UW-Madison
1400 University Ave.
Madison, WI 53705
Vladimir Makarenko
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <35942A98...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>, Vladimir Makarenko
> <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > Historians concede that the Soviet Union killed considerably more of its
> > > > own citizens, not to mention citizens of the countries it invaded and
> > > > occupied, than Nazi Germany did.
> > >
> > > Prove it. Give the references.
>
> No problem.
>
Problem still there and that's why you tried to escape into bulk citation, what
I don'tunderstand why have you hoped that I would sink in them?
Now let's go one step a time:
> http://www.laissezfaire.org/pl7366.html
> Most murderous governments in human history
>
> DEATH BY GOVERNMENT
> by R.J. Rummel
> (Transaction Books, 1994)
> (reviewed by Doug Bandow, May 1995)
>
What the number the politologist have to tell us? Let's have a look, it
is:"61,911,000 Murdered".
Apart from ridiculous precision of the number 61,911,000 when added to 27,000,000
mln killed
in WWII we got 89 mln. for the country with original population between 130 to
150 mln depending on year. What it means is that by the time Stalin dies there
couldn't
be more than some tens millions of the total population.
Now let's try to count on our own using Mr. Holman's data:
> 1. Consolidating Soviet power: approx. 7,500,000
> http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/russia/part1.html
> Ted Grant: Russia: from revolution to counter-revolution
>
That is a civil war. But Mr. Holman in need to make his point, OK,
7,500,000
> 2. Famine in the Ukraine: approx. 6,500,000
> BLACK FAMINE IN UKRAINE 1932-33 A STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE
> by Andrew Gregorovich http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/
>
> HOW MANY DIED?
> "CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES place the number of deaths in Ukraine due to this
> enforced famine, at about 4,800,000. Many recognized scholars, however have
> estimated the number between 5 million to 8 million."
>
I guess the number is at least twice inflated but let's add it
+6,500,000= 14,000,000
> 3. Stalin's purges and Great Terror: approx. 750,000
> The origins and consequences of Stalin's Great Terror
> A lecture by Professor Vadim Z. Rogovin
> http://www.socialequality.com/public_html/prioriss/iwb5-6/terror.htm
>
>
+750,000 = 14,750,000
> ***********************************************************
>
> Then there are the tens of millions who died in the gulags, more than a
> million people from the Baltic countries who died from the rigors of
> deportation to Siberia. the slaughter of the Don CosSACKS
>
14,750,000 + more 1mln balts = 16 mln Now 61,911,000 - 16,000,000 = 45,911,000.
Unexplained 45,911,000 Mr. Holman allocates to the Gulag,
and slaughter of the Don's Cossacks (Mr. Holman do you know how
many Cossacks there were?)
And eventually from the source with which Mr.Holman kindly supplied us goes the
final statement:
"If one combines all these sources, then the figure that emerges of prisoners who
were repressed for political reasons reaches approximately 4 million during the
Stalin period. Those actually shot number between 700,000 and 800,000." ("The
origins and consequences of Stalin's Great Terror"
A lecture by Professor Vadim Z. Rogovin) I would recommend to read it for those who
are
interested.
Then Mr. Holman asks
> Do I need to continue?
>
Sure you don't, you've already made a fool of yourself. If it were not about lives
it would be funny.
One thing I don't understand is why you so dissatisfied with lower numbers? Is it
because of your obsession to prove that Nazi was better than Soviets (Russians) ?
You'll never succeed to do that,
please put up with reality.
You again demonstrated that your assertions on russian-soviet topics is superficial
and as rule
wrong on purpose or not. I remember your preposterous statement that russian culture
was for
two centuries dominated by french one and it's reflected in Petersburg's
architecture. And many
others. May be it's time for you to retire? Or better to change subject?
VM
Vladimir Makarenko
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <35942A98...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>, Vladimir Makarenko
> <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > But anyway, Mr. Holman took a labor to enlighten audience on how one
> has really
> > to see the history:
> >
> > Chapter 1. Finns and nazis.
> >
> > Finland never was an ally of Germany. Because definition of the word
> "ally"
> > in all the dictionaries is wrong.
>
> Finland was NOT an ally of Germany. No responsible historian has ever
> claimed that Finland was an ally of Germany.
>
I have already learned what historians for you are "responsible". Like that one who
claims 62 mln victims of Stalin's rule.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary/Thesaurus
>
> 2al─ly \"a-'l, e-"l\ noun pl allies (1598)
> 1 : a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league
> 2 : a plant or animal linked to another by genetic or taxonomic proximity
> 3 : one that is associated with another as a helper : auxiliary
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
And two german divisions under finnish command and supply by raw materials,
etc., etc., all that doesn't qualify Finland as collaborator of Germany.
What is your goal? To make people shrug?
> On the other hand, the USSR which had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
> with Germany in 1939, WAS an ally of Germany right up until June 22, 1941.
> Finland, in turn, was a *cobelligerent* of Germany:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary/Thesaurus
>
> co─bel─lig─er─ent \'ko-be-"lij-rent, -"li-je-\ noun (1813)
> : a country fighting with another power against a common enemy
> cobelligerent adjective
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Germans sneak-attacked the USSR on June 22, 1941.
Are you kidding again? About the attack was well known long before,
Stalin'sstupidity was the reason for the Soviets turned unprepared.
> Finland hesitated for
> a few days while its government weighed the options,
They just wanted to see if germans go as victorious as everywhere, after all
Mannerhaim knewwhat it means - to fight russians.
> then it also joined in
> the attack against the USSR.
Decided to participate in looting. "Ne propadat' zhe dobru, vse rano russkim
kayuk!"
> Unlike the Germans, the Finns were fighting
> for limited objectives: to regain the area it had been forced to cede to
> the USSR after the 1939-40 Winter War. This is why this particular campaign
> in Finnish historiography is referred to as 'The Continuation War'
> (Jatkosota).
>
"What world war two? never heard...never saw...we just were hanging out with
girls..."Finnish historiography (C)
> > It must imply mutual love, but not sharing
> > purposes
> > and mutual support. But as we know there were no love between the two.
> > And Finland had nothing to do with starving the
> > population of Leningrad. Indeed finns could even capture the city but as
> Mannerheim
> > fell into paralytic state of nostalgia they stopped their offense. It's just
> > coincidence that
> > it happened when Zhukov overtook the command of the city defense. Would
> the finns
> > wanted they took even Moscow, Stalingrad and win Kursk battle. Just like that.
> > But the state of nostalgia turned to be so deep that finns even returned the
> > territory they
> > got and moved back home.
> > And finns tried their best to help to supply the starving population.
> They were
> > sending
> > shells to pave the "life road" not to destroy it. That's all about Finland WW2
> > history.
>
> This unfortunate episode in Finnish-Soviet relations would hardly have
> taken place if the USSR had not cowardly attacked Finland
Take it to soc.history.would-if. One point need to be explained what is it
-"cowardly attacked"? It gave Finland an option, the latter refuse it, the policy
proceeded
by other means.
> in 1939 and
> relieved it of 1/10 of its territory and saddling it with the problem of
> 1/8 of its population suddenly becoming homeless, impoverished refugees. Of
> course Finland was going to use the opportunity offered by an all-out war
> on the USSR to regain territory which had literally been stolen from it the
> year before.
> The fact that Stalin's old buddy Hitler stabbed him in the
> back
Stalin hadn't had any buddies. And Hitler stabbed not Stalin but people of USSR.
> is not Finland's fault, it just provided a convenient window of
> opportunity.
>
Opportunity KKnD.
> Stalin's purge resulted in one in five persons in Leningrad being killed,
> arrested or deported during the course of a few months.
Reference, but please not again to the kind of social fiction wrote by demagogueswho
are making money of other people deaths. And I guess that deportation is not
the same as murder by starvation.
> The siege of
> Leningrad, during which 670,000 of approximately 3,500,000, also about 1 in
> 5, were killed over the course ofsomewhat less than three years. But, as
> Mr. Kagalenko will be glad to corroborate, there are those of us
> contributing to this discussion who regard people being killed by the
> agents of a foreign government as somehow a more serious matter than people
> being killed by their own government.
>
If you meant to relate something by this paragraph, you failed.
[ the usual apology "waffen SS were baltics armies" skipped ]
> You shed great salty tears for the Russians that were killed in Leningrad
>
I know you didn't, I know you find dead russians funny.
or in the Baltics, but you conveniently forget that part of the attack on
> Leningrad was in revenge for the sneak attack on Finland in 1939, and that
> the Russians fighting in the Baltics were fighting on enemy territory
> against an extremely hostile indigenous population. After what the USSR had
> done to the Baltics in 1940
> the local populations would have forged alliances with the Devil himself
They did. But is it worth to celebrate by marching streets and greeting speeches
from
authoroties?
VM
Eugene Holman
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> In article <holman-ya02408000...@news.helsinki.fi>,
> hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
>
> > You shed great salty tears for the Russians that were killed in Leningrad
> > or in the Baltics, but you conveniently forget that part of the attack on
> > Leningrad was in revenge for the sneak attack on Finland in 1939, and that
> > the Russians fighting in the Baltics were fighting on enemy territory
> > against an extremely hostile indigenous population. After what the USSR had
> > done to the Baltics in 1940 the local populations would have forged
> > alliances with the Devil himself to keep them out.
>
> Eugene, your heartwarming story about Finns' revenge for the winter war and
> Balts in general being sooo scared of Soviets' return as the basis of their
> alliance with Nazi's has only one problem. According to your own statement
> that I happen to agree with, the population of the Soviet Union as a whole
> took on greater losses from the hands of its own state, than the any state
> or external power. But with exception of ROA, a rather captive audience,
> Nazis never had such enthusiastic grass-roots support from the Slavs as
> they did from the Balts...
We've all seen those films of the old, haggard, Ukrainian welcoming German
tanks with the sign of the cross as they rolled over the border of the
Ukrainian S.S.R. Even if the Nazis didn't have high regard for the
Ukrainians, the Ukrainians, which had just experienced a Holocaust-like
famine orchestrated from Moscow, welcomed the Nazis as liberators, at least
during the first few days of the war. The Nazis were no fools, and they
treated the Baltic people, who had just endured a year of Soviet rule,
humiliation, and genocide, and thus had an immense amount of pent-up
anti-Soviet hate ready to be exploited for the Nazi cause, somewhat better
than they treated the Poles, who they just wanted to eliminate as quickly
as possible. You should also remember that Slovakia and Croatia were two
Slavic nations that collaborated extensively with the Nazis, as did, to a
lesser extent, Bulgaria.
> In other
> words, you conveniently forget in your historical reconstructions the role
> played by the fact that Balts were never considered by Nazis as an
> extermination target.
This is not so. See discussion below.
> Poles were not much happier with the Reds than Finns
> or Estonians but somehow I don't read much about Polish SS.
The Germans behaved themselves better in Finland and the Baltic states than
they did in Poland. When Finland extricated herself from the war in 1944 by
signing a separate peace with the USSR, the Germans were extremely annoyed
at their erstwhile Finnish comrades-in-arms. As they withdrew from Finland
they burned cities and forests, exploded bridges, poisoned wells, and raped
women in the best traditions of the Wehrmacht.
> Oh, yeh, they
> were not allowed, right? - somehow them Germans felt that Estonians would
> do a better job...
The Nazis had a racial pecking order among the Slavs:
1. Czechs and Slovaks
2. Poles and Ukrainians
3. Belarussians
Š
999. Russians
Many of the documents presented at the Nuremberg Trials, particularly those
pertaining to abducting Slavic children and raising them as Germans within
the framework of the Lebensborn Organization, made this clear. The Balts
are not Slavs, but neither are they Aryans. According to Andrew Ezergailis:
"The plans for the future of Latvians in regards to many different issues
were argued by a variety of Nazi ahencies.(9) All of the plans ended with
the extinction of the Latvian nation, although its end was to come
differently from that formulated for the Jews. Should all Latvians be
germanized, or just the racially valuable portion of that people? Should
they be deported to easterrn regions or be reduced to menial labor in
Latvia itself? Should the germanization begin in eastern Latvia, where the
racial stock was judged inferior and deportations would be appropriate, or
should it begin with interbreeding in the west, where the intermixture of
German and Norse blood was greater. There was also a great deal of
discussion about the appropriate level of education for Latvians: should
they receive education beyond the fourth grade or not? Or should the
racially valuable part be sent to Germany? At first the Nazi did anticipate
opening the university, but as problems at the front grew, medical and
veterinary schools were allowed to restart in December 1941.(10)"
(9) One of the propaganda aims was to instill a hatred for the Latvian
state. The first purveyance of the idea came over the radio waves from
Königsberg, and were managed by the anti-Comintern nureau. The basic
message was that the statesmanhip of independent Latvia was "blind" and
that finally Latvians have found true security under the Greater German
aegis ("Bijus[v]o Latvijas aklums," Kurzemes Va[-]rds, Jule 1941, no. 21).
10. The gymnasia were also to be banned. In 1942 both the gymnnasia and the
university at large, with the exception of the history faculty, were
reopened.
(Source: Andrew Ezergailis, *The Holocaust in Latvia*, Riga and Washington
D.C., 1996, pg. 117,)
On July 21, 1941, Alfred Rosenberg wrote to Hinrich Lohse, Reichskommissar
for Ostland:
"The aim of Reichskammars for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Belorussia
must be to establish a protectorate of the reich and then, by winning over
the racially valuable elements and by a policy of resettlement measures,
this region must be made one with the Greater German reich. The Baltic Sea
must become a northern inland sea and under German careŠOne must take into
consideration that 50 persent of the Estonians through Danish, German, and
Swedish blood are strongly germanized, can be considered as people akin to
us. The assimilable part of Latvia is considerably smaller than in
Estonia."
(Quoted in Ezergailis, op. cit., pg. 119).
> (although if you believe some Ukrainian
> "ethnologists" Russians are Finns with extra Mongolian blood...).
There is certainly some truth in these claims. Many of the 'Russian'
inhabitants of northern Russia were Udmurts, Komis, Mordvins, Maris, Finns,
Vespsians, Meryas, Muroms, Meshchers, Izhorians, or Karelians four or five
generations ago. All of these Finno-Ugric peoples have shown a negative
population dynamic as Russians have 'expanded' into their territories. What
has actually happened, though, is that with Russians moving into their
traditional territories, many of these aboriginal Finno-Ugric peoples have
given up their older linguistic and cultural identities and 'become'
Russians. I wrote a posting here a few days ago about the fate of the
Ingrian Finns. Due to political oppressions, lack of support for their
traditional language or culture, physical isolation from Finalnd, and other
factors, many Ingrian Finns are officially registered as ethnic Russians
and have russified their names, even if their grandparents and parents were
listed as Finns and spoke Finnish as their native language.
It is just this fate that the Baltic peoples, which together don't even
amount to the population of St. Petersburg but are fiercely proud of their
cultural and linguistic identities, even to the point of being (heaven
forbid!) 'nationalists', are eager to avoid.
Eugene Holman
In article <3595D430...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>, Vladimir Makarenko
<ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > In article <35942A98...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>, Vladimir Makarenko
> > <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > But anyway, Mr. Holman took a labor to enlighten audience on how one
> > has really
> > > to see the history:
> > >
> > > Chapter 1. Finns and nazis.
> > >
> > > Finland never was an ally of Germany. Because definition of the word
> > "ally"
> > > in all the dictionaries is wrong.
> >
> > Finland was NOT an ally of Germany. No responsible historian has ever
> > claimed that Finland was an ally of Germany.
> >
> I have already learned what historians for you are "responsible". Like
that one who
> claims 62 mln victims of Stalin's rule.
Excuse me, but you really ought to do some work on your reading
comprehension. The claim was, and I quote:
"The most murderous system was the "Soviet Gulag State," as Rummel refers to
it. Some 62 million died, many for no apparent reason."
This is not limited to Stalin's rule, but rather includes everything from
the struggle to establish a Bolshevik state until Dec. 25, 1991, when the
USSR went the same path as my kitchen garbage.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary/Thesaurus
> >
> > 2al€ly \"a-'l, e-"l\ noun pl allies (1598)
> > 1 : a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league
> > 2 : a plant or animal linked to another by genetic or taxonomic proximity
> > 3 : one that is associated with another as a helper : auxiliary
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> And two german divisions under finnish command and supply by raw materials,
> etc., etc., all that doesn't qualify Finland as collaborator of Germany.
> What is your goal? To make people shrug?
There is no denying the fact that Finland collaborated with Germany; after
all they were fighting together against a common enemy. Collaborating is
not the same as being in an alliance. Nikita Khrushchev "collaborated" with
John Kennedy to restrain Fidel Castro and keep him from provoking a nuclear
war. That doesn't mean that the USSR and the USA were cold-war allies.
The people of Leningrad would not have been the subject of Finnish wrath
(and German sadism) if the people of Vyborg, Sortavaa, Käkisalmi and other
Finnish cities had not been bombed and forced to lose their homes in a
cowardly and uncalled-for attack on Finland a year and half before. I'm not
defending the siege of Leningrad, I'm just saying that it wasn't an
arbitrary event. The irony of it is that Stalin grabbed the Finnish
territory because he thought he needed it to defend Leningrad. What
happened was that he forced a peaceful, neutral neighbor that was quite
able to defend its own territory (even single-handedly against the USSR!)
into collaboration with Germany and a consequent massive onslaught on
Leningrad, just the fate he thought he could avoid by knocking Finland out.
Talk about sowing what you rape...I meant reap.
> > On the other hand, the USSR which had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
> > with Germany in 1939, WAS an ally of Germany right up until June 22, 1941.
> > Finland, in turn, was a *cobelligerent* of Germany:
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary/Thesaurus
> >
> > co€bel€lig€er€ent \'ko-be-"lij-rent, -"li-je-\ noun (1813)
> > : a country fighting with another power against a common enemy
> > cobelligerent adjective
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > The Germans sneak-attacked the USSR on June 22, 1941.
>
> Are you kidding again? About the attack was well known long before,
> Stalin'sstupidity was the reason for the Soviets turned unprepared.
It doesn't matter if spies and military intelligence knew about it, but Stalin
was too stupid to make any preparations - and all the historical sources
show he was that stupid - then from the standpoint of the Soviet Army and
people, who were caught with their collective pants down, it was a sneak
attack. How much of the tragedy of the siege of Leningrad is simply due to
Stalin's arrogance and stupidity, and consequent Soviet unpreparedness?
How much of the hate for Stalin's Soviet Union that seems like almost a
reflex among the Finns and Baltic peoples is a consequence of their
experience living next door or, much against heir own will, in a country
ruled by such an individual?
> > Finland hesitated for
> > a few days while its government weighed the options,
>
> They just wanted to see if germans go as victorious as everywhere, after all
> Mannerheim knewwhat it means - to fight russians.
He certainly did, having been trained by Russians. Mannerheim served
honorably in the Imperial Russian Army as a young man, and he many personal
friendships with people in St. Peterberg/Leningrad, including more than one
former paramour. Of course he was not the decision maker in 1941, he was
commander-in-chief, responsible for implementing decisions made by others.
When he took over the post of President of Finland in 1944, and was thus in
a position to make decisions himself, he quickly extricated the country
from the war, even though the price it had to pay was tremendous (slightly
more than 1/10 of Finnish territory, including its second largest city
(Vyborg/Viipuri), industrial heartland, and only ice-free seaport
(Pechenga/Petsamo), a large Soviet military base at Porkkala, 50 km. from
the capital, one out of eight Finns made a homeless refugee whose only
possessions were what they had been able to carry with them when they were
expelled from their homes, $300,000,000 in reparations, and the obligation
to chase the Germans out, which resulted in yet another nasty little war).
Yes, Mannerheim know very well what it meant to fight Russians, that's why
he got Finland out of the war as fast as he could.
>
> > then it also joined in
> > the attack against the USSR.
>
> Decided to participate in looting. "Ne propadat' zhe dobru, vse rano russkim
> kayuk!"
Just getting some revenge for the Soviet looting of Viipuri, Sortavala,
Käkisalmi...
Looting is clearly not a good thing, but why do you get all upset over
Finns and Germans doing to (the outskirts of) Leningrad precisely what the
Soviet Army had done in Finnish towns and, in a different way, the Baltics,
in 1940? Why is it so terrible for an army to participate in the besieging
of Leningrad, but all right for the Soviets to have bombed and killed
thousands of people, and then looted Finnish cities, in addition to purging
and looting the Baltic states. You sow what you rape...I meant reap. How
can you imagine that people who have had these things done to them without
provoking it are not going to use any opportunity available to avenge such
criminal behavior and perhaps gain back some of what they had had stolen
from them?
> > Unlike the Germans, the Finns were fighting
> > for limited objectives: to regain the area it had been forced to cede to
> > the USSR after the 1939-40 Winter War. This is why this particular campaign
> > in Finnish historiography is referred to as 'The Continuation War'
> > (Jatkosota).
> >
>
> "What world war two? never heard...never saw...we just were hanging out with
> girls..."Finnish historiography (C)
Finland was a neutral country:
1. It was attacked by the USSR and forced to cede 1/10 of its territory.
[PEACEFUL INTERLUDE]
2. It participated with Germany in a counter-attack on the north-western
part of the USSR, including the territory which it had been forced to cede
to the USSR the previous year.
3. It extricated itself from the war with the USSR by signing a separate
peace treaty.
4. It was obligated by the terms of the separate peace to go to war with
its former cobelligerent, Germany
There is a causal chain between these four wars, and each of them is a
clearly distinct historical event.
> >
> > This unfortunate episode in Finnish-Soviet relations would hardly have
> > taken place if the USSR had not cowardly attacked Finland
>
> Take it to soc.history.would-if. One point need to be explained what is it
> -"cowardly attacked"? It gave Finland an option, the latter refuse it, the
> policy proceeded by other means.
This would indeed by a sorry world is countries settled their problems by
diktat, ultimatum, and naked aggression. It was a cowardly attack and
violated nmerous international agreements.
What the USSR did to Finland in 1939 was uncivilized by any standard, as
was what it did to the Baltic states in 1940 which - more than Finland -
were willing to accede to Soviet demands. You cannot deny this, nor can you
deny that the - let us say - unwillingness - of young Baltic men to don Soviet
uniforms and take up arms against the Germans in 1941 and again in 1944 is
a direct consequence of first-hand experience with Soviet behavior, both as
neighbors and as victims.
>
> > The fact that Stalin's old buddy Hitler stabbed him in the
> > back
>
> Stalin hadn't had any buddies. And Hitler stabbed not Stalin but people
of USSR.
Stalin was the head of a government that entered an alliance with Hitler.
>
> > is not Finland's fault, it just provided a convenient window of
> > opportunity.
> >
>
> Opportunity KKnD.
>
> > Stalin's purge resulted in one in five persons in Leningrad being killed,
> > arrested or deported during the course of a few months.
>
> Reference, but please not again to the kind of social fiction wrote by
demagogueswho
> are making money of other people deaths.
The author I quoted, Vadim Z. Rogovin, is a leading Russian authority on
this subject. He is not a demogogue, nor does he write 'social fiction'.
You might want to investigate some of the material available on-line
(http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/title.htm) in Prof. Rogovin's major work
"1937: Stalin's Year of Terror". The introduction, at
http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/intro.htm is particularly interesting.
"1937: Stalin's Year of Terror is the first major study by a Russian
Marxist historian of the most tragic and fateful year in the history of the
Soviet Union. Possessing an encyclopedic knowledge of Soviet source
material, including archival documents that have only recently been
released, Professor Vadim Rogovin presents a detailed and penetrating
analysis of the causes, impact and consequences of Stalin's purges." (from
the URL above).
> And I guess that deportation is not the same as murder by starvation.
Many of the people who were deported were women with children and old
people. They were deported in unheated train cars, often on trips lasting
more than a week, across the wastes of Siberia. Needless to say, the death
rate was considerable. I leave it for your to judge whether starving in a
besieged city while people are dying all around you, is worse or better
than starving in a railroad car, while people are dying all around you.
> > The siege of
> > Leningrad, during which 670,000 of approximately 3,500,000, also about 1 in
> > 5, were killed over the course ofsomewhat less than three years. But, as
> > Mr. Kagalenko will be glad to corroborate, there are those of us
> > contributing to this discussion who regard people being killed by the
> > agents of a foreign government as somehow a more serious matter than people
> > being killed by their own government.
> >
>
> If you meant to relate something by this paragraph, you failed.
>
> [ the usual apology "waffen SS were baltics armies" skipped ]
>
>
> > You shed great salty tears for the Russians that were killed in Leningrad
> >
>
> I know you didn't, I know you find dead russians funny.
That was a needless insult. I have no reason to consider the death of a
Russian any better or any worse than the death of anyone else. I've visited
Leningrad/St. Petersburg several times and know what the people living
there went through. I've seen 75-year old Russians with a few military
medals on their chests and an arm or leg shot off selling their last
personal possessions or reduced to begging or garbage-picking in order to
be able to eat.
But the tragedy of Leningrad was not an isolated event. The people of
Leningrad were victims of Stalin's stupidity and arrogance just as much as
the people in Finland and the Baltics were. As I've said here many times,
we just tend to react to these situations - thouisand of people being
killed - more strongly when they are caused (or seem to be caused) by a
foreign country than when their own government is the cause.
>
> > the local populations would have forged alliances with the Devil himself
>
> They did. But is it worth to celebrate by marching streets and greeting
speeches
> from
> authorities?
>
You have to leave that to the peoples in the Baltic countries whose
independence these men were struggling for to decide that.
To change the subject, how do you think the populations and governments in
the Baltic countries should relate to the men who, during the last days of
the war, were forced, at gunpoint, to don Soviet uniforms and fight against
their brothers, sons, and fathers in German uniforms, thus destroying the
possibility of restoring the independence of their homelands?
Eugene Holman
In article <3595C233...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>, Vladimir Makarenko
<ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > In article <35942A98...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>, Vladimir Makarenko
> > <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > >
There are two MAJOR flaws in your argumentation.
1. Some of the 62,000,000 (or 61,911,00 if you will) people are included in
the 27,000,000 victims of WW II.
2. You forget that new people are born to replace the ones that die.
Thus, your statement that:
in WWII we got 89 mln. for the country with original population between 130 to
> 150 mln depending on year. What it means is that by the time Stalin dies there
> couldn't
> be more than some tens millions of the total population.
Is absurd.
Here is a small but illustrative example of 'death by government, Soviet style':
Surce: http://www.historyhouse.com/stories/winter_war.htm
(On the results of the Finnish-Soviet War of 1939-1940)
"...Finland managed to inflict in between 230,000 and 270,000 fatalities plus
200,000-300,000 injuries on Russia, while losing 48,745 troops and enduring
159,000 other casualties during the campaign. It held on for as long as it
could before succumbing on March 13, 1940, but only after a two-week-long
bombing and artillery effort by Russia, which threw everything it had at
poor Finland. Mannerheim's orders to his troops upon their surrender
survive as a piece of inspired patriotism. While cleaning up, a Finnish
officer muttered to a photojournalist, "The wolves will eat well this
year."
After the "victory", a Russian officer muttered, "Well, we¹ve won just
enough land to bury our dead."
**************************************************
Ignoring the fact that the war itself was immoral, the Soviet Army was
totally unprepared to fight in winter conditions and thus sustained
astounding and unacceptable losses. According to the figures above, the
order of magnitude is generally accepted in Finnish as well as Soviet
sources, the Finnish/Soviet kill rate was approx. 1:5, and the casualty
rate something approaching 1:2. This shows a frightening incompetence on
the part of the Soviet Army. A significant reason for this incompetence was
Stalin's purging of the officers' corps a few years previously and the
resulting lack of well-trained military leadership.
>
> Now let's try to count on our own using Mr. Holman's data:
>
> > 1. Consolidating Soviet power: approx. 7,500,000
> > http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/russia/part1.html
> > Ted Grant: Russia: from revolution to counter-revolution
> >
>
> That is a civil war. But Mr. Holman in need to make his point, OK,
>
> 7,500,000
The struggle to consolidate Soviet power demanded almost TWICE as many
lives as Russia had lost during WW I. No Bolshevik Revolution and
consequent struggle to consolidate Soviet power = no civil war. These
deaths are part of the price paid for establishing and consolidating the
illegal Soviet regime and are thus legitimately tallied as Soviet
government-caused deaths.
>
>
> > 2. Famine in the Ukraine: approx. 6,500,000
> > BLACK FAMINE IN UKRAINE 1932-33 A STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE
> > by Andrew Gregorovich http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/
> >
>
> > HOW MANY DIED?
> > "CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES place the number of deaths in Ukraine due to this
> > enforced famine, at about 4,800,000. Many recognized scholars, however have
> > estimated the number between 5 million to 8 million."
> >
>
> I guess the number is at least twice inflated but let's add it.
Why do you regard it as inflated? This is a *conservative* estimate.
>
> +6,500,000= 14,000,000
Okay. We already have more than twice the number killed in Hitler's Jewish
Holocaust, and we haven't even gotten to the good stuff yet.
> > 3. Stalin's purges and Great Terror: approx. 750,000
> > The origins and consequences of Stalin's Great Terror
> > A lecture by Professor Vadim Z. Rogovin
> > http://www.socialequality.com/public_html/prioriss/iwb5-6/terror.htm
> >
> >
>
> +750,000 = 14,750,000
>
> > ***********************************************************
Note that Stalin's purges were the indirect causes of many, many more
deaths. Part of the Soviet military's extremely high casualty rate in both
the Finnish Winter War and during the first weeks of WW II is a direct
consequence of Stalin's purges of the military and the consequent shortage
of trained officers.
> >
> > Then there are the tens of millions who died in the gulags, more than a
> > million people from the Baltic countries who died from the rigors of
> > deportation to Siberia. the slaughter of the Don CosSACKS
> >
>
> 14,750,000 + more 1mln balts = 16 mln Now 61,911,000 - 16,000,000 =
45,911,000.
>
> Unexplained 45,911,000 Mr. Holman allocates to the Gulag,
> and slaughter of the Don's Cossacks (Mr. Holman do you know how
> many Cossacks there were?)
There are presently about 2,500,000 Don Cossacks in Russia. They were
fiercely anti-Bolshevik, and about 70% of those living along the Don were
killed in conjunction with the consolidation of Soviet power. A generation
later, in a manner similar to the Balts, the Don Cossacks collaborated with
the Nazis during WW II in the hope of ridding themselves of hated Soviet rule.
They were the object of severe reprisals after the war because of their
collaboration with the Nazis.
>
> And eventually from the source with which Mr.Holman kindly supplied us
goes the
> final statement:
> "If one combines all these sources, then the figure that emerges of
prisoners who
> were repressed for political reasons reaches approximately 4 million
during the
> Stalin period. Those actually shot number between 700,000 and 800,000." ("The
> origins and consequences of Stalin's Great Terror"
> A lecture by Professor Vadim Z. Rogovin) I would recommend to read it for
those who
> are
> interested.
>
> Then Mr. Holman asks
>
> > Do I need to continue?
> >
>
> Sure you don't, you've already made a fool of yourself. If it were not
about lives
> it would be funny.
>
Okay. Let's start from the beginning again. My thesis is that the Soviet
regime killed more people than any other regime during the 20th century.
I've collected information from several sources, in support of this, but
I'll direct you to one which says it all succinctly:
http://www.princeton.edu/~bdcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part5, and the works
of the authors mentioned there.
1. The consolidation of communist power (1917 - 1924): 7,500,000
These include:
- Death due to hardship at labor camps: 15,000
- Death due to man-made famine: 3,000,000
- Death due to the execution of class enemies by the Cheka: 300,000
- Deaths in civil conflict, including 1,000,000 Don Cossacks 4,185,000
2. Stalin's Soviet Union (1924 - 1953): 43,000,000
- Death due to hardship at labor camps: about 1,000,000/year: 29,000,000
- Death due to man-made famine
Ukraine 6,500,000
Caucasus 1,000,000
Elsewhere 1,000,000
- Death due to executions
'Great Terror' of 1936 -1939 1,000,000
Other Stalin-era executions, including those in Baltics 4,000,000
- Deaths due to deportations 500,000
3. The post-Stalin Soviet Union (1953 - 1991)
- Death due to hardship at labor camps: 3,000,000
TOTAL 53,500,000
This is somewhat lower than the 61,911,000 claimed by Rummel, but the
discrepancies can be attributed to:
- differences of opinion concerning the exact number of labor camp deaths.
I have used a very rough figure of a 10% mortality rate in an average camp
population of 10,000,000. More precise analysis would show that death rates
were sometimes considerably higher, and that in some years the prison camp
population reached as much as 15,000,000;
- the fact that a portion of the victims of the siege of Leningrad and some
of the casualties in the Finnish-Soviet war must be attributed to the
criminal negligence which sent an ill-equipped army to fight a war which it
could not possibly believe in under incompetent (= recently purged)
leadership, and which left a large city like Leningrad so vulnerable to a
massive attack;
- forced participation in imperialist campaigns abroad. These included the
anti-communist uprisings in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968), as
well as the deaths sustained by Soviet troops at the hands of locals in
non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union during the last year of Soviet
power.
I have not included the Afghanistan War, even though it resulted in tens of
thousands of Soviet citizens being killed in the name of Soviet imperial
glory.
CONCLUSION
I can come to no other conclusion but that the USSR, particularly between
1924 and 1953, when it killed approx. 29,000,000 of its own citizens in 29
years, was a more murderous regime than Hitler's, most of whose 21,000,000
civilian victims in 12 years were not German subjects, but rather Jews,
Gypsies, etc. living on territory which had been conquered by Germany or
was undrr its military occupation.
> One thing I don't understand is why you so dissatisfied with lower
numbers? Is it
> because of your obsession to prove that Nazi was better than Soviets
(Russians) ?
> You'll never succeed to do that,
> please put up with reality.
I am simply trying to show that the Soviets had the most murderous regime
in this century, and that this murderousness was directed primarily at its
own citizens, many of whom, like the Balts, had no desire whatsoever to be
in the Soviet Union. Which you consider worse is a matter of personal
taste: I give the Soviet regime the gold abomination award, with the Nazis
running a distant third, after the silver-taking Soviet-inspired Communist
Chinese under Mao Zedong, for bronze. Of cousre I'm only judging in terms
of absolute numbers of people killed. I think we'd both agree that the
Nazis would win hands down if we were judging the efficiency of the
methodology used for mass murder. If I were a non-Jewish Balt forced to
choose between the two I would have litle difficulty deciding. After a year
of Soviet rule even many Latvian Jews considered that they would be better
off living under Nazi occupation than in the Soviet Union.
>
> You again demonstrated that your assertions on russian-soviet topics is
superficial
> and as rule
> wrong on purpose or not. I remember your preposterous statement that
russian culture
> was for
> two centuries dominated by french one and it's reflected in Petersburg's
> architecture.
Not all Russian culture, but the culture of the intelligentsia class in the
capital and those who sought to emulate them. You know as well as I do the
important and, in Europe, unique, role that French language and culture
played in 19th century Russian cultivated circles. And, yes, the mouch of
the architecture of St. Petersburg owes a heavy debt to French
architecture. Even the Hermitage (what language is the word 'Hermitage'?),
although the conception of Rastrelli, an Italian, is a Russian Versailles
and Louvre. Since the time of Prince Golitsyn the Russian élite has
celebrated with French champagne (> sovetskoe shampanskoe) and caviar.
Cultural historians of St. Petersburg claim that the Francophilia which
became such a central element in the way of life of the upper class was a
reaction against the predominance of people of German extraction in leading
positions: it was a disguised and elegant form of Germanophobia. Traces of
this Francophilia still show up in the fact that the Russian words are
still transliterated in the French way in many older English words from
Russian, e.g. rouble (nowadays often spelled 'ruble' as well), Tchaikovsky
rather than Chaykovsky as it would be without the 'French connection'.
> And many
> others. May be it's time for you to retire? Or better to change subject?
>
I think I know my stuff well enough.
Vladimir Svetlov
> Finland was NOT an ally of Germany. No responsible historian has ever
> claimed that Finland was an ally of Germany.
Well, they routinely call Finland an ally. Finland started seeking German
alliance much in advance of 1941, and made such appeasing moves as
recognition of the Slovakia or accomodating Germany needs in regard to
Petsamo nickel.
> On the other hand, the USSR which had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
> with Germany in 1939, WAS an ally of Germany right up until June 22, 1941.
Nonsense.
> Finland, in turn, was a *cobelligerent* of Germany:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary/Thesaurus
>
> co€bel€lig€er€ent \'ko-be-"lij-rent, -"li-je-\ noun (1813)
> : a country fighting with another power against a common enemy
> cobelligerent adjective
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The Germans sneak-attacked the USSR on June 22, 1941. Finland hesitated for
> a few days while its government weighed the options, then it also joined in
> the attack against the USSR.
As if Finnish government did not submit to Germans in May of 1941 their
(Finns) list of territorial demands to Soviet Union, but were told that
this problem woild have military rather than a diplomatic solution... Joint
German-Finnish military planning actually began much earlier - after all,
not only Germans were supposed to launch an attack from Finnish territories
but Finns and Germans were to engage in coordinated military operations. Of
course, Germans did not hold Finns in as high regard as Italians, and
dumped a lot of outdated military surplus they got in Poland...
> Unlike the Germans, the Finns were fighting
> for limited objectives: to regain the area it had been forced to cede to
> the USSR after the 1939-40 Winter War. This is why this particular campaign
> in Finnish historiography is referred to as 'The Continuation War'
> (Jatkosota).
Finnish historiographers, I'm sure, already came up with some kinda excuse
for the fact that when Soviets in August of 1941 offered Finns all of their
territories ceded as a result of the March 1940 Peace Treaty in return for
separate peace with Finland, they (Finns) refused, hoping in the light of
victorious German offensive that they can get more than they'd lost in the
Winter War. Then, of course, Britain declared war on Finland, the resources
tricked down and Finnish Army just went into prostration till 1944.
You know, Eugene, no one - at least not me - saz that Finns were as bad as
Nazis or that they had no reason to hate the Soviets, but you are trying
too hard to make them look better than they were. Not the Finns as a whole,
but Finnish politicians, who as all politicians are whores and murderers,
just in various degrees.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Eugene Holman <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.baltics
Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: The more dead the better? Re: History for dummies.
>
>> Eugene Holman wrote:
>>
>2. Stalin's Soviet Union (1924 - 1953): 43,000,000
>
>- Death due to hardship at labor camps: about 1,000,000/year: 29,000,000
>
>3. The post-Stalin Soviet Union (1953 - 1991)
>
>- Death due to hardship at labor camps: 3,000,000
>
>
I offer another example, which, I believe, fits your logic of calculations.
What's the average life expectancy of men in Russia now? Some 59-61 years?
What would it be if the country was developed (like a developed Western
country)?
About 76-79?
Now, calculate, how many people die that otherwise would live longer if the
life expectancy
was as high as in the Western world. About 1 millions a year? Or maybe 3
millions.
Now make a headline: "Yeltsin government kills 3 000 000 Russian citizens a
year!!!"
(they would die anyway only later in life. If the population is not growing,
then the number
of deaths = number of births, which is about 10/1000 a year I guess)
M.K.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Vladimir Svetlov wrote:
> Well, they routinely call Finland an ally. Finland started seeking German
> alliance much in advance of 1941, and made such appeasing moves as
> recognition of the Slovakia or accomodating Germany needs in regard to
> Petsamo nickel.
Finland start to mine Soviet waters of Gulf of Finland BEFORE June 22, 1941. It
is obvious act of war and it is obvious that they knew about June 22. One the day
of the attack Hitler called Finland a German allie, and Finish government did not
expressed any disagreement with this statement. As well as Finland did not
condemned German attack on USSR on June 22, as well as did not ask German troops
to live Finland's soil, which it should have do.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Eugene Holman
In article <6n6svr$c9l$1...@osh2.datasync.com>, "Mike" <mkhr...@datasync.com>
wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eugene Holman <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.baltics
> Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 2:06 PM
> Subject: Re: The more dead the better? Re: History for dummies.
>
>
> >
> >> Eugene Holman wrote:
> >>
>
> >2. Stalin's Soviet Union (1924 - 1953): 43,000,000
> >
> >- Death due to hardship at labor camps: about 1,000,000/year: 29,000,000
> >
> >3. The post-Stalin Soviet Union (1953 - 1991)
> >
> >- Death due to hardship at labor camps: 3,000,000
> >
> >
> I offer another example, which, I believe, fits your logic of calculations.
> What's the average life expectancy of men in Russia now? Some 59-61 years?
There are problems with your reasoning.
1. It is generally acknowledged that the 'average life expectancy' for
Russianmen has decreased about 5 years since the collapse of the Soviet
Union and its primitive but basically efficient public health system.
2. Since labor camp deaths were an *inseparable feature* of Soviet life since
the early 1920s right up until 1991, mortality figures obviously make
allowances for this as well. I would wager that 'average life expectancy'
figures during the Soviet period are lower than they would be by one or two
years because of the existence of this factor. An average one million
premature deaths per year in a population of 150 - 200 million
significantly lowers average mortality rates.
> What would it be if the country was developed (like a developed Western
> country)?
> About 76-79?
First of all, one reason for this 'lack of development' was the hard-headed
insistance of sticking to the communist model, even at the point of killing
millions of people in artificial famines in reprisal for their lack of
enthusiasm for agricutural collectivization. A second reason was the human
and material resources wasted to ensure that hostage populations, such as
the Baltic
peoples, were kept in the Soviet Union, whether they wanted to be there or
not. Thirdly and finally, even without the two factors mentioned above, the
labor camp system, with its high mortality rate (10 - 15% in a labor camp
population that was usually between 10,000,000 and 15,000,0000 and was
constanlty being added to) would have a significant negative effect on
'average life expectancy', no matter how 'developed' the country would
otherwise have been.
> Now, calculate, how many people die that otherwise would live longer if the
> life expectancy
> was as high as in the Western world. About 1 millions a year? Or maybe 3
> millions.
>
> Now make a headline: "Yeltsin government kills 3 000 000 Russian citizens a
> year!!!"
>
> (they would die anyway only later in life. If the population is not growing,
> then the number
> of deaths = number of births, which is about 10/1000 a year I guess)
>
That would be a specious headline.
On the other hand:
€ A country that keeps between 5 and 10 per cent of its population locked
up in labor camps under horrible conditions and with a mortality rate of
between 10 and 15 per cent a year IS killing its citizens.
€ A country that resorts to inducing mass famines to score ideological
points IS killing its citizens.
€ A country that maintains a network of spies and informers whose job
it is to have malcontents arrested, internally exiled, incarcerated in
labor camps, or shot, in conquered areas of its territory with hosile
populations that passively resist the occupying forces, IS killing its
citizens.
Q.E.D.
Best regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> In article <holman-ya02408000...@news.helsinki.fi>,
> hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, the USSR which had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
> > with Germany in 1939, WAS an ally of Germany right up until June 22, 1941.
>
> Nonsense.
What, then, do you make of the following?
(Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html)
Modern History Sourcebook: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 1939
Text of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact
The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics desirous of strengthening the cause of peace
between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental
provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between
Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement:
Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from
any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other,
either individually or jointly with other Powers.
Article II. Should one of the High Contracting Parties become the object of
belligerent action by a third Power, the other High Contracting Party shall
in no manner lend its support to this third Power.
Article III. The Governments of the two High Contracting Parties shall in
the future maintain continual contact with one another for the purpose of
consultation in order to exchange information on problems affecting their
common interests.
Article IV. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting
Parties shall participate in any grouping of Powers whatsoever that is
directly or indirectly aimed at the other party.
Article V. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting
Parties over problems of one kind or another, both parties shall settle
these disputes or conflicts exclusively through friendly exchange of
opinion or, if necessary, through the establishment of arbitration
commissions.
Article VI. The present Treaty is concluded for a period of ten years, with
the proviso that, in so far as one of the High Contracting Parties does not
advance it one year prior to the expiration of this period, the validity of
this Treaty shall automatically be extended for another five years.
Article VII. The present treaty shall be ratified within the shortest
possible time. The ratifications shall be exchanged in Berlin. The
Agreement shall enter into force as soon as it is signed.
[The section below was not published at the time the above was announced.]
Secret Additional Protocol.
Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the
areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania),
the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the
spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the
interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.
Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of
the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of
Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the
rivers Narev, Vistula and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the
maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be
bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further
political developments.
In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a
friendly agreement.
Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the
Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its
complete political disinteredness in these areas.
Article IV. This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.
Moscow, August 23, 1939.
For the Government of the German Reich v. Ribbentrop
Plenipotentiary of the Government of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov
*********************************************
The above document is unquestionably the text of an *alliance*,
unparalleled by anything in Finnish-German diplomatic history. It was
signed for a period of ten years (Article VI) and was never formally
nullified or canceled by either of the Contracting Parties. Thus, it was
legally in force and binding on both Contacting Parties until right up
until its violation by Germany on June 22, 1941.
The consequences of this alliance from the Baltic standpoint are briefly
presented here: http://www.bafl.com/mrp.html:
The Baltic peoples of Estonia,Latvia and Lithuania, as well as their
compatriots living abroad, pause today to reflect on the infamous date of
August 23, 1939--prelude to the Baltic tragedy and suffering its people
have endured in the intervening years, leading right up to the demise of
the Soviet Union and the regaining of freedom and independence for their
Baltic homelands. For on that day Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union penned
their mutual agreement to a nonaggression treaty--otherwise known as the
Hitler-Stalin Pact or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact--with Foreign Commissar
Vyacheslav Molotov signing for the Government of the Union of Socialist
Soviet Republics, and Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop signing for
the Government of the German Reich.
Attached to the Pact was a Secret Supplementary Protocol that assigned
spheres of influence in Eastern Europe (including the Baltics) to each of
the two signatories. As a direct result of this collusion between Communist
and Nazi totalitarianism, immediately after the ratification of the Pact
on September 28, 1939, the Kremlin coerced the Baltic countries into
accepting the stationing of Soviet forces within their borders --
ostensibly for reasons of joint security. Less than a year later on June
17, 1940, the Red Army proceeded with outright occupation of the formerly
free and
independent Baltic nations. And less than two months after that the Baltic
lands were illegally and forcedly annexed by the U.S.S.R.
In the process, in each of the three victim states, Moscow had orchestrated
the installation of puppet governments and "rigging" of elections;
confiscation of all real estate; nationalization of all transportation
facilities and industries; seizing of bank accounts and other valuables in
bank
safes that exceeded set limits; controlling and censoring of the press;
suppression of societies, associations, and religious worship; deportation
of national and local leaders--often never to be heard from again;
widespread "purging" of army officers, police officials, school teachers
and
professors of higher education, and other "intellectuals", with many
imprisoned or sent to slave labor camps, and still others executed at the
hands of the NKVD secret police--ultimately escalating into mass arrests
and deportations of Balts from all walks of life; launching of a systematic
campaign of "Russification" to transform the Baltic way of life into
Russian.
The period of Nazi occupation of the Baltic countries at the outset of
World War II saw little change from the Soviet model. And when in the
course of the war the Red Army recaptured the Baltics, Communist rule
returned with a vengeance to pick up where it had left off--with terror,
mass deportations to Siberia and Arctic Russia that decimated the
populations of the three small countries, forced collectivization of farms,
and genocide via massive influx of non-Baltic Soviet citizens and military,
with dislocation of Balts themselves to other parts of the Soviet Union."
Today the Baltic peoples remain undaunted in their efforts to make their
newfound freedom and independence functioning realities of everyday life in
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Yet the legacy of the Molotov-Ribbentrop
Pact lives on in the blatant arrogance of the heirs of the Evil
Empire, who find every excuse to disrupt and malign these Baltic endeavors
and aspirations. But the Baltic people must endure and will prevail as
indeed they have for 4000 years on the shores of the Baltic Sea. For it is
their rightful God-orphained destiny that they do so.
Teodors Liliensteins
Director, Baltic American Freedom League
August 23,1997
[END QUOTE]
Q.E.D.
With best regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
In article <35970385...@popmail.csuohio.edu>, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> Vladimir Svetlov wrote:
>
> > Well, they routinely call Finland an ally.
Who is 'they'? It's possible that general histories of the area 'routinely'
(and incorrectly, use the term 'ally'. More authoritative treatments, as
well as official diplomatic correspondence, consistently uses the term
'cobelligerent'. A neccessary and sufficent condition for being an ally is
signing some kind of treaty or pact, as the USSR did with Nazi Germany on
August 23, 1939. Finland and Germany never had such a treatry or pact, thus
they were not allies. Being a cobelligerent involves various types of
interaction and collaboration, but it is governed by circumstances on a
case-to-case basis rather than by treaty.
> > Finland started seeking German
> > alliance much in advance of 1941, and made such appeasing moves as
> > recognition of the Slovakia or accomodating Germany needs in regard to
> > Petsamo nickel.
There is nothing wrong or illegal about that. A neutral country that has
just been the victim of a vicious Soviet sneak attack has to keep its
options open and consider various alternatives. The Finns were no great
friends of Germany, by the way. Under the terms of the Nazi-Soviet
alliance, official Germany was not allowed to voice any support of Finland
since the official Soviet line was that the conflict was the result of
Finland having attacked the USSR ( Article II. Should one of the High
Contracting Parties become the object of belligerent action by a third
Power, the other High Contracting Party shall in no manner lend its support
to this third Power.). Sticking to the fiction of Finland being a third
power" which had made one of the High Contract Parties, the U.S.S.R., an
"object of belligerent action", Hitler maintained silence about the
Finnish-Soviet war and lent no support, despite the fact that there was
considerable sympathy for Finland among the German population.
>
> Finland start to mine Soviet waters of Gulf of Finland BEFORE June 22,
1941. It
> is obvious act of war and it is obvious that they knew about June 22.
Probably, but hardly in certain terms. As you yourself said, the Soviet
Army and Stalin knew that something was cooking, but trusted their ally
Hitler enough not to didn't bother to take any precautions. Ihe Finns might
very well have had access to the same military intelligence, but were
prudent enough to take precautions. Once bitten, twice shy.
> On the day
> of the attack Hitler called Finland a German allie, and Finish government
did not
> expressed any disagreement with this statement.
Source, please.
After the German attack on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Finland
officially maintained its neutrality for a few days, but allowed German
troops transit rights across northern Finland. Only after Soviet air
attacks on Finnish cities and airports did Finland declare war on the
Soviet Union, on June 25, and joined in the fighting five days later on
June 30. Its military objectives were limited: to retake the Finnish
territory which the Soviet Union had illegally grabbed the previous year.
If the Soviet Union considered an 'attack' on its border station to be a
sufficient pretext for attacking Finland in 1939, should not Finland have
considered Soviet bomb attacks on its cities and airfields a sufficient
pretext for attacking the USSR in 1941?
You can, of course, counter that Finland's allowing the German army transit
rights across its territory already amounts to an act of war. You are
probably right. On the other hand, armed-to-the-teeth Germany would have
used Finnish territory for the purpose in any case, whether or not the
Finns allowed it. Secondly, after just having been the victim of a brutal
Soviet attack themselves, and seeing what had happened to its Baltic
neighbors, there was considerable enthusiasm in Finland for seeing the
Soviet Union get a taste of the medicine it had been dishing out so
liberally to its neighbors.
***********************************************************
Source: http://www.hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/finland_wwii.html/summary.html
[with grammar slightly revised]
A short summary of Finland in WWII
The Continuation War, 25.6.1941 - 4.9.1944
The second war that we fought is called the "Continuation War" which we
fought alongside Germany from June 25, 1941 to September 4, 1944. The
reasons for this war are somewhat contested in Finland as there are several
theories. The main reasons were the Winter War (a chance to even the score
and get back lost areas), distrust of Soviet intentions, the belief that
Germany was going to win the war, and German pressure. I don't think that
we really had a choice (but that is history) after what had happened
earlier and what was going on during the WW2.
When Germany attacked the Soviet Union (Barbarossa) Finland allowed German
troops to attack the Soviet Union through Finland in the north (Germany's
goal was to capture Murmansk). Finland did not declare war on the Soviet
Union and did not start hostilities until the Soviet Union started bombing
Finnish territory (cities) on morning of 25 June, 1941. As a result Finnish
prime minister Rangell noted in a speech held at parliament that Finland
is now at war with the Soviet Union.
Finland then joined the attack on June 30, in order to capture the areas
lost to the Soviet Union in the Winter War and was able to achieve that
goal during the attack phase of the war. At some areas of the front Finnish
troops crossed the pre-Winter War border in order to gain favorable
defensive positions along geographically advantageous areas (waterways,
lakes etc.), but they refused to join the German attack on the city of
Leningrad. The so-called attack phase of the Continuation War lasted until
the end of 1941.
After the attack phase the war settled to a more or less peaceful stage on
fixed front which lasted until the summer of 1944. On the beginning of 1944
it had become obvious that Germany was losing the war and Finland and the
Soviet Union had some contacts about ending the war, but no agreement was
reached. The Soviet Union also tried to "convince" Finland by the so-called
"Peace Bombings" in February 1944 when they tried to level the City of
Helsinki. The bombings failed thanks to the efficient air-defence system
and the effect was probably contrary to the Soviet efforts.
The Soviet Union started an all-out attack on the Finnish front on the
Karelian Isthmus (again) on June 9, 1944 (it was timed to to accompany the
Allied attack on Normandy). The massive attack was able to breach the
Finnish defence in Valkeasaari on June 10, and the front retreated rapidly
on to secondary defence line (Vammelsuu-Taipale -line). The fighting was
furious as Soviet tanks and infantry supported by massed artillery and
ground-attack airplanes pounded the Finnish defenders who tried to keep the
defensive line intact and stop the attack.
As the fighting continued the VT-line was breached in Sahakylä and
Kuuterselkä on 14.6 and after a major counter attack in Kuuterselkä by the
Finnish armored division failed the defense had to be pulled back again.
After this followed roughly two week period of retreat and delaying
battles. A major loss (psychologically) during this period was the capture
of the city of Viipuri by
the Soviets on June 20.
Finnish troops were able to stop the Soviet attack on Tali-Ihantala area
where the largest military battle in Nordic history was fought from June 25
to July 6. By this time the Finnish army had been able to concentrate
enough artillery and troops equipped with new german anti-tank weapons and
were able to ground the attack down in favorable defensive positions.
Soviet losses in tanks and manpower on this killing ground were enough to
break off the attack.
At the same time the Soviets tried to bypass the Finnish defence by
crossing Viipurinlahti (a bay on the Gulf of Finland) through a chain of
islands but did not manage to get a beach-head on the mainland. This attack
began on July 4 and fierce amphibious attacks and close range battles
continued until July 10.
Third major effort by the Soviet armed forces began July 4, on Vuosalmi
(crossing the Vuoksi river) but it was not able to expand the beach-head
which was pounded by Finnish artillery and Finnish and German bombers and
counter attacks by the Finnish infantry. The Soviet attack ended on July 11
as the Soviet high-command ordered troops on Karelian isthmus to
re-organize on defence.
At the end of summer the front was stabilized but Finland saw that peace
with the Soviet Union was the only possibility to avoid going down with the
Germans. The truce (cease-fire) with the Soviet Union began officially
07:00 AM on September 4, 1944 although Soviet forces continued firing until
the next morning 07:00 AM.
Agreement on armistice (interim peace) between the Soviet Union and Finland
was signed in Moscow on 19.9.1944 and the final peace agreement in Paris on
10.2.1948.
As a result Finland lost about the same areas as in Winter War (again) to
the Soviet Union and was forced to pay huge payments (in "damages") to the
Soviet Union as well as to drive German forces off of Finnish soil.
************************************************************
> As well as Finland did not
> condemned German attack on USSR on June 22, as well as did not ask German
troops
> to live Finland's soil, which it should have do.
>
Why should Finland, which was recovering from a Soviet attack and its
consequences, have felt any need to comdemn the same type of attack on the
Soviet Union which the Soviet Union had inflicted on Finland the prevous
year? Do you think the Finns had any sympathy for the USSR after 1939? How
could Finland, which had seen Germany walk in and occupy its Nordic
neighbors Denmark and Norway, have thought that there could have been any
sense refusing the Germans transit rights? Why go to war against Germany
needlessly? Germany would have marched its troops through Finland in any
case.
Grass roots opinion in Finland was delighted at the propsect of seeing
Germany give the USSR a bloody nose. Please get real.
Best regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
Here are four documents:
€ the speech of the Finnish Prime Minister, A. K. Cajander, to his nation
€ a mocking article in Pravda, giving the reasons for Finland's refusal to
consider the USSR's demands for territory, and the USSR's promises of a
future for Finland as bright(!) and indepenendent(!) as that of the Baltics
if it would only follow their example.
€ a statement from American President Franlin D. Roosevelt on the outbreak
of war between Finland and the USSR, December 1, 1939
€ a telegram from K.A. Umanskii, Plenipotentiary of the USSR to USA, to the
People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, containing his reaction to
Roosevelt's statement
(Source: http://www.clinet.fi/~pkr01/history/cajander.html)
The address by Prime Minister A.K. Cajander on the 23rd of November 1939, at
Helsinki Fair Hall, at a national defense celebration arranged by Finnish
private enterprise owners
The people of Finland stands in front of an unexpected incident. The events
followed in quick succession and the total sequence of events emerged as a
total surprise for the majority of the Finnish people.
It is hardly a wrong conclusion if one, trying to interpret the present
flow of events around the world, sees it as an expansionist tendency of the
great powers, a constant and understandable phenomenon in the world history
unregarding whether you consider it justified or not.
The Tsarist state had in its final days a strong westward drive down to the
shores of the Atlantic Ocean. The independent status of Finland was an
obstacle to this goal and this was the motive to end the internal home
rule, the autonomic status of Finland. The years of oppression in Finland
derived from that. This policy was essentially different from the
benevolent policy employed by the previous Emperors, especially Alexander I
and II who therefore enjoyed an undivided love of the Finnish people. This
new policy embittered and strained the relationship between Finland and
Russia to the extreme.
The history seldom follows a straightforward course. The great war crushed
the intentions of the Tsarist regime. Onto its ruins the Union of Socialist
Soviet Republics was born. It recognised nations' rights to
self-determination and it has on all occasions assured its willingness to
maintain friendly relations to her neighbors. Even the independence of
Finland was recognised by her.
Thus the end of the world war also brought independence to Finland, but not
without pains. The new situation was stabilised only after a bloody
campaign. During this Germany gave Finland strong support which is not
forgotten in Finland. Equally unforgettable is the support given by the
Western Powers and America to stabilise the independent status of Finland.
That was followed by twenty happy years of peace and construction, years
only seldom shaded by dark shadows.
A little bit over two months ago the Soviet Union approached the Finnish
Cabinet making certain propositions which were explained as aiming at
improvement of the security of St. Petersburg or Leningrad and at
strengthening of the friendly relationship between Finland and the Soviet
Union.
These proposals were not completely unexpected. The forthcoming talks
concerning required improvements of Leningrad's security were anticipated
in private conversations with some members of the Finnish cabinet a
considerable time ago.
As we all well remember there were negotiations between the Western Powers
and the Soviet Union to accomplish a pact. The issue of Leningrad's
security - concerning the so-called indirect aggression and other similar
subjects - were discussed in such a manner which could have threatened the
independence of Finland and the Baltic countries. The government of
England, however, did not support these attempts. This is remembered here
with
sincere gratefulness. There was no outcome in the negotiations which also
caused the specific issue concerning Finland to fall through.
A new decisive turn of events in Europe and even in the whole world took
place when Germany and the Soviet Union concluded a non-aggression pact
which in some respect even exceeded the regular scope of such agreements.
The pact came like a bolt from the blue. In Finland it, however, was not a
complete surprise. As early as 1937 a remark was made by a prominent
foreign authority about a possibility of the Soviet Union and Germany to
conclude a pact perhaps in the near future. But the very timing of this
non-aggression pact was, I guess, a complete surprise to all of us.
In certain Finnish circles this new agreement was greeted with considerable
hopes. Expectations that this relaxation of contradictions, previously a
prevailing feature between the Soviet Union and Germany, has a peaceful
effect on tension in the Baltic Sea and the countries around it. This
presumption, however, disappeared soon. In the Finnish domestic politics
this pact has a significant effect on the policies of the political
parties. It
evaporated the assumption that the Soviet Union and Germany were
ideologically incompatible and as a consequence of this all kinds of
political speculations based on this contradiction were crushed. You can
say that this pact thus strengthened the basis for a domestic concordance
in Finland.
The non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union was
immediately followed by a war between Germany and Poland from which again a
new war between the Western Powers and Germany ensued. A universal
conflagration was ignited.
The Oslo countries, Finland included, declared themselves to be absolutely
neutral in this campaign between the great powers. Despite of their
neutrality Finland and other Oslo countries suffer continuously and heavily
from the economic consequences of the great war. Furthermore, especially
Holland, Belgium and Finland but Switzerland, too, have been able to keep
to their neutrality only by maintaining an extremely efficient guard for
their defense.
In the opposite case their declaration of neutrality would scarcely have
been respected.
When Poland was near to collapse the Soviet Union marched its troops into
eastern Poland and occupied it. Simultaneously the Soviet People's
Commissar for Foreign Affairs made it known to the governments of Finland
and the Baltic countries, as well as to other countries, that it will
conduct a policy of neutrality towards them.
The defection of a Polish submarine to Tallinn (the capital of Estonia) was
at first brought out as an excuse for proposals made by the Soviet Union to
Estonia, which then finally resulted in allocating important military bases
to the Soviet Union in Paldiski (Baltischport), Saaremaa (Ösel) and Hiiumaa
(Dagö). In quick succession similar events followed in Latvia and
Lithuania. These three vigorous Baltic countries with their own
charasteristic old
cultures and a splendid future ahead were overnight turned into more or
less dependent on the Soviet Union.
Especially depressing on us, the Finns, is the fact that among these
countries faced by this unfavorable fate is the State of Estonia, our dear
fraternal nation. A follow-up was also the mass departure of Germans from
the Baltics where they over a time period of 600 years had made history and
highly carried the national flag of the German stock.
It was to be expected, when thinking about the previous conduct by the
Soviet Union, that she will make similar proposals also to the Finnish
goverment. It should be stated, however, that the previously expressed
reasons for Soviet intentions towards Finland had, at least in two counts,
disappeared. The only great power which could have earlier been a potential
threat to Leningrad - well, in that case presumably along the southern
coast
of the Gulf of Finland - namely Germany, has concluded a non-aggression
pact with the Soviet Union, which means that there exists no threat against
the Soviet Union and Leningrad from there - without considering the overall
present importance of Leningrad to the Soviet Union. And the new Soviet
naval and air bases in Liepaja (Libau), Ventpils (Windau), Hiiumaa,
Saaremaa and Paldiski permit, as disclosed by the Soviets, the Soviet Union
to rule
the Baltic Sea and thus the Gulf of Finland and up to the Gulf's farthest
recess in front of Leningrad.
Judging from the present facts, all arguments about threats to Leningrad
from the Finnish territory are very difficult to understand.
A request for negotiations with the Soviet government was received on the
5th of October. For over a month friendly discussions were carried out
between the Finnish and Soviet Cabinets concerning concrete political
issues of certain territorial exchanges to improve the security of
Leningrad.
The Cabinet of Finland, after discussing with representatives of
parliamentary groups and after consulting the highest military command,
yielded to Soviet demands in order to maintain good neighborly relations so
far as it could, as a representative of an independent nation, to increase
the security of a foreign metropolis but without sacrificing Finland's own
national security.
However, the Soviets have made propositions which are very far away from
those which can considered as prerequisites in securing Leningrad. If they
were accepted it would have offended Finland's neutrality and damaged her
opportunities to self-defence: it would have meant severing the southern
defence line of Finland at two of its most important points and handing
over its first-class fortifications to a foreign power. Thus it had
resulted in
severe decrease in the security of Finland. Such proposals were
unacceptable to the Finnish government.
Because of lack of common ground for the negotiations they have been
interrupted for the moment. This is very deplorable because Finland
sincerely will maintain good relations to all her neighbors and sincerely
wants to strengthen these relationships when it does not endanger Finland's
own vital interests.
Our nation's conscience is clear. She knows that her cause is right and she
knows that things are duly conducted. In making her points of view known
Finland has not needed or received instructions from foreign countries.
Finland has shown towards the Soviet Union friendliness and compliancy up
to such limit which only can be crossed by weakening Finland's own national
security.
Finland will not submit herself to a role of a vassal country. We will not
yield to this by someone waging a nerve war or trying to exhaust us or
doing the contrary, by offering temptations. Finland will peacefully, with
open eyes and determined mind, observe the events in the west and in the
east, and as a peaceloving country, which always appreciates good
neighborly relations, is at any times ready to continue the negotiations on
a basis which does not risk the vital interests of Finland or her national
values. No further concessions can be attained especially now when Finland
herself gains nothing from these territorial exchanges.
Finland is convinced that it is advantageous to the real interests of the
Soviet Union that she has as a neighbor a nation, whose loyalty it can
trust in all circumstances.
The global situation continues as tense, and this makes Finland among many
other neutral countries to keep a considerable amount of men in arms as
protectors of neutrality and also be otherwise prepared.
The time for the first enthusiastic unanimity is gradually over. Everyday
activities start again gain ground. It is necessary to restore the regular
ways of living. It is of no use to be constantly prepared to something
unexpected but, on the other hand, we should at any time be prepared to
adjust our efforts if the situation demands that. The present situation may
be continue for a long time. We have to accustom ourselves to live and work
in these altered conditions. Figuratively speaking, we must learn to plough
carrying rifles on our backs.
The industrial production, which to some extent was interrupted in the
beginning of this alert period, has to be restored as fully as possible in
this changed situation taking, of course, into account the altered
commercial demand and difficulties in obtaining necessary raw materials.
Both the economical and other activities have to be adapted with greatest
accuracy to substantiate the full use of available opportunities in the new
conditions. At
the present the cabinet should restrict its interference in the economical
life only to that what is unavoidable in our situation.
The return to everyday life should not imply that the spirits should be let
to disappear. We have to maintain the same high the enthusiasm which has
become very well manifested when young men openheartedly now join the
military service, or when hundreds of thousands of women help the
reservists and their relatives, or when the defence bonds are subscribed
with unexpected intensity, and in the warm-hearted donations given by
private citizens and by a multitude of organizations to various apt
purposes. Even in the unimpassionate everyday life that, what is the most
essential to the enthusiasm - a devoted patriotic spirit - must stand
strong. The patriotic unanimity should not be weakened. Along with this all
that causes discontent, disappointment or mental depression should be
avoided and removed.
The danger is all but over. In our continent on both sides of the Rhine and
the North Sea an unprecedented rise of tension is witnessed. The time for
its outbreak has not yet come but enormous forces are concentrated as a
preparation for that. The exact time for the outbreak is not known but
nobody can sincerely believe that this leads to nothing. And when the
tension on its time once explodes, its remote effects can be felt far away.
There are certain elements in the society who try to sow the seeds of
dissension among us, especially at the grass root level. Beware of these
elements! Their real effects are so insignificant that no factual relevance
can be attributed to them. But abroad their significance can be exaggerated
and thus be used to harm our country.
We have to keep together - as a unified nation - like we did at the time of
our first challenge, as unanimous as a democratic nation relying on its
free will can ever be. The spirits born from our ordeals should and will
stand the hardships, too. But even at that moment when an immediate danger
is over we have to stay together. All in all we are a small nation and the
stability of our international status depends decisively on our unanimity.
The world attention has focused on us without our own active influence. We
have been met with a large scale sympathy of nations. This state of affairs
obliges us. Let us make it known that we are worth of the sympathy the
world both in speeches and deeds have shown to us.
But first of all let us be worthy of the challenge set upon us.
Every Finnish citizen has his own guard post and everyone is expected to
stay alert on his post without defying anyone but firmly defending the
rights of the Finnish nation.
We are obliged to this because of our history, we are obliged to this
because of our nation's future.
************************************
Source: http://www.clinet.fi/~pkr01/history/pravda1.html
(no-pyccku: http://www.clinet.fi/~pkr01/history/prav_rus.html)
Pravda, 26 November 1939 (on the front-page):
A Buffoon Holding the Post of Prime Minister
The Finnish Cabinet is afraid to step out in front of its own
Parliament. Instead, Prime Minister Cajander willingly made a spectacle of
himself at a concert on November 23rd. As the music played, the Prime
Minister jokingly spoke. His Finnish bourgeoisie need to be entertained due
to their present depressed condition. Cajander entertained to the best of
his ability. He displayed his outstanding talents as a clown.
Cajander changed the concert stage to an arena of circus buffoonery.
Like a clown he performed somersaults with everything he said being
backwards. He stood on his head and walked on his hands.
He started his performance by dragging out portraits of the Russian
tsars and making deep bows in front of them. He did this with a serious
attitude showing the affection of an inborn serf.
He spoke about the "policies, sympathetic to Finland, carried out by
Alexander I and Alexander II, which met the approval of the whole
population of Finland."
After this the clown stood on his head and threatened with his leg
the Soviet Union, who he alleged is going to make an attempt on the
independence of Finland. Such an imposing figure, indeed!
It is known, that the Russian tsars Alexanders and Nicholases with
all their means suppressed all attempts of the Finnish people to achieve
independence. The tsarist policy of oppression, violence and suppression
received only the "approval" of the reactionary venal Finnish bourgeoisie.
These Cajanders served the Russian tsars like faithful serfs and court
fools.
When Tsarism collapsed from the blows of the people, the bourgeois
Provisional government which had seized power, denied the independence of
Finland. For this independence the Bolsheviks Lenin and Stalin struggled,
along with the Finnish people. Finland received independence through the
power of the Soviet, an independence which always has been and, even now
is, merchandise in the marketplace of imperialism.
These are the facts. Cajander thinks that when he makes a
salto-mortale then the whole world capsizes with him. What a ridiculous
illusion! Although the buffoon turns somersaults, the facts stand firmly on
their feet.
All this miserable play is performed only to escape from answering
the outright question, which the people of Finland have put to their
government, a government completely entangled in its own intrigue:
- Why have Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania concluded with the Soviet
government treaties which secure them independence, peace and quiet work,
but the Finnish government wrecked the negotiations and now hold their
people in a condition of anxious uncertainty?
No one jump is enough for evading the question. Cajander does
cartwheels, is affected in his speech, crows like a rooster - and,
suddenly, bursts out into sobbing. He mourns, groans, tears his clothes and
throws circus floor sawdust, like ashes, not on himself, but on the
ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Cajander sobs:
- "These three viable Baltic nations, with brilliant futures ahead,
are suddenly reduced from independent countries to countries which are more
or less dependent on the Soviet Union. On us, the Finns, this made a
depressing impression...".
Cajander mourns over the politicians in Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania. They, you see, proved to be shortsighted. But he is farsighted,
he, a buffoon holding the post of prime minister. He sees far, he is a
politician from the school of farsighted Beck and farsighted Moscicki. Let
him learn, how those Polish clowns feel after having lost their engagements
for good.
It is soon, probably, when Cajander will have an opportunity to see
in practise, that farsighted politicians are not the marionettes from the
Finnish government, but the present leaders of Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania, who concluded a mutual assistance pact with USSR.
Nevertheless Cajander cannot get away from providing the answer
which is more and more persistently demanded by the people of Finland.
- Why you, Cajanders, wrecked the negotiations? The people did not
demand this from you. But who then insisted on wrecking?
The Prime Minister of Finland wriggles like a grass-snake. He
whimpers smearing tears on his dirty face:
- "Since it was difficult to find a common ground in the
negotiations, they have been temporarily interrupted. This is regrettable,
because Finland sincerely wants to maintain good relations to all her
neighbors ..."
Cajander "regrets"! Cajander wrecked the negotiations "temporarily"!
Cajander sheds tears of sorrow ...
Crocodile tears, it is said, are the most deceitful, most heinous
and most disgusting tears in the world. But even more viler and deceitful
are the tears shed by a buffoon imitating a crocodile. It is a variety of a
reptile, but without sharp teeth, without power, but having the guile and
lust of a small
beast.
Nothing helps the Cajanders to escape the question set forth in an
ever growing serious tone by the people of Finland, now drawn by
provocateurs into a dirty and dangerous intrigue:
- Why you, Cajanders, wrecked the negotiations? You should be
aligned with the people of Finland, who really wants friendship with the
Soviet people. Who are you aligned with, whose will are you obeying and
whose instructions are you carrying out?
And restlessly, cowardly, with aside wandering eyes this buffoon,
holding the post of the Prime Minister, swears and makes oaths:
- Finland has not needed or received instructions from other
countries. God knows none! May even my eyes burst, not a one received!
Clown's oaths, clown's vows. A receipt of execution of "instructions
from other countries" is already published. It is included in the approving
comments of imperialistic British newspapers on Cajander's address. "Daily
Herald" taps his Finnish buffoon amicably on the shoulder: You have done
your best, brother!
If after this, is it any wonder that Cajander does not find "common
ground" with the Soviet government! The buffoon turns somersaults on the
"common ground" of warmongering imperialism, the jazz orchestra rattles,
pipes squeal, and ringmaster's whip clashes.
How long is this political buffoonery expected to go on?
One must hope that not for long. One must hope, that the people of
Finland do not let marionettes, like Cajander, steer the Finnish ship of
state farther ahead on the same wrecked route that Beck and Moscicki took.
*********************************************************
The Soviet air forces dropped bombs on Helsinki, Viipuri and other cities
and the Red Army crossed the border on November 30, 1939, without any
declaration of war. The Soviets had unilaterally abrogated the
non-aggression pact a couple of days earlier. Claims about Finnish
artillery shelling a border village - incidentally on November 26 - were
given as a pretext for this. Because of the attack the Soviet Union was
expelled from the League of
Nations on Dec. 14, 1939
*********************************************************
http://www.clinet.fi/~pkr01/history/roosevlt.html
President Roosevelt's statement on December 1,1939
The news of the Soviet naval and military bombings within Finnish territory
has come as a profound shock to the Government and people of the United
States. Despite efforts made to solve the dispute by peaceful methods to
which no reasonable objection could be offered, one power has chosen to
resort to force of arms. It is tragic to see the policy of force spreading,
and to realize that wanton disregard for law is still on the march. All
peace-loving
peoples in those nations that are still hoping for the continuance of
relations throughout the world on the basis of law and order will
unanimously comdemn this new resort to military force as the arbiter of
international differences.
To the great misfortune of the world, the present trend to force makes
insecure the independent existence of small nations in every continent and
jeopardizes the rights of mankind to self-government. The people and
government of Finland have a long, honorable and wholly peaceful record
which has won for them the respect and warm regard of the people and
Government of the United States.
This statement was read by President Roosevelt in press conference #602,
Executive Offices of the White House, December 1, 1939, 10:40 A.M.
******************************************************
Source: http://www.clinet.fi/~pkr01/history/umaneng.html
no-pyccku: http://www.clinet.fi/~pkr01/history/umanskii.html
Telegram of K.A. Umanskii,
Plenipotentiary of the USSR to USA,
to the People's Commissariat for Foreign
Affairs
2 December 1939.
Top secret
Today's statement by Roosevelt against us and the Finns is itself a
flagrant violation to the American tradition of ostentatious neutrality
during the whole Roosevelt administration.
The statement gives new stimulus to an aggravated anti-Soviet
pursuit in the press and to blackmailing for breaking off the relations,
this is favored by a number of right-wing senators. In conformity with
Roosevelt's statement about the threat on small countries' independence the
press writes a lot of the threat from our side, especially on the Norwegian
arctic coast (even though this is refuted in Oslo, which could be of some
use when unmasking this provocation in our press), and also of a threat on
Rumania and other Balkan countries, and in this connection all sorts of
anti-Soviet appearances in Italy are advertised as a "guardian" of the
Balkans. There has been also some attempts to intimidate Japan by us, and
also a tendency to frightening the Germans at our hegemony in the Baltics.
In the official bulletins the State Department sends out to the
press reports from the US legation in Helsinki, with false information from
the Finnish leadership. It looks like that the American government fosters
an illusion that the comedy of "cabinet reform" [in Finland] might lead to
a compromise. The creation of the People's Government*) evokes a new
upsurge of class hatred against us. However, for the present, Roosevelt and
Hull**) are adapting themselves to the encouragement of anti-Soviet
blackmail and are making excuses on journalists' questions about
clarifications of relations to USSR, the employment of the Neutrality Act,
the appeal of the US government to the aviation industry not to sell to us
and so forth.
"New York Herald Tribune" asserts, that Roosevelt is for, but Hull
against because in his opinion the rupture does not help the Finns but it
draws the US to a European conflict. I do my best in trying to check this,
I have a good deal of doubts about the present line-up of forces, but on a
basis of a number of indications I assume that there are, within the
American government and between the cliques in the State Department,
disagreements over possible measures against the Soviet Union. In a private
discussion with two journalists, as told to me by an eyewitness, one of
Hull's assistants, Berle***), lamented today that the US cannot undertake
"anything practical" for Finland. Following an obvious advice by the State
Department, the Finnish envoy Procopé made it known that the Finnish
government declared a situation of war, not a state of war, thus giving a
hint of the undesirability of using the Neutrality Act in the present
conflict, because it would cause no damage on the whole to us who pay the
US in cash, but to the bourgeois Finland who, over the last weeks, has been
conducting negotiations of a credit of 15 Mill. from the Export-Import Bank
of the US. However, when the illusions about the duration of resistance of
old Finland are crushed, these considerations against the employment of the
Act disappear and it is, possibly, put into effect.
In spite of the aggravating campaign to break off the relations, I
regard this, as before, extremely improbable. In addition to
interpretations of earlier reasons, this impression is supported by a
report from London, where at least a part of the British cabinet is against
an American-Soviet break-off which would promote an even closer
rapprochement of USSR to Germany.
So, most probably the anti-Soviet pursuit will be further
stimulated, Steinhardt****) is recalled, we are accused of intervening in
internal affairs, all sorts of faults are picked up with our economic
organizations, "recommendations" to refrain from bargaining with us are
probably given to aviation industry, and furthermore the People's
Government*) is not recognized and Helsinki is encouraged to resistance.
Hull has not yet summoned me.
The instructions in your telegram of 2 December 1939 have been taken
as the guiding principles. In connection with the atmosphere of pursuit and
threating created around the legation, I have taken all precautionary
measures here and in the consulates.
Umanskii
******************************************************
*) A puppet government, comprised of Finnish emigré communists, set up on
Dec. 1, 1939, in the recently seized Finnish territory at Terijoki (now
Zelenogorsk)
**) Cordell Hull, 1871-1955, lawyer, Secretary of State nearly all the
Roosevelt term, 1933-44
***) Adolf A. Berle, professor in economics, Assistant Secretary of State,
1938-44
****) Lawrence A. Steinhardt, US Ambassador to USSR
The document has been published in the book, "Documents of Foreign Policy,
1939. Book 2", by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian
Federation. Moscow 1992.
Eugene Holman
Read V. M. MOLOTOV, THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT, A Report by the
Chairman of the Soviet of People's Commissars, and People's Commissar for
Foreign Affairs on March 29,1940
The article is too large to post, but it can be read in English at:
http://www.clinet.fi/~pkr01/history/molotov.html, and in Russian (KOI-8) at
http://www.clinet.fi/~pkr01/history/mol_rus.html
I've picked out here Molotov's statements on:
€ the Soviet-German relationship
€ the justification for and results of the Finnish-Soviet war, which had
just ended. Interesting is is claim that the purpose of the war was to
prevent an attack by Great Britain and France on Leningrad through Finnish
territory. Germany is not mentioned once. His claimed casualty figures,
48,745 Soviet casulties against 60,000 Finnish casualties, is maintained by
neither Finnish nor Russian historians, both of which give figures on the
order of 50,000 Finnish casualtie against 250,000 Soviet.
€ Soviet policy towards the Baltic states
€ On the relationship with Germany.
A sudden improvement in Soviet-German relations found its expression in the
form of the non-aggression pact signed in August last year. This new good
relationship between the Soviet Union and Germany has stood the trial in
connection with the events in the former Poland and have thus fairly
showed its permanence. With negotiations which began already last autumn,
the expected development of economic relations assumed a concrete form in
the trade agreement in August (1939) and later in February (1940). The
exchange of commodities between Germany and the USSR began to increase on
the basis of a mutual economical advantage, and good grounds for its
further development exist.
€ On the justification for and result sof the just-concluded war against
Finland.
I will now go over to the Finnish issue.
What was the point of the war waged over the last three-odd months
in Finland? You know that the point of these events was to safeguard the
security of the northwestern borders of the Soviet Union and, above all, in
safeguarding the security of Leningrad.
All through October and November last year the Soviet government
negotiated with the Finnish government about proposals, which we
considered absolutely essential and urgent to achieve in securing the
safety of the country, and especially the safety of Leningrad, as the
international
situation became more and more tension loaded. These negotiations ended in
failure because of the hostile attitude of the Finnish representatives.
Thus the
solution of the issue was moved to the battlefield. You can be fully
assured that if there had been no outside interference in Finland, if there
had been fewer background operators of certain third-party countries to
incite hostile policy against the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union and
Finland had already at the
beginning of last autumn reached an understanding and the matter would have
been settled without war. But in spite of the fact that the Soviet
government
reduced its requests to a minimum, diplomatic means were not successful
enough to reach a settlement.
Now that hostilities in Finland have ceased and a Peace Treaty
between the USSR and the Republic of Finland has been signed, the
significance of
the war waged in Finland can and must be judged according to indisputable
facts. These facts speak for themselves. These facts show that near
Leningrad,
all over the Karelian Isthmus to a depth of 50-60 kilometers, the Finnish
authorities had erected numerous strong reinforced concrete and
granite-ground
fortifications armed with artillery and machine guns. The number of these
fortifications ran into many hundreds. These military fortifications,
particularly, reinforced concrete structures of high military strength,
with their undergound thoroughfares, surrounded by special anti-tank
trenches and granite pillars, supported by a set-up of countless mine
fields, constituted what was known as the"Mannerheim Line" which was
constructed under the supervision of appropriate foreign experts to bear a
likeness to the "Maginot Line" and "Siegfried Line". It should be mentioned
that these fortifications were up till now considered as impregnable i.e.
as fortifications never broken through by any army. It should also be
mentioned that Finnish military authorities had tried in advance to convert
every village in this area into a fortress furnished with arms, radio
antennas and fuel stations. In many parts of southern and eastern Finland
strategic railroads and highways, without any economic significance, were
built right up to our borders.
In short, the military preparations in Finland have shown that
Finland and particularly the Karelian Isthmus was already before 1939 set
up as a
ready-made military bridge-head for third-party countries' attack on the
Soviet Union, on Leningrad.
Undeniable facts have shown that the hostility of the Finnish policy
encountered by us last autumn was not accidental. Anti-Soviet forces
prepared
in Finland against our country and particularly Leningrad a military
bridge-head, which under certain foreign policy circumstances, unfavorable
to the Soviet Union, could have played its role in the plans of the
anti-Soviet imperialists and their allies in Finland.
Not only has the Red Army smashed the "Mannerheim Line" and thus
earned the glory to be the first army which under most difficult conditions
cut its way through an extensive and strong zone of perfectly modern
military fortifications - the Red Army acting together with the Red Navy
not only
smashed the military base prepared for attacking Leningrad and, but they
eliminated some anti-Soviet plans fostered during the past few years by
certain
third-party countries. (Prolonged applause).
How far had gone the enmity of the Finnish ruling and military
circles toward our country, in preparing of a military bridge-head against
the
USSR, becomes also evident by many facts of exceptional barbarism and
atrocities perpetrated by the White Finns on wounded and captivated Red
Army
soldiers. Thus, when, in a certain area north of Lake Ladoga, the Finns
besieged our hospital shelter with 120 severely wounded people there, the
White
Finns destroyed them all to a man. Some were burned, others were found with
crushed skulls, while the rest had been stabbed or shot. Despite of the
deadly wounds, a considerable part of those killed here or elsewhere had
signs of gunshot wounds on their heads or had been finished off with rifle
butts
and a part of those had been killed by firearms had knife stabs in their
faces. Some of the corpses found had their heads severed, the heads were
not found.
And regarding nurses captured by White Finns, they were submitted to
particular disgrace and unbelievable bestiality. In some cases the bodies
of those
killed were set, with their feet uppermost, against tree trunks. All this
barbarism and numerous bestialities resulted from the policy of the Finnish
White Guardists when they have tried to fan hatred against our country
among their people.
This is how the Finnish defenders of "the Western civilization"
really look like.
It is not hard to see that the war in Finland was not only a
confrontation with the Finnish military forces. No, the matter here was
more
complicated. The showdown here was not only between our troops and the
Finnish troops, it was between the united imperialistic forces of a number
of
countries including Britain, France and others who aided the Finnish
bourgeoisie with all kinds of weaponry, particularly with artillery and
airplanes and
with their men disguised as "volunteers", with their gold and every kind of
supplies, and furthermore, with their frenzied agitation all over the world
instigating, with all sorts of means, a war against the Soviet Union. And
you have to add, that in this rage howling you all the time could discern
the
squeaky voices of miscellaneous prostituted "socialists" of the 2nd
International (hilarious excitement at the hall), such as Attlee and Blum,
Citrine and Jouhaux, Tranmael and Höglund - all those lackeys of capital
who have sold themselves body and soul to the warmongers.
The Prime Minister of England, Chamberlain, appearing on March 19 in
the House of Commons, not only expressed his malicious regrets at having
failed to prevent the war in Finland from ending and thus turning his
"peace loving" imperialistic soul inside out for all the world to see
(laughter), but he also made some sort of a account how and in what way the
British imperialists actually tried to aid warmongering in Finland against
the Soviet Union. Chamberlain read out a list of war materials which was
promised and dispatched to Finland: airplanes promised 152, sent 101;
cannons promised 223, sent 114; shells promised 297 thousand, sent 185
thousand; Vickers cannons promised 100, sent 100; aircraft bombs promised
20,700, sent 15,700; antitank mines promised 20,000, sent 10,000 etc.
Without a least embarrassment Chamberlain stated that "preparations for an
expedition were being carried on with all rapidity and at the beginning of
March an expedionasry force of 100,000 men was ready to leave, two month
before Mannerheim had asked for them to arrive. This was not necessarily
the last force."
This is how a "peace loving" British imperialist looks like in
deeds, on his own admission.
As far as France is concerned, according to newspaper accounts, 179
airplanes, 472 cannons, 795,000 shells, 5,100 machine guns, 200,000 hand
grenades etc. were sent from there to Finland. On the 11th of March,
Daladier, then the Prime Minister of France declaired in the Chamber of
Deputies,
that "France has taken the lead of the countries that agreed to deliver war
material for Finland, and France has, especially, at Helsinki's request
just sent to Finland ultramodern bomber airplanes". Daladier declared that
"from the 26th of February an expeditionary French military corps has been
equipped and
ready to leave". A considerable amount of vessels have been ready to sail
from two main ports at the Channel and on the Atlantic coast. Daladier also
told
that the allies "will come to assist Finland with all the promised forces".
These anti-Soviet statements by Daladier speak for themselves.
However, there is no need to stop at these hostile statements because, you
see,
they do not completely possess a sober train of thoughts. (Hilarious
excitement at the hall).
Sweden's participation in the Finnish war deserves another comment.
According to reports circulated in all the Swedish newspapers Sweden made
a "certain amount of airplanes, forming approximately a fifth part of all
the Swedish military air force at that time" available to Finland in the
war against
the Soviet Union. According to a statement of the Swedish war minister the
Finns received from Sweden 84,000 rifles, 575 machine guns, over 300
cannons, 300 thousand grenades, 50 million bullets. This material was,
according to the minister's statement, all the very newest models.
Even Italy did not lag behind when adding fuel to the war in
Finland. For instance, she sent to Finland 50 military airplanes.
Finland got military assistance even from the United States, from a
devoted "peace lover". (Open laughter).
The total number of all sorts of weapons sent from other countries
to Finland just during the war reached, according to incomplete
information:
airplanes at least 350, cannons about 1,500, over 6,000 machine guns, up to
100 thousand rifles, 650,000 handgrenades, 2,500,000 shells, 160,000,000
cartridges and much else.
There is no need to quote other facts which confirm that the
confrontation which took place in Finland was not only between us and the
Finnish troops but it was a showdown with the combined imperialistic forces
of a number of most imperialistic anti-Soviet countries. When the Red Army
and the
Red Navy crushed these combined enemy forces they added a new glorious page
in their history and demonstrated that the source of bravery, devotion and
heroism among our people is inexhaustible. (Tumultuous applause).
The war in Finland took a big toll both on us and the Finns.
According to estimates of our General Staff, the number of those fallen and
fatally
wounded is on our side 48,745, thus somewhat less than 49,000 persons and
the number of the wounded is 158,863 persons. On the Finnish side efforts
are made to diminish the number of their victims, but their casualties are
far more bigger than ours. According to the most cautious calculations by
our
General Staff the number of those fallen is at least 60 thousand, not
counting the fatally wounded, and the number of the wounded is at least
250,000.
When you start from the fact that the number of the Finnish army has been
at least 600 thousand men, you have to draw a conclusion that the Finnish
army
lost half of its ranks as killed or wounded.
Such are the facts.
The question remains, why did the ruling circles of England and
France and even of several other countries to take such an active part on
the
Finnish side against the Soviet Union. It is well known that the British
and French governments undertook desperate efforts to prevent the war from
ending and the restoration of peace in Finland, although they are not bound
by any obligation towards Finland. It is also known that France, even
though it
had a mutual assistance pact with Czechoslovakia, did not come to the aid
of Czechoslovakia. Yet both France and England actually insisted on giving
military assistance to Finland just to prevent the war come to an end and
peace to be restored between Finland and the Soviet Union. Hired pen
bandits - all
kinds of writers specialized to newspaper swindling and hoaxes - try to
explain this sort of behavior of the British and French circles as
particular
solicitude for "small countries". But explaining the British and French
policies by telling that they especially care for interests of a small
country is simply
absurd. And explanations that this derives from commitments to the League
of Nations, which require, some argue, defending of its members, are not
either particularly witty.
Yes,less than a year has elapsed since Italy usurped and destroyed
independent Albania, a member of the League of Nations. And what happened?
Did England and France stand up for Albania, did they raise their voice,
however feeble, against the violent Italian usurpation of Albania, paying
no
attention to its population of over one million, and ignoring the fact that
Albania was a member of the League of Nations? No, neither the British nor
the
French governments, nor yet the United States of America, nor the League of
Nations having already lost all its prestige because it is dominated by the
same British and French imperialists, lifted a finger because of this
incident. These "protectors" of small nations, these "champions" of the
rights of
members of the League of Nations have during a whole of 12 months never
decided to put forward for discussion the issue of Italian capture of
Albania,
which already took place last April. Even more, they virtually have
sanctioned this seizure. Consequently, protection of small nations or the
rights of
members of the League of Nation cannot be accounted for the support of
Finland by the ruling circles in England and France against the Soviet
Union.
This assistance can be explained by the fact that in Finland the ruling
circles of England and France had a ready-made military base to launch an
assault
against the USSR, whereas Albania did not occupy a similar position in
their plans. In fact, rights and interests of small nations are just so
much small
change in the hands of imperialists.
The leading newspaper of the British imperialists "Times", like the
leading newspaper of the French imperialists "Temps", not to speak about
other British or French bourgeois newspapers, have during these past months
openly incited an intervention against the Soviet Union without lending an
ear to the fact that between both England and France and the Soviet Union,
on the other side, the so-called normal diplomatic relations are
maintained.
Same tune with these leading bourgeois newspapers, or even running ahead of
them, is played by the folk in the lackey chamber, now built in every
"decent" bourgeois state, in England by Attlee-like "socialists" and in
France those like Blum, expressing such a hot enthusiasm for inciting and
escalating
the war. In the statements of British and French imperialistic press and
their "socialist" yes-men, the same voice of ferocious imperialism, filled
with hate
against the socialist state, is heard, that we knew from the first days of
the existence of the Soviet Union. Aa far back as April 17, 1919 the London
"Times" wrote:
"If we look at a map, we shall find that the best approach to
Petrograd is from the Baltic and that the shortest and easiest route is
through Finland,
whose frontiers are only about thirty miles distant from the Russian
capital. Finland is the key to Petrograd, and Petrograd is the key to
Moscow".
If it previously was necessary to find some kind of evidence about
these kinds of madcap plans, not up to the present given up by British and
French imperialists, then now, after the recent events in Finland, all
ambiguities about this have disappeared. These plans have once again
failed, not
because of lack of zeal on the part of anti-Soviet forces in Britain and
France, or because of the leading circles of Finland, or those of Sweden
and
Norway, coming to their senses at the last minute. These plans failed due
to brilliant victories won by the Red Army, especially on the Karelian
Isthmus.
(Applause). But we do not forget, that recent events remind all of us again
that it is necessary continuously strengthen the power of the Red Army and
of
all defenses of our country. (Uproarious and prolonged applause).
In the beginning of February the Finns delivered a inquiry about
ending the war. We learned through the Swedish government that the Finnish
government desired to ascertain our terms upon which the war could be
brought to an end. Before deciding this question, we consulted the People's
Democratic Government of Finland* for their opinion about this question.
The People's Government, in order to put an end to bloodshed and to
alleviate
the burdens of the Finnish people, agreed that every effort should be made
to bring the war to an end. We then put forward the conditions which were
soon after accepted by the Finnish government. I must add, that the week
after the negotiations with the Finns were opened, the British government
also
expressed the desire to act as a mediator in the negotiations ostensibly
for the purpose of ending the war (laughter), but when our plenipotentiary
representative in England comrade Maisky informed London of our proposals,
which were subsequently adopted in their entirety by Finland, the British
government did not wish to cooperate in ending the war and restoring peace
between the Soviet Union and Finland. This did not prevent an agreement
from being soon concluded between the Soviet Union and Finland. The outcome
of this agreement and ceasing of hostilities and restoring peace are
contained in the Peace Treaty, signed on the 12th of March. In connection
with this the People's Democratic Government* took up the issue of its
dissolution, which it carried out of its own volition.
You are familiar with the provisions stipulated in the Peace Treaty.
In accordance with the Treaty southern and partly eastern borders of
Finland
have been altered. The whole Karelian Isthmus, both Vyborg and Vyborg Bay,
the eastern and northern coast of Lake Ladoga, Kexholm (Finn.
Käkisalmi, now Priozersk - the names in parenthesis added by the
translator!) and Sortavala have been transferred to the Soviet Union. On a
region
bordering to Kandalaksha where the Finnish border went especially close to
the Murmansk railway, the border has been pushed farther off. In the north,
small parts of Sredniy (Finn. Keskisaarento) and Rybatsiy (Finn.
Kalastajasaarento) peninsulas, formerly belonging to Finland, and in the
Gulf of
Finland a well-known group of islands, Hogland (Finn. Suursaari) included,
were moved to the Soviet Union. In addition to that, Hanko Peninsula with
adjacent islands was transferred to the Soviet Union in a form of a rental
agreement for 30 years, with an annual payment of 9 million Finnish marks,
and
there our naval base will be built as protection against aggression at the
entrance to the Gulf of Finland. This agreement also facilitates the
transit of goods for Sweden, Norway and the Soviet Union. Together with
this, the Peace Treaty stipulates a mutual abstention from all kinds of
aggression against the
other party and a prohibition to join any hostile coalitions.
There have been attempts in the Anglo-French press to depict the
Soviet-Finnish treaty and, especially the transfer of the Karelian Isthmus
to the Soviet Union, as an "annihilation" of Finland's independence. This
is, of course, absurdity and pure nagging. Finland still comprises a
territory which is
four times larger than Hungary and eight times or more larger than
Switzerland. If nobody has any doubts that Hungary and Switzerland are
independent
countries, then how could anyone doubt the independence and sovereignty of
Finland?
The same Anglo-French press wrote that the Soviet Union wants to
change Finland into a mere Baltic Sea country. This is also, of course,
stupidity. It should be sufficient to show that when USSR, during the war,
occupied the Petsamo (now Pechenga) area adjoining to the Arctic Ocean, she
voluntarily returned this area to Finland, because she considered it
essential to let Finland have an ice-free ocean port. Consequently we
consider Finland to
be not only a Baltic Sea country but also a northern one.
There is no truth in these fabrications of Anglo-French newspapers
which are old hands in the art of falsified anti-Soviet propaganda. The
truth
lies elsewhere, namely in the fact that the Soviet Union, after crushing
the Finnish army and with a full capacity to occupy the whole of Finland
did not do
that and did not demand any indemnities to compensate her war expenses,
that would have been done by any other power, and limited her wishes to the
minimum thus displaying magnanimity toward Finland.
What is the basic logic behind the Peace Treaty? It is that it duly
guarantees the security of Leningrad, Murmansk and the Murmansk railway.
This
time we could not confine ourselves merely to those desires we brought up
last autumn, acceptance of which by Finland would have averted war. After
our
soldiers' blood was shed - we are not to blame for this - and when we
became convinced how far the hostile policy of the Finnish government
towards the
Soviet Union has gone, the issue on Leningrad's security should be placed
on a firmer basis, and furthermore an issue of the security of Murmansk
railway and Murmansk must be arranged, because Murmansk is our only
ice-free ocean port in the West and therefore exceptionally important to
our
foreign trade and, in general, to the Soviet Union's connections with other
countries. No other objects than that of safeguarding the security of
Leningrad,
Murmansk and the Murmansk railroad were pursued by us in the Peace Treaty.
But we considered it essential to settle this problem effectively and in a
durable way. The starting point of the Peace Treaty is the recognition of
the principle of the sovereignty of Finland, the recognition of the
independence of
her domestic and foreign policy and, simultaneously, the necessity to
secure the safety of Leningrad and the northwest boundaries of the Soviet
Union.
Now the objects set by us have been achieved and we may express our
full satisfaction with the Treaty made with Finland. (Applause).
From now on political and economical relations with Finland will be
fully restored. The government expresses its confidence that normal and
good
neighborly relations will develop between the Soviet Union and Finland.
One must, however, give a warning against attempts to violate the
Peace Treaty just concluded that are already attempted by some circles in
Finland, as well as in Sweden and Norway under the pretext of creating a
joint defense alliance between them. In the light of a recent speech by Mr.
Hambro, chairman of the Norwegian Storting, in which, referring to
historical examples, where he urged Finland to "win back its borders" and
proclaimed
that this peace, which have been concluded between the Soviet Union and
Finland, "cannot last for long" - in the light of this and similar
statements, it is
not hard to understand that efforts to form a so-called "defensive
alliance" of Finland, Sweden and Norway are aimed against the Soviet Union
and that
these efforts are warmed up by reckless ideology of a military revanche.
The formation of a military alliance of this kind, with Finland taking part
in it,
would be, not only contradictory with the 3rd paragraph of the Peace Treaty
which excludes the contracting parties from taking part in any mutually
hostile
coalitions (alliances), but also in contradiction with the Peace Treaty as
a whole which firmly defines the boundary between the Soviet Union and
Finland.
Finnish participation in any revanchist alliance against the Soviet Union
is inconsistent with loyalty to this Treaty. If Sweden and Norway should
take part
in an alliance like this, it means, that they have given up conducting
their neutrality policies and that they have entered into new foreign
policy, from which the Soviet Union cannot abstain from drawing appropriate
conclusions.
€ On relations with the three Baltic states
The conclusion of the Peace Treaty with Finland accomplishes the task which
was set last year to secure the safety of the Soviet Union on the
Baltic Sea edge. This Treaty is a necessary complement to the three pacts
of mutual cooperation made with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. A half
year's
experience since the signing of these cooperation treaties enables us to
draw very definite and positive conclusions concerning the treaties made
with the
Baltic states. It must be admitted that the treaties made by the Soviet
Union with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have contributed to strengthen the
international position of both the Soviet Union and of Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania. Despite the intimidations by hostile anti-Soviet imperialistic
circles, the national sovereignty and political independence of Estonia,
Latvia or Lithuania has not been subject to any sufferings, on the
contrary, the economic relations of these countries with the Soviet Union
started to expand appreciably. The fulfillment of the treaties with
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, being carried out satisfactorily, creates
the prerequisite for further improvements in relations between the Soviet
Union and these states.
Best regards,
Eugene Holman
Vladimir Svetlov
: In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
: sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
:
: > In article <holman-ya02408000...@news.helsinki.fi>,
: > hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
: >
:
: > > On the other hand, the USSR which had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
: > > with Germany in 1939, WAS an ally of Germany right up until June 22, 1941.
: >
: > Nonsense.
:
: What, then, do you make of the following?
:
: (Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html)
: Modern History Sourcebook: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 1939
:
:
: Text of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact
Man, you apparently believe that you can complement the lack of relevance
of the quote by the size of it. I'm afraid that the ease with which
humongous lumps of text can be dumped from one place to another leads to
deterioration of the whole "quoting" business in a discussion...
: The above document is unquestionably the text of an *alliance*,
: unparalleled by anything in Finnish-German diplomatic history.
Eugene, you can not have it both ways - in logical argument that is. First
you set out for a whimsical semantic exercise to prove that fighting
against Soviet Union from the Finnish historiographic perspective does not
constitute an aliance with Germany, but an act of "cobilligerance". And
now, in the same thread you are stating that an agreement between Soviet
Union and Germany NOT to fight against each other is an "unquestionable"
act of alliance. That's what I call an unquestionable "nonsense". This pact
with all its territorial ramifications for small powers is nevertheless a
non-agression treaty. There is no word of forming any kind of alliance,
political, economical or military, instead it contains a clear call of NOT
joining alliances aimed at the other party. There is no obligation to aid
other signing party in case of agression against it (a common feature of
all alliances), politically, economically or militarily, instead it is
clearly stated that signing parties should desist from assisting the
AGRESSOR. In other words this pact has none of the features of an alliance
treaty. Duh. Is Polya's book on plausible reasoning available in Finland?
: The consequences of this alliance from the Baltic standpoint are briefly
: presented here: http://www.bafl.com/mrp.html:
Mein hertz, however Balts did not or do not like the fact, that Germans and
Soviets divided their lands between themselves without asking for Baltic
standpoint, it is immaterial for establishment of the fact that the
Molotov-Ribbentropp pact is not an alliance treaty. BTW, if Swedes would be
more accomodating of Germany's interests they could have got some or all of
their lost Finnish territories back. I thought them Balts should get used
to the idea of being utilized as pawns or pocket change in political
dealings of big powers by now.
Regards,
V.
--
V. Svetlov, Ph. D.
McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research
University of WI, Madison
1400 University Ave.
Madison, WI 53706
Eugene Holman
In article <35970385...@popmail.csuohio.edu>, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> Vladimir Svetlov wrote:
>
> > Well, they routinely call Finland an ally.
Who is 'they'? It's possible that general histories of the area 'routinely'
(and imprecisely), use the term 'ally'. More authoritative treatments, as
well as official diplomatic correspondence, consistently uses the term
'cobelligerent'. A neccessary and sufficent condition for being an ally is
signing some kind of treaty or pact, as the USSR did with Nazi Germany on
August 23, 1939. Finland and Germany never had such a treatry or pact, thus
they were not allies. Being a cobelligerent involves various types of
interaction and collaboration, but it is governed by circumstances on a
case-to-case basis rather than by treaty.
> > Finland started seeking German
> > alliance much in advance of 1941, and made such appeasing moves as
> > recognition of the Slovakia or accomodating Germany needs in regard to
> > Petsamo nickel.
There is nothing wrong or illegal about that. A neutral country that has
just been the victim of a vicious Soviet sneak attack has to keep its
options open and consider various alternatives. The Finns were no great
friends of Germany, by the way. Under the terms of the Nazi-Soviet
alliance, official Germany was not allowed to voice any support of Finland
since the official Soviet line was that the conflict was the result of
Finland having attacked the USSR ( Article II. Should one of the High
Contracting Parties become the object of belligerent action by a third
Power, the other High Contracting Party shall in no manner lend its support
to this third Power.). Sticking to the fiction of Finland being a "third
power" which had made one of the High Contract Parties, the U.S.S.R., an
"object of belligerent action", Hitler stuck to the treaty, maintained
silence about the Finnish-Soviet war, and lent no support, despite the fact
that there was considerable grass-roots sympathy for Finland among the
German population.
>
> Finland start to mine Soviet waters of Gulf of Finland BEFORE June 22,
1941. It
> is obvious act of war and it is obvious that they knew about June 22.
The Soviet Army and Stalin knew that something was cooking, but trusted
their ally Hitler enough not to didn't bother to take any precautions. Ihe
Finns might
very well have had access to the same military intelligence, but were
prudent enough to take precautions. Once bitten, twice shy.
> On the day
> of the attack Hitler called Finland a German allie, and Finish government
did not
> expressed any disagreement with this statement.
Source, please. he might have mentioned Finland, but since the Finnish
government didn't even declare war on the USSR until three days later, if
he said such a thing, he was in error or you are using a mistranslation.
After the German attack on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Finland
officially maintained its neutrality for a few days, but allowed German
troops transit rights across northern Finland. Only after Soviet air
attacks on Finnish cities and airports did Finland declare war on the
Soviet Union, on June 25, and joined in the fighting five days later on
June 30. Its military objectives were limited: to retake the Finnish
territory which the Soviet Union had illegally grabbed the previous year.
If the Soviet Union considered an 'attack' on its border station to be a
sufficient pretext for attacking Finland in 1939, should not Finland have
considered Soviet bomb attacks on its cities and airfields a sufficient
pretext for attacking the USSR in 1941?
You can, of course, counter that Finland's allowing the German army transit
rights across its territory already amounts to an act of war. You are
probably right. On the other hand, armed-to-the-teeth Germany would have
used Finnish territory for the purpose in any case, whether or not the
Finns allowed it. Secondly, after just having been the victim of a brutal
Soviet attack themselves, and seeing what had happened to its Baltic
neighbors, there was considerable enthusiasm in Finland for seeing the
Soviet Union get a taste of the medicine it had been dishing out so
generously to its neighbors.
Vladimir Svetlov
: € On the relationship with Germany.
:
: A sudden improvement in Soviet-German relations found its expression in the
: form of the non-aggression pact signed in August last year. This new good
: relationship between the Soviet Union and Germany has stood the trial in
: connection with the events in the former Poland and have thus fairly
: showed its permanence. With negotiations which began already last autumn,
: the expected development of economic relations assumed a concrete form in
: the trade agreement in August (1939) and later in February (1940). The
: exchange of commodities between Germany and the USSR began to increase on
: the basis of a mutual economical advantage, and good grounds for its
: further development exist.
Eugene, you seem to be very fond of this argument, since you've choosen to
replicate it rather than to respond to counterarguments mounted against it.
In Usenet debating tips book it's called bait-n-switch - start a new thread
every time you run into trouble in the old one, or better two or three. It
would be very annoying to go hunting down all the derivatives of the one
failed argument and plow one's way through mountains of irrelevant or
inconsequential quotes. Quotes like the one above, that adds nothing to
your claim of alliance between Germany and Soviet Union. Non-agression
treaty, division of Baltic states, Poland and Romania - all that, but
however disagreeable this pact is, it has no characteristic features of the
alliance treaty (I'm not going to repeat arguments from another thread).
Finns, on the other hand, accomodated German military objectives, engaged
in common military operations and planning and received military equipment
from Germany. I do not think you can make a very strong case with such set
of evidence on hand. You are constantly mixing up the questions of
semantics, historiography and moral judgements in your posts. I repeatedly
stated that I'm not arguing that Finns were not justified in their
animosity towards Soviet Union after the Winter War, or that Soviet Union
before 1941 did not plan to eventually annex all of the Finland (with
initial German support), or that Finnish government had any other feasible
choice other than this half-assed lethargic little northern campain. The
facts, however, are
1. Germany and Soviet Union were not in any kind of alliance even prior to
June 1941;
2. Finland was de facto ally of Germany from 1941 to 1944;
3. Finland did not agree on mediated by Great Britain Soviet Union's offers
of peace in August of 1941 in return to annulment of territorial
implications of the March 1940 Peace Treaty, i.e. return to the pre-winter
war boundaries, because she (Finland) had some bigger territorial
aspirations (in Karelia and elsewhere).
Now you can try to drown your response in a puddle of tangential quotes,
but it would be more productive to address the arguments directly in a
logical fashion. That is, if you have anything to say.
Eugene Holman
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> :
> : > > On the other hand, the USSR which had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
> : > > with Germany in 1939, WAS an ally of Germany right up until June
22, 1941.
> : >
> : > Nonsense.
> :
> : What, then, do you make of the following?
> :
> : (Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html)
> : Modern History Sourcebook: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 1939
> :
> :
> : Text of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact
>
>
> Man, you apparently believe that you can complement the lack of relevance
> of the quote by the size of it. I'm afraid that the ease with which
> humongous lumps of text can be dumped from one place to another leads to
> deterioration of the whole "quoting" business in a discussion...
I wanted to be absolutely sure we were talking about the same thing. We
have had Russians participating in this discussion group who deny that such
a document ever existed or who claim that the secret protocol is a
'forgery'.
>
> : The above document is unquestionably the text of an *alliance*,
> : unparalleled by anything in Finnish-German diplomatic history.
>
> Eugene, you can not have it both ways - in logical argument that is. First
> you set out for a whimsical semantic exercise to prove that fighting
> against Soviet Union from the Finnish historiographic perspective does not
> constitute an aliance with Germany, but an act of "cobilligerance".
Ahem, "cobelligerence". The difference is maintained in diplomatic and
historiographical terminology. The Soviet Union and Costa Rica were both
officially at war against Nazi Germany, but they were not allies, even if
they were both cobelligerents. If Finland had been an ally of Germany it
would not have been able to sign a separate peace with the USSR as easily
as it did in 1944, and the Soviet Union would have treated it even more
harshly than it did.
> And
> now, in the same thread you are stating that an agreement between Soviet
> Union and Germany NOT to fight against each other is an "unquestionable"
> act of alliance. That's what I call an unquestionable "nonsense". This pact
> with all its territorial ramifications for small powers is nevertheless a
> non-agression treaty. There is no word of forming any kind of alliance,
> political, economical or military, instead it contains a clear call of NOT
> joining alliances aimed at the other party. There is no obligation to aid
> other signing party in case of agression against it (a common feature of
> all alliances), politically, economically or militarily, instead it is
> clearly stated that signing parties should desist from assisting the
> AGRESSOR. In other words this pact has none of the features of an alliance
> treaty. Duh. Is Polya's book on plausible reasoning available in Finland?
>
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary/Thesaurus
**************************************************************
al€li€ance \e-"l-en(t)s\ noun (13c)
1 a : the state of being allied : the action of allying
b : a bond or connection between families, states, parties, or individuals
<a closer alliance between government and industry>
2 : an association to further the common interests of the members; specif
: a confederation of nations by treaty
3 : union by relationship in qualities : affinity
4 : a treaty of alliance
**************************************************************
According to definition 2 an alliance can simply be "an association to
further the common interests of the members". Nothing requires that they
have to form anything more than a mutual understanding. In the case of the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Germnan-Soviet alliance gave each power free
reign to practice aggression against the countries in its sphere of
influence without having to fear intereference, 'bad vibes', or aggression
from the other party. In practical terms it enabled the USSR to pick up
the pieces of Poland that Germany didn't want, and it forced Germany to
refrain from officially commenting on the Soviet attack on Finland. These
are both 'unnatural' types of international behavior, consequences of the
fact that Germany and the USSR had formed an alliance to allow each free
reign to behave this way within the sphere of influence which they had
agreed upon.
Consider also Molotov's report to the Soviet government on the improvement
of German - Soviet relations after the signing of the pact (source:
http://www.clinet.fi/~pkr01/history/molotov.html):
**************************************************************
€ On the relationship with Germany.
A sudden improvement in Soviet-German relations found its expression in the
form of the non-aggression pact signed in August last year. This new good
relationship between the Soviet Union and Germany has stood the trial in
connection with the events in the former Poland and have thus fairly
showed its permanence. With negotiations which began already last autumn,
the expected development of economic relations assumed a concrete form in
the trade agreement in August (1939) and later in February (1940). The
exchange of commodities between Germany and the USSR began to increase on
the basis of a mutual economical advantage, and good grounds for its
further development exist.
**************************************************************
In other words, relationships on other planes between Germany and the USSR
begen to improve as a consequence of the steps they had taken to further
their mutual interests as a consequence of the predictability generated by
their treaty.
> Duh. Is Polya's book on plausible reasoning available in Finland?
This is not an exercise in plausible reasoning. This is an exercise in the
precise meanings with which these terms are used in diplomacy and
professional historiography. You evidently do not understand the subtleties
differentiating an alliance, which is a formal agreement governing
long-term interaction, from a collaborative relationship, which is an
informal relationship governing case-to-case interaction. This difference
can have important diplomatic and other consequences.
Relations between the USSR and Germany were regulated in certain spheres by
a pact, agreement, or treaty which they had signed for this purpose. This
is an association to further the common interests of the members, that is
to say, an alliance.
Relations between Finland and Germany were never regulated by such an
agreement. Even though Germany sent its troops across Finnish territory to
attack the Soviet Union, Finland did not itself declare war on the USSR
until three days later, nor did its troops participate in actual warfare
until more than a week later. The fact that Finland was not an ally of
Germany allowed it to choose not to participate directly in the siege of
Leningrad, even if it did agree to lend some logistical and other
assistance. This is the type of case-by-case, improvised type of
interaction we see when two nations are in a relationship of
cobelligerence. If a Costa Rican ship had rendered aid to a Soviet ship in
capturing a German ship in the Atlantic during WW II, that would not mean
the two countries were allies, even if such assistance would be quite
normal for cobelligerents, two countries collaborating in a struggle
against a common enemy, perhaps for quite different reasons.
Alliance = 'We are partners in order to further our mutual interests.'
Cobelligerence = 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.'
> : The consequences of this alliance from the Baltic standpoint are briefly
> : presented here: http://www.bafl.com/mrp.html:
>
> Mein hertz, however Balts did not or do not like the fact, that Germans and
> Soviets divided their lands between themselves without asking for Baltic
> standpoint, it is immaterial for establishment of the fact that the
> Molotov-Ribbentropp pact is not an alliance treaty.
You are contradicting yourself. If the two major powers in the area had
agreed not to interfere with one other as they divided up the lands of
smaller countries, we are indeed speaking of a (conspiratory) alliance. The
fact that Stalin naively left his western border open to the massive attack
on June 22, 1941 shows that he had put faith in the words of his treaty
partner or ally not to attack him. The fact that Molotov mentions nothing
about a German threat on Leningrad, but rather justifies the Finnish-Soviet
war on the basis of allegations that the Finns of secretly colluding with
France, Great Britain, and the Scandinavian countries to use Finland as a
bridgehead for attacking Leinigrad and Moscow itself, show that it least in
their public pronouncements the USSR considered the behavior of their
confederate, Nazi Germany, to be rgulated by the terms of their treaty of
alliance.
> BTW, if Swedes would be
> more accomodating of Germany's interests they could have got some or all of
> their lost Finnish territories back. I thought them Balts should get used
> to the idea of being utilized as pawns or pocket change in political
> dealings of big powers by now.
>
Mice have as much a right to live as elephants.
Vadim Kolosov
Eugene Holman wrote in message ...
> Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary/Thesaurus
>
>**************************************************************
>
>al€li€ance \e-"l-en(t)s\ noun (13c)
>1 a : the state of being allied : the action of allying
>b : a bond or connection between families, states, parties, or individuals
><a closer alliance between government and industry>
>2 : an association to further the common interests of the members; specif
>: a confederation of nations by treaty
>3 : union by relationship in qualities : affinity
>4 : a treaty of alliance
>
>**************************************************************
>
>According to definition 2 an alliance can simply be "an association to
>further the common interests of the members". Nothing requires that they
>have to form anything more than a mutual understanding.
Soviet Union also signed a non-aggression pact with Japan. By your
logic they were allies during WWII as they have some form of mutual
understanding (was it a conspiracy against the US and Germany?
No, wait, Japan and Germany were allies, or may be they were
just cobelligerents?)
I understand now that the US and SU were allies during Cold War.
Thanks God, they had a lot of mutual understanding and treaties...
You opened my eyes, Eugene.
Vadim Kolosov (your ally by Usenet,see p. 1b)
Vladimir Svetlov
: > And
As I said you can't have it both ways... Now start explaining me how
Germans and Finns did not have the common interest in military defeat of
the Soviet Union.
: Nothing requires that they
: have to form anything more than a mutual understanding.
Not the collegiate dictionary, no. But diplomatic practice of alliance
treaties includes obligations of direct assistance, rather than
non-assistance or recognition of mutual interests. In its time Soviet Union
signed a bunch of treaties about common interests in futhering peace, tuna
fishing, diamond mining or folk dancing with just about anybody, that does
not make them all allies.
: This is not an exercise in plausible reasoning.
That's true, but that is THE problem.
This is an exercise in the
: precise meanings with which these terms are used in diplomacy and
: professional historiography.
Man, who died and made you a diplomat (or professional historiographer, for
that matter)? You "precise" meanings (derived from a student'level general
dictionary) seem to be very flexible.
: You evidently do not understand the subtleties
: differentiating an alliance, which is a formal agreement governing
: long-term interaction, from a collaborative relationship, which is an
: informal relationship governing case-to-case interaction. This difference
: can have important diplomatic and other consequences.
I said - de facto ally, did I not? And as far as understanding subtleties
of ever changing definition - right, I do not get that. I understand WHY
you are doing that - being allied with Nazis for some people even in Baltic
states somehow still has a bad taste to it, but do not expect me (or for
that matter, anybody with credit in logic) to admit that what you have come
up with makes it anywhere close to a logical argument.
: Relations between the USSR and Germany were regulated in certain spheres by
: a pact, agreement, or treaty which they had signed for this purpose. This
: is an association to further the common interests of the members, that is
: to say, an alliance.
Not so fast, bubba - signing a treaty does not constitute an association,
but rather a mere agreement on a document; the treaty in question
specifically does not call for any association or common organization
structure, moreover, it provides for an arbitration committee in case of
disagreements - a third party, rather than a joint representation committee
as council or conference, routinely found among allied powers.
: > Mein hertz, however Balts did not or do not like the fact, that Germans and
: > Soviets divided their lands between themselves without asking for Baltic
: > standpoint, it is immaterial for establishment of the fact that the
: > Molotov-Ribbentropp pact is not an alliance treaty.
:
: You are contradicting yourself. If the two major powers in the area had
: agreed not to interfere with one other as they divided up the lands of
: smaller countries, we are indeed speaking of a (conspiratory) alliance.
A conspiracy theory, yeh? Conspiracy - si, alliance - no.
: The
: fact that Stalin naively left his western border open to the massive attack
: on June 22, 1941 shows that he had put faith in the words of his treaty
: partner or ally not to attack him.
Man, you really want it so baaad, that you are incorporating an
interpretation of Stalin's moves as another "subtlety" to your "precise"
historiographic definitions? Another historiographical fantasier, Suvorov,
will tell you that Stalin was actually getting ready to strike Hitler with
all his might and miscalculated his move by only a few days... So they
could not be allies, right?
C'mon, man, what was so bad if Finns were allied with Germans? After all,
Russians were killing themselves anyway, right? Germans on the other hand
brought organization to this process, and taught them dirty Russians to use
soap, made incidentally from the excess of these Russians and other
semi-human races.
Mike Davidchik
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> 1. Germany and Soviet Union were not in any kind of alliance even prior to
> June 1941;
According to the English dictionary, they were "allied." In the
Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact, they were allies in carving up Poland between
them. This was a limited alliance (pact), but nonetheless an alliance.
This is a dirty deal that the current day Sovoks would like to forget or
say never happened. What is the Soviet propaganda line about this? That
they were just protecting the poor Poles or that it was a defensive action
against the Germans?
Mike
Vladimir Svetlov
As requested, the reply transferred here for the sake of thread consolidation.
: In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
: sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
: > 2. Finland was de facto ally of Germany from 1941 to 1944;
:
: 'De facto ally' is an imprecise non-term.
It is a well defined term even in your favorite Merriam Webster's - "being
such in effect though not formally recognized". I already mentioned the
characteristic features of alliance that are found in German-Finnish
relationships in 1940-1944: Finland received military equipment from
Germany outside of conventional trade relations, Finland and Germany
commenced joint military planning and operations etc. As far as signing
something, they first committed their "alliance" to paper in 1940 when
Finland allowed transit of German forces en route to Norway. Norway was not
part of Russia, was it?
:Mannerheim understood that the Finns would always have the Russians as
:neighbors in a way the Germans wouldn't, no matter how the war turned out,
:why should he have burned bridges unnecessarily?
Yeh, I heard this story about benevolent Russian-educated Swede Mannerheim.
First of all, if all turned out as Germans wanted it, then Finns would not
have Russians as neighbors, unless they were planning to extend Finland all
the way to Ural mountains. Secondly, pressure from GB and US played a
tremendous role in this benevolence, as well as the fact that in the August
of 1941 Finnish corps already were having hard time keeping up with their
tactical role, both materially and man-wise.
: Russian also distinguishes
:between the two concepts: 'sojuznik' and 'sovojushchij'. The former term
:implies a much more formalized type of relationship and consequent
:ineraction than the latter.
Never heard of term "sovojushchij". Russian language was doing just fine
without you, Eugene, making up such monstrocities.
:> 3. Finland did not agree on mediated by Great Britain Soviet Union's offers
:> of peace in August of 1941 in return to annulment of territorial
:> implications of the March 1940 Peace Treaty, i.e. return to the pre-winter
:> war boundaries, because she (Finland) had some bigger territorial
:> aspirations (in Karelia and elsewhere).
:No. Only Karelia (the area around Petrozavodsk, which at the time was
:primarily ethnically Karelian and Vepsian, i.e. 'wild Finnish').
Wild Finns?! Are you trying to scare me or something? Anyhow, Finns had
some aspirations towards far-North territories too.
:Is this any different from Soviet territorial aspirations on Finland in 1939?
You are not saying that Finland was just like that big bad commie red-assed
wolf of a Soviet Union, are you?
:The dynamics of the war were going in Finland's (and Germany's) favor.
Opportunism - just like everybody else.
:After the exceptionally poor
:performance of Soviet troops in the Winter War (1:5 Finnish:Soviet kill
:rate), 3 1/2 months needed to reach a settlement against a tiny country
:without achieving its two main military objectives (splitting Finland at
:the 'waist' and occupying Helsinki), and the total unpreparedness of the
:Soviet Union for the biggest attack on a country ever attempted, nobody
:thought the USSR would be around for too much longer.
First, it contradicts your statement about Mannerheim's sentiment towards
Russians as eternal Finnish neighbours, second, this statement actually
corraborates the main thesis - as long as Finns were running with a bigger
dog, they'd forgotten about continuation war and pre-war boundaries and
wanted to capitalize at the expense of perceived falled USSR. Even in
November they still rejected mediation of the peace talks by GB. Then of
course, times came to change... Not exactly that rosy fairy tale, that you
tried to sell us in the beginning, is it? More like that little pesky thing
in the Jungle book, Tabaqui...
Eugene Holman
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> 1. Germany and Soviet Union were not in any kind of alliance even prior to
> June 1941;
Their future ehavior with respect to certain international issues affecting
both of them was regulated by a publicly signed (but paretially concealed)
agreement or treaty.
> 2. Finland was de facto ally of Germany from 1941 to 1944;
'De facto ally' is an imprecise non-term. Finnish-German relationships in
the sphere of military collaboration were not governed by any long-term
agreement. This gave Finland the right to pick and choose regarding the
degree and manner in which it participated in the campaign against the
Soviet Union, it prevented Germany from interfering in Finnish politics,
and also allowed the irony that I wrote about in a previous posting of
Finnish Jews fighting side-by-side with Germans and even being awarded the
Iron Cross. One might even say, that the fact that Finland was a small
country and Germany a much larger one made Finland relectant to conclude a
formal alliance with Germany. Being in an informal relationship ensured it
more freedom: kind of like living together as opposed to being married.
Mannerheim understood that the Finns would always have the Russians as
neighbors in a way the Germans wouldn't, no matter how the war turned out,
why should he have burned bridges unnecessarily?
There is no reson to use an imprecise term for the Finnish-German
relationship when the proper term, the one used in diplomacy and
historiography, is 'cobelligerent'? The terms 'ally' and 'cobelligerent'
have well-established and different contents. Russian also distinguishes
between the two concepts: 'sojuznik' and 'sovojushchij'. The former term
implies a much more formalized type of relationship and consequent
ineraction than the latter.
> 3. Finland did not agree on mediated by Great Britain Soviet Union's offers
> of peace in August of 1941 in return to annulment of territorial
> implications of the March 1940 Peace Treaty, i.e. return to the pre-winter
> war boundaries, because she (Finland) had some bigger territorial
> aspirations (in Karelia and elsewhere).
No. Only Karelia (the area around Petrozavodsk, which at the time was
primarily ethnically Karelian and Vepsian, i.e. 'wild Finnish').
Is this any different from Soviet territorial aspirations on Finland in 1939?
The dynamics of the war were going in Finland's (and Germany's) favor.
Finland had been dealt a very bloody nose by the USSR in 1939-40, and it
had seen its Baltic neighbors dragged kicking ans screaming into the USSR
in 1940. Why should it not want to help give the USSR a dose of its own
medicine, and perhaps even contribute to its total destruction? An almost
univerally felt desire in Finland for some revenge against the USSR and
pick-and-choose military collaboration with Germany is not the same thing
as an alliance with Germany. For that you have to look at the treaty which
existed between Germany and the USSR between August 23, 1939 and June 22,
1941 which regulated each country's behavior with respect to the other as
they knocked off their smaller neighbors. In the long term the desire not
to leave the war as quickly as possible was probably a poor decision on
Finland's part, but, given the circumstances, it's not difficult to
understand the popular sentiment behind it. After the exceptionally poor
performance of Soviet troops in the Winter War (1:5 Finnish:Soviet kill
rate), 3 1/2 months needed to reach a settlement against a tiny country
without achieving its two main military objectives (splitting Finland at
the 'waist' and occupying Helsinki), and the total unpreparedness of the
Soviet Union for the biggest attack on a country ever attempted, nobody
thought the USSR would be around for too much longer.
> Now you can try to drown your response in a puddle of tangential quotes,
> but it would be more productive to address the arguments directly in a
> logical fashion. That is, if you have anything to say.
>
See my response under 'History for Dummies'. Please direct any reponses to
this back there.
Eugene Holman
In article <6n90vg$hs3$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, "Vadim Kolosov"
<vkol...@wwoffline.com> wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote in message ...
>
> > Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary/Thesaurus
> >
> >**************************************************************
> >
> >al€li€ance \e-"l-en(t)s\ noun (13c)
> >1 a : the state of being allied : the action of allying
> >b : a bond or connection between families, states, parties, or individuals
> ><a closer alliance between government and industry>
> >2 : an association to further the common interests of the members; specif
> >: a confederation of nations by treaty
> >3 : union by relationship in qualities : affinity
> >4 : a treaty of alliance
> >
> >**************************************************************
> >
> >According to definition 2 an alliance can simply be "an association to
> >further the common interests of the members". Nothing requires that they
> >have to form anything more than a mutual understanding.
>
> Soviet Union also signed a non-aggression pact with Japan. By your
> logic they were allies during WWII as they have some form of mutual
> understanding (was it a conspiracy against the US and Germany?
> No, wait, Japan and Germany were allies, or may be they were
> just cobelligerents?)
>
> I understand now that the US and SU were allies during Cold War.
> Thanks God, they had a lot of mutual understanding and treaties...
>
It's quite obvious that the German-Soviet agreement was not just a mutual
affirmation of non-agressive intentions, and thus passive, but rather it
guaranteed the right of Germany and the USSR to be aggressive towards
specified third parties without having to fear interference from the other
contracting party. The difference is nontrivially significant in diplomacy
and history.
The USSR and the USA had various agreements such as lend-lease which
regulated their behavior, ensured the USSR a steady flow of armaments and
supplies, and eventually relieved its burden by opening up a second front
against Germany. These are the types of long-term and goal-directed
behavior we expect from allies (sojuzniki), not from cobelligerents
(sovojushshie).
**************************************************************
lend-lease
arrangement for the transfer of war supplies, including food,
machinery, and services, to nations whose defense was
considered vital to the defense of the United States in World
War II. The Lend-Lease Act, passed (1941) by the U.S.
Congress, gave the President power to sell, transfer, lend, or
lease such war materials. The President was to set the terms for
aid; repayment was to be "in kind or property, or any other
direct or indirect benefit which the President deems
satisfactory." Harry L. Hopkins was appointed (March, 1941)
to administer lend-lease. He was replaced (July) by Edward R.
Stettinius, Jr., who headed the Office of Lend-Lease
Administration, set up in Oct., 1941. In Sept., 1943, lend-lease
was incorporated into the Foreign Economic Administration
under Leo T. Crowley. In Sept., 1945, it was transferred to the
Dept. of State. Lend-lease was originally intended for China and
countries of the British Empire. In Nov., 1941, the USSR was
included, and by the end of the war practically all the allies of
the United States had been declared eligible for lend-lease aid.
Although not all requested or received it, lend-lease agreements
were signed with numerous countries. In 1942, a reciprocal aid
agreement of the United States with Great Britain, Australia,
New Zealand, and the Free French was announced. Under its
terms a "reverse lend-lease" was effected, whereby goods,
services, shipping, and military installations were given to
American forces overseas. Other nations in which U.S. forces
were stationed subsequently adhered to the agreement. On Aug.
lease aid. Arrangements were made--notably with Great Britain and
China--to continue shipments, on a cash or credit basis, of
goods earmarked for them under lend-lease appropriations.
Total lend-lease aid exceeded $50 billion, of which the British
Commonwealth received some $31 billion and the USSR
received over $11 billion. Within 15 years after the termination
of lend-lease, settlements were made with most of the countries
that had received aid, although a settlement with the USSR was
not reached until 1972. See W. F. Kimball, The Most Unsordid
Act (1969).
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition. Copyright ©1993, Columbia
University Press. Licensed from InsoCorporation. All rights reserved.
lend-lease., The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, 01-01-1993.
**************************************************************
> You opened my eyes, Eugene.
No problem.
>
> Vadim Kolosov (your ally by Usenet,see p. 1b)
Unh.. sojuznik or sovojushchij?
zaga...@mail.stcc.mass.edu
Vadim Kolosov wrote:
> I understand now that the US and SU were allies during Cold War.
> Thanks God, they had a lot of mutual understanding and treaties...
Soviet atrocities did not bother the US & Co. so long as they did not
conflict with the interests of owners of the the bottom line. While Russia
was absorbing Hitler's war machine, Stalin was dear old "Uncle Joe" to the
US. It should not be hard to document, a la Eugene Holman, that Roosevelt
supported Stalin's designs on the Baltics and Finland and on Poland's eastern
part. Both Churchill and Roosevelt spoke of Stalin as a friend and a
colleague, a champion of peace. Also Truman, aware though he certainly was of
the horrendous magnitude of Stalin's crimes, deeply admired him as an honest,
intelligent friend, so long as he did not stand in the way of the US. It was
only when it became clear that the SU was supporting revolutionary movements
against US-imposed crony dictators in the Third World that the US turned
against the SU. But even then, the real battles took place only within the
territories of the the Third World. And when the Berlin Wall fell, George
Bush celebrated by serving up Chicken Kiev and by invading Panama and by
bombing the shit out of Iraq.
Juris Zagarins
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <davidchik-290...@y52.oro.net>, davi...@oro.net
(Mike Davidchik) wrote:
: In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
: sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
:
:
: > 1. Germany and Soviet Union were not in any kind of alliance even prior to
: > June 1941;
:
: According to the English dictionary, they were "allied."
I'm not going to repeat my arguments, since you have not added anything new
to Mr. Holman's position. Please see the thread History for dummies for
further details.
Eugene Holman
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> As requested, the reply transferred here for the sake of thread consolidation.
> : Russian also distinguishes
> :between the two concepts: 'sojuznik' and 'sovojushchij'. The former term
> :implies a much more formalized type of relationship and consequent
> :ineraction than the latter.
>
> Never heard of term "sovojushchij". Russian language was doing just fine
> without you, Eugene, making up such monstrocities.
Sorry. The word is 'sovojujushchij' (a syllable was inadvertently deleted
in my previous posting). I found it in several Russian dictionaries,
including the 4-volume Elsevier's Russian-English Dictionary. Just because
you aren't familiar with the word doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As you
know from your own specialty, languages have to resort to terminological
'monstrosities' to ensure their ability to create messages about phenomena
in the reality with which they are called upon to interact. For example,
'Cohabitation' is a 'monstrosity' of a word in English, and it is unknown
to many people. That does not mean that it doesn't exist, or that it does
not have a specific meaning which is quite different from and opposed to
that of 'marriage'.
'Cobelligerent' - sovojujushchij' is a term used in international
diplomacy. Russian has obviously needed such a 'monstrosity' to fill in the
gap in its vocabulary that other languages have filled in by the opposition
between 'ally' and 'cobelligerent'.
To go to a more authoritative lexicographical source than my handy
Merriam-Websters, I take the Oxford English Dictionary CD:
co-be"lligerent, n. and a.
[f. co- 2, 3.] (See quots.)
Hence
co-be"lligerence, co-be"lligerency, the quality or state of being
co-belligerent or a co-belligerent.
1813 Edin. Rev. XXI. 195 We have co-belligerents at least, if not allies.
1828 Webster, Cobelligerent, a., carrying on war in conjuction with another
power.
1919 J. M. Keynes Econ. Conseq. Peace (1920) v. 109 How far Germany can be
made contingently liable for damage done..by her co-belligerents,
Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey.
1943 W. S. Churchill in Second World War (1952) V. xi. 168 The question of
giving the Badoglio Government an Allied status does not come into our
immediate programme. Co-belligerency is good enough.
1949 F. Maclean Eastern Approaches iii. v. 347 Then they flocked forward,
clenching their fists in the Communist salute and I remembered that we were
amongst friends or at any rate co-belligerents.
1958 Times Lit. Suppl. 28 Mar. 163/1 Its confusion..was aggravated by
differing views in London and Washington on the vague status of
co-belligerence.
***********************************************************************
Note Winston Churchill's use of the word in 1943. He uses it not as a
synonym for ally, but rather as a word signifying a qualitatively different
and lower grade of relationship.
***********************************************************************
Now, let's look at the entry for 'ally':
ally, n.1 Forms: 4<min>6 alie, alye, 4<min>8 allye, (4 aleye), 5 aly,
5<min>7 allie, (6<min>7 alley), 5<min> ally. Occas. accented <ph>"</ph>ally
in 7.
[f. the vb.]
[Massive deletions]
7.
a. One united or associated with another by treaty or league; now usually
of sovereigns or states.
1598 Greenwey Tacitus Ann. xiii. ii. 180 The like number of citizens and
allies should bee vnder Corbuloes charge.
1640 Quarles Enchirid. ix. 1 Assayle some Alley of his rather than himselfe.
1677 Sedley Ant. & Cl. iv. i. (1766) 166 One King or ally still forsakes
his side.
1769 Robertson Charles V, VI. vi. 77 His new ally the Sultan.
1862 Stanley Jew. Ch. (1877) I. xvi. 303 Ammon, the ancient ally of
Israel..is the assailant.
1870 Knight Crown Hist. Eng. 791 There were two columns of the Allies
marching on Paris.
b. spec. (pl.) the Allies, the allied forces or States (including Britain)
which fought against the Central Powers in the war of 1914<min>18, or
against the Axis in that of 1939<min>45.
1914 Times 2 Nov. 9/6 A Note was to have been presented to the Porte on
Friday asking for..the withdrawal of the German officers and men from the
Turkish ships [etc.]... Failing satisfaction in these respects, diplomatic
relations with the Allies would cease.
1926 T. E. Lawrence Seven Pillars (1935) 7 The rebellion of the Sherif of
Mecca came to most as a surprise, and found the Allies unready.
1939 Times 13 Nov. 7/6 (heading) World events in Allies<cq> favour.
1945 A. Huxley Let. 27 May (1969) 528 It is obvious that now, even if the
Allies desired to treat Germany non-punitively and in a reformatory spirit,
it will be impossible for anything but the lex talionis to function.
1968 W. K. Hancock Smuts II. xxi. 373 At the very worst..victory in Africa
would give the allies a firm base from which to counter the German thrust.
1977 V. Glendinning Elizabeth Bowen ix. 154 The days before the Allies
invaded occupied France.
c. An individual who helps or co-operates with another; a supporter or
associate; a friend.
1916 Joyce Portrait of Artist (1969) xi. 63 He became the ally of a boy
named Aubrey Mills and founded with him a gang of adventurers in the
avenue.
1950 R. Macaulay World my Wilderness iv. 49 She went off; each had a warm
sense of having found an ally against Others.
1963 D. Lessing in Winter<cq>s Tales IX. 146 His sister..far from being his
friend and ally..seemed positively to hate him.
8. fig. Anything auxiliary to another.
1853 H. Rogers Ecl. Faith 6 Tractarianism is..the strict ally of Rome.
1869 Buckle Civilis. III. v. 477 Science, instead of being the enemy of
religion, becomes its ally.
Meaning 7a is precisely the type of relationship that entered into force
when the USSR and Nazi Germany signed the Molotiv-Ribbentrop Pact (or
Treaty) on Aug. 23, 1939, while meanings 7b and 7c are later extensions of
that basic meaning.
The USSR and Nazi Germany 'married' each other in the sense that they
legalized their relationship publicly, keeping agreements about the more
intimate parts as their own private knowledge ;-). Finland, on the other
hand, was 'cohabiting' with Germany. When she realized that Germany was not
the man he claimed to be, she asked her neighbor what to do. He refused to
have anything to do with her unless she kicked the bum out. Germany left,
but shit on the stoop and burned down part of the house in revenge.
Finland never had the kind of formal Pact (or Treaty) with Germany that the
USSR did.
Q.E.D.
Eugene Holman
[Massive deletions]
when the USSR and Nazi Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (or
Treaty) on Aug. 23, 1939, while meanings 7b and 7c are later extensions of
that basic meaning.
The USSR and Nazi Germany 'married' each other in the sense that they
legalized their relationship publicly, keeping agreements about its more
intimate details as their own private knowledge ;-). Finland, on the other
hand, was 'cohabiting' with Germany. When she realized that Germany was not
the man he claimed to be, she asked her neighbor what to do. He refused to
have anything to do with her unless she kicked the bum out. Germany left,
but shit on the stoop and burned down part of the house in revenge.
Finland never had the kind of formal Pact (or Treaty) with Germany that the
USSR did. This is not to say that weren't documents, protocols, and other
types of day-to-day, case-by-case agreements which applied to their
relationship. Somebody had to pay the gas bill, somebody had to take out
the garbage, figuratively speaking.
Vadim Kolosov
Eugene, thank you very much for your lecture on lend-lease.
If you only read my post, I see that I wrote about Cold War.
Anyway, I think I made my point. If we use your dictionary logic,
and, as you wrote, "a mutual understanding is enough", than USSR
was an ally of Germany in 1940 and an ally of the USA during Cold
War. To my mind these two "alliances" are not really that far from
each other, but let us not digress from pure linguistical discussion.
No, you cannot call neither 1940 Germany, nor Cold War USA
"souznik" in Russian, but I won't argue with you about usage of
English word "ally".
Eugene Holman wrote in message ...>
>Unh.. sojuznik or sovojushchij?
"sopishushij", if you like ugly words.
Regards,
Vadim Kolosov
Vadim Kolosov
So I understand Juris, that you essentially agree with my point
that relationships of USSR and USA during Cold War were not
unlike those of USSR and Germany in 1940. :-)
Eugene Holman calls them allies. Whatever. But I feel it is time to
me to go underground - I am terrified by a perspective of Henry
offering me to drink more vodka (which I hate), making witty
comments on my Russian IQ, or simply deporting me from
soc.culture.baltics.
Vadim Kolosov
zaga...@mail.stcc.mass.edu wrote in message
<6n9org$bgh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Eugene Holman
In article <6napf3$cjt$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, "Vadim Kolosov"
<vkol...@wwoffline.com> wrote:
> Eugene, thank you very much for your lecture on lend-lease.
It was an excerpt from an encyclopedia. I think it's important to post
these documents, since I am not always sure when I am discussing history
with people raised in the Soviet tradition that they know about or have
even heard about the things that I know about or have heard about. I'm not
saying that I'm right and Rusians are wrong - if I thought that way I
wouldn't be trying to find common ground. I have discussed the war with
educated Russians who claim that the United States did not aid the USSR at
all, and have never heard of lend-lease.
> If you only read my post, I see that I wrote about Cold War.
You had written (somewhat ironically):
> I understand now that the US and SU were allies during Cold War.
> Thanks God, they had a lot of mutual understanding and treaties...
There's more truth in what you wrote than you might think. Even though we
are taught to think of the US and SU as adversaries during the Cold War, in
actual fact the cold war was more a senior-partner/junior-partner type of
thing the main purpose of which was to keep Germany in check and allow
Europe the peace it needed to recover from WW II.
€ Once again I don't know how much you are aware of the degree to which the
USSR was dependent on the US, Argentina, and Australia for food. Soviet
agriculture was a disaster all through the cold war (about half of what was
produced never made it to the marketplace), and the West provided it with
the food that enabled it to feed itself.
€ Secondly, the Soviet Union was never able or willing to back the ruble in
a way that would have enabled its economic relationships with the outside
world to be free of the influence of the dollar. Even within the USSR
itself the dollar had a prestige and value which the ruble never had (and
still, even though it's a more serious currency than it has ever been
before) doesn't have. The Russian economy is crucially dependent on the
value of the billions of dollars which it uses as its primary means of
exchange something which we all accept without thinking about how
ridiculous it is that no other major country, not even India or Brazil, has
a currency in which its own people have so little confidence. Thus, Russia
is not going to behave in a way that would have too adverse an effect on the
American economy and the value of the dollar. During the cold war, when the
ruble wasn't worth the paper it was printed on beyond the borders of the
USSR, this was the case during the cold war even more than it is today.
€ One could say that the signing of the so-called 'Final Act' in Helsinki
in 1975 made the US, USSR, and other signatories allies in the broad sense
that they mutually agreed not to try to revise borders, thus freeing energy
and effort, while, at the same time, agreeing to more openness and
aceptance of the principle that human rights issues are not just an
internal affair. Cynics have said that this was an 'everyman's
Molotov-Ribbentrop' pact. Whatever it was, it was a loose alliance which
allowed the signatories some legitimate rights to comment on the
international and internal behavior of the others in exchange for more
predictable behavior in the political and military spheres.
So, given the fact that the US and the USSR had formal agreements
regulating the degree to and manner in which they could influence each
other's internal and external behavior according to norms which they had
both agreed upon, ensuring a ready Soviet market for American agricultural
surplus, and restraining the international behavior of both countries so
that the USSR could continue to conduct its business using stable dollars
(and not, for example, unleash a wave of inflation by repatriating the
dollars to the US and demanding gold or some other currency for them), yes,
the US and the USSR were cold-war allies. Thus doesn't mean that they
didn't have other alliances and international obligations such as NATO in
the case of the US and the corresponding Warsaw Agreement (or 'Pact') in
the case of the USSR, which made them [potential] adversaries as well.
I really think that we pay too much attention to the military and
ideological apsects of the US-Soviet relationship during the cold war, and
forget about the economic condominium, with consequent mutual checks on
each other's behavior, that made the Soviet Union a junior partner of the
United States in ensuring the stability in Europe necessary for it to be
able to recover from WW II..
> Anyway, I think I made my point. If we use your dictionary logic,
> and, as you wrote, "a mutual understanding is enough", than USSR
> was an ally of Germany in 1940 and an ally of the USA during Cold
> War.
The behavior of the USSR and Germany was regulated in an 'unnatural' and
publicly declared way by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. In a similar manner,
the bahavior of the USSR and the USA was regulated in many 'unnatural' and
publicly declared ways ('We'll keep providing you with food if you behave
within the bounds of the norms we've set.' - 'We'll behave within the norms
you set if you keep providing us with food.'), ways that did not regulate
the behavior of, say the US and China or the USSR and Argentina.
> To my mind these two "alliances" are not really that far from
> each other, but let us not digress from pure linguistical discussion.
>
> No, you cannot call neither 1940 Germany, nor Cold War USA
> "souznik" in Russian, but I won't argue with you about usage of
> English word "ally".
If you look at things from the standpoint of the people of Poland, Finland,
or the Baltic countries, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement certainly made
the USSR and Germany allies (sojuzniki) or even conspirators in the dirty
business of attacking, occupying, and annexing their countries. The
different nuances these words have is seen in English cold-war usage which
regularly spoke of the NATO 'Treaty' but the Warsaw 'Pact'. So, admittedly,
what looks like an alliance from one perspective might look like something
else if seen from another. I understand completely that Finland and Germany
were (de facto) 'allies' from the standpoint of some Soviet soldier trying
to hold his position against an attack. The details of their arrangement
were unimportant to his situation. On the other hand, from the standpoint
of Finland, which had the freedom to decide itself which operations it
would participate in and insisted that Germany accept that there were
Jewish soldiers in the Finnish army who were going to be fighting alongside
Germans, their relationship was something short of an alliance. The Soviet
authorities recognized this after the war, one consequence of this being
that they did not insist that Finland, like other states that had been
fighting on the German side, be occupied [although they did set up a
military base 50 km. from Helsinki]. This, once again, demonstrates the
valdity of the diplomatic distinction made between 'sojuznik' and
sovojujushchij'.
>
> Eugene Holman wrote in message ...>
>
> >Unh.. sojuznik or sovojujushchij?
>
>
> "sopishushij", if you like ugly words.
Ugly would have been "sopisushij".
You are a man of humor.
Vadim Kolosov
Eugene Holman wrote in message ...
>It was an excerpt from an encyclopedia.
Yes, otherwise your messages would be somewhat shorter.
I have nothing against you posting all these documents as a
separate articles, but never mentioning lend-lease, USSR/USA
wartime relations I certainly did not expect such a massive quote.
You know, a good Soviet propagandist could mention racial problem
in America in any linguistical or musical discussion.
I certainly never met any Russian, educated or otherwise who did
not know about lend-lease, but human ignorance has no limits
and I am sure that you did know such a rarity. Besides judging by
Russian expressions that you borrowed from you friends, we have
somewhat different experience.
>You had written (somewhat ironically):
>
>> I understand now that the US and SU were allies during Cold War.
>> Thanks God, they had a lot of mutual understanding and treaties...
>
>There's more truth in what you wrote than you might think.
Not at all. It was exactly my point. If we call Nazi Germany and USSR
allies, the same is true for USSR and USA. Just _in Russian_ this
kind of relationship cannot be called an alliance. I doubt very much
that in English it can be done either without stretching the definition,
but you are an expert here.
>>If you look at things from the standpoint of the people of Poland,
>>Finland, or the Baltic countries, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement
certainly made
>the USSR and Germany allies (sojuzniki) or even conspirators in the dirty
business of attacking, occupying, and annexing their countries.
Of course they were conspirators. I would say they were not allies,
but as we understand this word differently, I do not see a reason to
argue here. If in your universe USSR and USA were allies during Cold
War I have no objection that 1940 USSR and Germany were too _in
the same sense_.
Regards,
Vadim Kolosov
Vladimir Svetlov
> > Never heard of term "sovojushchij". Russian language was doing just fine
> > without you, Eugene, making up such monstrocities.
>
> Sorry. The word is 'sovojujushchij' (a syllable was inadvertently deleted
> in my previous posting).
Do you know what the word "sovojushchij" would mean if it did exist?
Someone howling together...
I found it in several Russian dictionaries,
> including the 4-volume Elsevier's Russian-English Dictionary. Just because
> you aren't familiar with the word doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
True. However, it does mean that it is an obscure word, as I read
extensively albeit unsystematically in history. It is more often than not
substituted with Russian transliteration of the English word "satellite".
You are not going to argue that you read more in Russian than I do?
> As you
> know from your own specialty, languages have to resort to terminological
> 'monstrosities' to ensure their ability to create messages about phenomena
> in the reality with which they are called upon to interact.
Yes, and some editors/compilers would go after even unusable words to
ensure the "full" representation of a given language. There were times in
Russian history when the language was deliberately and administratively
"de-Westernized" (during the WWI and repeatedly in Soviet times). Such
forceful changes in the languages undoubtedly left a number of dead
linguistic artefacts.
> [Massive deletions]
sic!
> 7. ally
> Meaning 7a
a. One united or associated with another by treaty or league; now usually
of sovereigns or states.
>is precisely the type of relationship that entered into force
> when the USSR and Nazi Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (or
> Treaty) on Aug. 23, 1939, while meanings 7b and 7c are later extensions of
> that basic meaning.
This thesis is not getting any better from repeating - show me association
of any sort prescibed by this treaty. You can't 'cause there ain't none.
The key word is "association", not treaty or league - the latter two
represent reflection of the association in a form of a binding document.
However, signing a binding document by itself is not an association. The
treaty in question is expressly a non-agression and non-interference treaty
and you can't make it be otherwise by repeating your unsupported claims to
the contrary.
Now, 7c is interesting:
> c. An individual who helps or co-operates with another; a supporter or
> associate; a friend.
Finland aided Germany in its attacks on Norway and Soviet Union, supplied
strategic materials and participated in joint military operations,
receiving in return military equipment and confidential information
together with promises of land gaines at the expense of their common foe.
An association, co-operation, help and support, all there and all mutual.
Matrimonial analogies (> The USSR and Nazi Germany 'married' each other )
omitted from discussion.
Regards,
V.
--
Vladimir Svetlov, Ph. D.
McArdle Lab for Cancer Research
UW-Madison
1400 University Ave.
Madison, WI 53705
zaga...@mail.stcc.mass.edu
Vadim Kolosov wrote about the SU & Nazi Germany and the SU & US:
> Of course they were conspirators. I would say they were not allies,
> but as we understand this word differently, I do not see a reason to
> argue here. If in your universe USSR and USA were allies during Cold
> War I have no objection that 1940 USSR and Germany were too _in
> the same sense_.
The sense is in the documents. When two or more nations have
their plenipotentiaries sign documents defining their
relationship as a collaborative one, they are allies. Like
the US and Turkey. They are formally allies because they
both signed certain documents that say that they are members
of an mutual defense pact. Not just because the US will not
get on Turkey's case about genocide against the Kurds so long
as Turkey will provide bases to the US for clobbering Iraq,
but specifically because of the papers they signed. Since the
SU and Nazi Germany signed documents specifying which side
gets which parts in their synchronized, collaborative conquest
of Europe, they were allies. I don't think the US and SU ever
went quite that deep in their collaborative relationship. The
US and the SU never explicitly agreed on their respective
spheres of influence.
Eugene Holman
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> In article <holman-ya02408000...@news.helsinki.fi>,
> hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
> You are not going to argue that you read more in Russian than I do?
>
You never know... I'm sure you read more Russian than I do, but I do try to
read between 50 - 100 pages a week, so not a small amount, but probably
less than you. But, that's beside the point.
> a. One united or associated with another by treaty or league; now usually
> of sovereigns or states.
>
> >is precisely the type of relationship that entered into force
> > when the USSR and Nazi Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (or
> > Treaty) on Aug. 23, 1939, while meanings 7b and 7c are later extensions of
> > that basic meaning.
>
> This thesis is not getting any better from repeating - show me association
> of any sort prescibed by this treaty. You can't 'cause there ain't none.
> The key word is "association", not treaty or league - the latter two
> represent reflection of the association in a form of a binding document.
> However, signing a binding document by itself is not an association. The
> treaty in question is expressly a non-agression and non-interference treaty
> and you can't make it be otherwise by repeating your unsupported claims to
> the contrary.
> Now, 7c is interesting:
> > c. An individual who helps or co-operates with another; a supporter or
> > associate; a friend.
All I can do is counter that the term 'allies' is normally used in
historiography written in English to characterize the relationship between
Germany and the USSR between Aug. 23, 1939 and June 22, 1941. Let us agree
to disagree, conceding that 'sojuznik' and 'ally' have slightly different
meanings, nuances, and ranges of usage in their respective languages. This
excerpt from an article in a leading American newspaper is one of the
several sources I was able to find to illustrate that the words 'ally' and
'alliance' are the ones normally used to refer to the treaty and consequent
relationship which bound Germany and the USSR to each other during the
period in question:
****************************************************************************
********
(Source: http://cad.bu.edu/go/jacoby/)
The Times-Picayune May 6, 1995 Saturday, THIRD
There is also no denying that Moscow had much to do with causing the war in
the first place. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of August 1939 triggered the
occupation of Poland by both the Wehrmacht and the Red Army the following
month. Germany and the U.S.S.R. were allies for nearly two years, during
which the Nazis conquered Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland and France and
bombed much of London into rubble. At the same time, the Soviets invaded
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and waged terrible war against Finland. Not
until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union did Moscow finally join the West.
Today's non-Communist regime in Moscow is not liable for Stalin's evil
alliance of 1939, of course. But given Russia's role in starting World War
II, and considering that Germany's defeat meant the onset of a 45-year
Communist reign of terror in Eastern Europe, Clinton's determination to
celebrate V-E Day in Moscow suggests a profound historical tone-deafness.
So what else is new?
****************************************************************************
********
You are not going to argue that you know English better than the journalist
who wrote this?
>
> Finland aided Germany in its attacks on Norway and Soviet Union, supplied
> strategic materials and participated in joint military operations,
> receiving in return military equipment and confidential information
> together with promises of land gaines at the expense of their common foe.
> An association, co-operation, help and support...
As to the word 'cobelligerent', besides being used to charcaterize the
Finnish relationship with Germany as in:
€ When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, Finland
entered the war as a cobelligerent with Germany.
- Source: http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/histeng.html
sentences such as:
€ [Referring to Italian WW II casualties] Of these, 17,494 were killed
after Italy became a cobelligerent with the Allies.
- Source: http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_16.html
€ Although Costa Rica had declared war on Germany and was a cobelligerent
in World War I, Wilson prevented its delegates from signing the Versailles
Treaty.
- Source: Robert Rinehart, Costa Rica: Chapter 1C. Foundations of
Democracy., Countries of the World, 01-01-1991.
€ During the First World War the United States again sympathized with
France and joined it as a cobelligerent. In the peacemaking, however,
though sharing major objectives, the two countries clashed over particulars
such as debts, reparations, and restraints on Germany.
- Source: France-U.S. relations., The Reader's Companion to American
History, 01-01-1991.
illustrate that this is a word which is quite adequate to describe the type
of relationship you are referring to above.
> Matrimonial analogies (> The USSR and Nazi Germany 'married' each other )
> omitted from discussion.
Sorry that you refuse to see the relevance. Just as there is a difference
between a marriage, which is registered, public, and bound by rules and
conventions covering what will be done as well as what will not be done,
and cohabitation, which is a much more informal and pragmatic type of
relationship, the difference between alliance and cobelligerence is quite
analogous. But once again. Let us agree to disagree. English accounts of WW
II regularly and consistently use the word 'cobelligerent' when talking
about the Finnish-German and Italian-Allies relationships.
And there is little we can do about it.
Vladimir Svetlov
> All I can do is counter that the term 'allies' is normally used in
> historiography written in English to characterize the relationship between
> Germany and the USSR between Aug. 23, 1939 and June 22, 1941.
That would be nice it you would provide data to that effect - like the
frequency of usage and stuff. Of course, I can not claim intimate knowledge
of all anglophone historiography as you do...
> Let us agree
> to disagree, conceding that 'sojuznik' and 'ally' have slightly different
> meanings, nuances, and ranges of usage in their respective languages. This
> excerpt from an article in a leading American newspaper
Sorry, I read only Sunday Times - no time for newspapers. Leading in what,
BTW? They'd have you believe that Buttweiser is the leading American
beer...
Snip.
> You are not going to argue that you know English better than the journalist
> who wrote this?
You never know... It were after all, American journalists who routinely
call crocodiles "amphibia", or come up with phrases like "About 70% of the
adults in American prisons are former children"... But that besides the
point. The point being that I'm willing to consider not only professional
opinions, but even dictionary articles as supporting evidence for an
argument. However, in no case this privilege should be extended to the
works and opinions of American journalists, who are the most ignorant part
of humankind. I've seen them venturing into spheres of my professional
expertise (cloning, mol.biology etc.) and I must say that if those ventures
are indicative of their overall ability to handle scientific information
they are at somewhere between 1st and 3rd grade of your average Zimbabwe
school. So please...
Now, ask yourself a question - did Hitler know the meaning of the word ally
when he listed Finland and Romania as prospective allies in his directive
#21, Dec. 18, 1940, that detailed nothing else but operation "Barbarossa"?
You attempted to claim alliance between USSR and Germany based on Stalin's
supposed disbelief of German agressive plans. In this case no far-fetched
interpretations are required. As far as use of word "allied" goes check
this out:
"The total German and allied strength on the eastern front, excluding
Finland was 3,138,000 men. The Soviet Union had 4,255,000 men either on the
front or as readily available reserves."
That's from Earl F. Ziemke, Historian, Office of the Chief of Military
History, Department of the Army, for the Grolier Encyclopedia. So you see,
that outside Finnish historiography historians at large are not concerned
with the stringent application of the term "cobelligerent" and call Finns
according to de facto situation... You also see that it is not a problem to
find quotes on the Net that support entirely opposing views. I do not want
to argue that Germany and USSR did not agree on division of Northern and
Europe to their mutual satisfaction, or that USSR did not aid German
offensive in Europe through economical consessions etc. What I do take an
offense in is that you try to argue that signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop
pact made USSR and Germany allies, whereas the absence of a similar pact
between Finland and Germany makes Finnish participation in the WWII as sort
of come-along party rather than a direct assistance of Nazis objectives.
When Finland put forward half a million soldiers it became an integral part
of anti-USSR and anti-Allied coalition, directly facilitating realization
of the entire spectrum of Germany's plans, including murder of 6 million
Jews, 2 million Poles, 2+ million of Soviet POWs etc. It's a bad company
Finns got themselves into. Poles did not. Serbs did not. So Finns should
not look down on Russians who did not even have a luxury of democratically
elected goverment and had no part in decision making as to attack on
Finland or signing Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
AHetzer
Vladimir Svetlov wrote:
>
> In article <holman-ya02408000...@news.helsinki.fi>,
> hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
>
>> I found it in several Russian dictionaries,
> > including the 4-volume Elsevier's Russian-English Dictionary. Just because
> > you aren't familiar with the word doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
> extensively albeit unsystematically in history. It is more often than not
> substituted with Russian transliteration of the English word "satellite".
>
> > know from your own specialty, languages have to resort to terminological
> > 'monstrosities' to ensure their ability to create messages about phenomena
> > in the reality with which they are called upon to interact.
>
> ensure the "full" representation of a given language. There were times in
> Russian history when the language was deliberately and administratively
> "de-Westernized" (during the WWI and repeatedly in Soviet times). Such
> forceful changes in the languages undoubtedly left a number of dead
> linguistic artefacts.
>
> > [Massive deletions]
> sic!
>
> > 7. ally
>
> > Meaning 7a
>
> of sovereigns or states.
>
> > when the USSR and Nazi Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (or
> > Treaty) on Aug. 23, 1939, while meanings 7b and 7c are later extensions of
> > that basic meaning.
>
> of any sort prescibed by this treaty. You can't 'cause there ain't none.
> The key word is "association", not treaty or league - the latter two
> represent reflection of the association in a form of a binding document.
> However, signing a binding document by itself is not an association. The
> treaty in question is expressly a non-agression and non-interference treaty
> and you can't make it be otherwise by repeating your unsupported claims to
> the contrary.
> Now, 7c is interesting:
> > associate; a friend.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> V.
>
> --
In diplomacy, words are often coined in order to correspond one-to-one
to foreign terms. In the given case, I've known the English term
co-belligerent (for Finland in WW II) for about 40 years, but: (i) there
is no current German equivalent (perhaps it exists somewhere in
professional jargon), (ii) when asking British native speakers, they
usually answer: 'oh, you mean ally'. They understand the clumsy
expression, but 'translate' it on the spot into colloquial 'ally'. It
seems to me, that in Russian the case is similar.
Mr. Holman obviously is right as far as political sophistry is
concerned. Nevertheless, for common people's understanding Finland was
an ally of Nazi-Germany, and USSR was an ally of the US only 1941-1947.
Thereafter they were competing Great Powers, collaborating in
'appeasing' their respective third of the world, as it was signed in
Yalta and Potsdam. This Yalta-Potsdam system has come to an end in
1990/91 after Germany's re-unification and the withdrawal of Soviet
troops from the Baltics, Czechoslovakia, Hungary etc.
If ten years ago a NATO soldier had argued (as Mr. Holman now does),
that the USSR was an ally of the US, he would have been reprimanded by
his officers. Since confinement of the EVIL was the raison d'etre of
NATO. USSR's depending on Western deliveries of grain/corn does not
contradict this analysis.
Eugene Holman
>
> In diplomacy, words are often coined in order to correspond one-to-one
> to foreign terms. In the given case, I've known the English term
> co-belligerent (for Finland in WW II) for about 40 years, but: (i) there
> is no current German equivalent (perhaps it exists somewhere in
> professional jargon),
According to the Langenscheidt Encyclopedic English-German Dictionary it
is: "mitfiriegführender Staat (ohne Bestehen eines Bündnisvertrages)".
> (ii) when asking British native speakers, they
> usually answer: 'oh, you mean ally'. They understand the clumsy
> expression, but 'translate' it on the spot into colloquial 'ally'. It
> seems to me, that in Russian the case is similar.
Analogous case:
A: Oh, you two are married?
B: No, we're cohabiting.
A: Oh, that's nice. So, how long have you *been* married?
The difference in both cases is in a public declaration and legalization of
the relationship. Alliances and marriages have this feature, cobelligerency
and cohabitation lack it.
> Mr. Holman obviously is right as far as political sophistry is
> concerned. Nevertheless, for common people's understanding Finland was
> an ally of Nazi-Germany, and USSR was an ally of the US only 1941-1947.
Not sophistry at all. The existence or non-existence of a public
declaration and legalization of a relationship has important consequences,
involving, among other things, the degree to which one partner can be held
liable for the consequences of the behavior of the other. Neither court
systems nor social security administrations treat the partners and
offspring of marriages in the same manner as they treat their analogues in
relationships of cohabitation. After Italy dumped Il Duce and changed sides
during WW II, it was a cobelligerent with the Allies, without becoming an
ally itself. This is not sophistry: these are distinctions that are
regularly made in everyday life and diplomatic history.
> Thereafter they were competing Great Powers, collaborating in
> 'appeasing' their respective third of the world, as it was signed in
> Yalta and Potsdam. This Yalta-Potsdam system has come to an end in
> 1990/91 after Germany's re-unification and the withdrawal of Soviet
> troops from the Baltics, Czechoslovakia, Hungary etc.
>
> If ten years ago a NATO soldier had argued (as Mr. Holman now does),
> that the USSR was an ally of the US, he would have been reprimanded by
> his officers. Since confinement of the EVIL was the raison d'etre of
> NATO. USSR's depending on Western deliveries of grain/corn does not
> contradict this analysis.
Perhaps. But it is no secret that the US subsidized the USSR heavily, and
that it was very much interested in ensuring that the USSR behaved in a
manner that was consistent with its regional and global interests. One of
these, by the way, was demonstrating to the world beyond the shadow of any
doubt that communism as an economic system was a total failure.
David McDuff
On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 09:52:01 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
wrote:
>(ii) when asking British native speakers, they
>usually answer: 'oh, you mean ally'. They understand the clumsy
>expression, but 'translate' it on the spot into colloquial 'ally'.
I disagree. Most educated British native speakers who are familiar
with the history of the Second World War are well able to distinguish
between 'co-belligerent' and 'ally', and to appreciate the
distinction. And those with any knowledge of modern Finland who have
studied the course of the Continuation War are quite clear on the
matter. Here, as elsewhere in Finnish history, questions of
terminology are important, as they affect vital factors of perception
relating to Finland as a national entity. In a different context, one
may point to the example of the preferred use of terms such as
'Swedish-speaking Finn' or 'Finland-Swede', as opposed to the obsolete
and misleading 'Finno-Swede'. These are not mere lexical quibbles or
instances of 'political sophistry', but reflect important historical
realities.
Regards,
David McDuff
London, U.K.
AHetzer
Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> In article <3599EA...@uni-bremen.de>, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>
> >
> > In diplomacy, words are often coined in order to correspond one-to-one
> > to foreign terms. In the given case, I've known the English term
> > co-belligerent (for Finland in WW II) for about 40 years, but: (i) there
> > is no current German equivalent (perhaps it exists somewhere in
> > professional jargon),
>
> According to the Langenscheidt Encyclopedic English-German Dictionary it
> is: "mitfiriegführender Staat (ohne Bestehen eines Bündnisvertrages)".
>
Just a correction: mitKRIEGführender
Furthermore: I wrote "no current German equivalent". "Mitkriegführender"
is as monstruous as so-voyuyushchiy in Russian. It does not belong to
colloquial German, but I did not exclude, that it somewhere exists in
the lexicon. It is absent in G. Wahrig: Deutsches Wörterbuch. 1977, ISBN
3-570-01631-5 or: Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. dtv 1997, ISBN
3-423-03366-5. If necessary, we would prefer a periphrasis by a finite
verbal clause or just write "kobelligerent" as ad hoc loanword.
I've read German newspapers for about 40 years, but I did not meet the
incriminated term any time in our press. Of course, you, Mr. Holman,
will find some occurrences on the spot. But I repeat: I understand that
native speakers of Russian assert the non-existence of so-voyuyushchiy.
The case is quite analogous.
AHetzer
David McDuff wrote:
>
> On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 09:52:01 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
> wrote:
>
> >(ii) when asking British native speakers, they
> >usually answer: 'oh, you mean ally'. They understand the clumsy
> >expression, but 'translate' it on the spot into colloquial 'ally'.
>
> I disagree. Most educated British native speakers who are familiar
> with the history of the Second World War are well able to distinguish
> between 'co-belligerent' and 'ally', and to appreciate the
> distinction.
snip
>
> Regards,
>
> David McDuff
> London, U.K.
>
Ah, you are here again! Nice to meet you.
BTW, what does "dummies" mean in the Re-line? I know the word only for
puppets used in crash tests. Furthermore, native speakers of German
associate the word *dumb*, thus dummies = Doofies. Is it an insult?
David McDuff
On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 14:41:37 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
wrote:
> Is it an insult?
It's actually borrowed from the title of a US 'teach yourself
computing' series - viz. 'Linux for Dummies', 'C++ for Dummies',etc. I
believe it's on sale in Germany, too.
But popular though this thread may be, it appears you're not taking
advantage of it?
Regards,
David McDuff
Eugene Holman
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> In article <holman-ya02408000...@news.helsinki.fi>,
> hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
>
> Now, ask yourself a question - did Hitler know the meaning of the word ally
> when he listed Finland and Romania as prospective allies in his directive
> #21, Dec. 18, 1940, that detailed nothing else but operation "Barbarossa"?
> You attempted to claim alliance between USSR and Germany based on Stalin's
> supposed disbelief of German agressive plans. In this case no far-fetched
> interpretations are required. As far as use of word "allied" goes check
> this out:
>
> "The total German and allied strength on the eastern front, excluding
> Finland was 3,138,000 men. The Soviet Union had 4,255,000 men either on the
> front or as readily available reserves."
>
> That's from Earl F. Ziemke, Historian, Office of the Chief of Military
> History, Department of the Army, for the Grolier Encyclopedia. So you see,
> that outside Finnish historiography historians at large are not concerned
> with the stringent application of the term "cobelligerent" and call Finns
> according to de facto situation...
The passage says: "allied strength..., excluding Finland" which means that
Finland is NOT regarded as part of the "allied strength".
The term cobelligerent is regularly used in historiography with respect to
both Finland's fighting alongside Germany and Italy's fighting alongside
the allies.
Extremely important is the fact that the Peace Conference which finalized
the results of WW II made a distinction between cobelligerents fighting
alongside Germany, and defeated states allied with Germany:
Source: http://indis.ici.ro/romania/history/hi50.html:
"Although the Romanian Army paid a heavy toll of blood in the struggle
against Germany, the Paris Peace Conference (1946-1947) did not recognize
Romania's cobelligerent status, being treated as a defeated state."
> You also see that it is not a problem to
> find quotes on the Net that support entirely opposing views. I do not want
> to argue that Germany and USSR did not agree on division of Northern and
> Europe to their mutual satisfaction, or that USSR did not aid German
> offensive in Europe through economical consessions etc. What I do take an
> offense in is that you try to argue that signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop
> pact made USSR and Germany allies,
They signed and publicly proclaimed a document which outlined, facilitated,
and regularized the actions in question. They were in a long-term,
formalized relationship, characterized by agreement-generated
predictability and mutual trust, and containing the instruments for
mutually assisting each other to achieve their common objectives. Call it
what you will.
> whereas the absence of a similar pact
> between Finland and Germany makes Finnish participation in the WWII as sort
> of come-along party rather than a direct assistance of Nazis objectives.
> When Finland put forward half a million soldiers it became an integral part
> of anti-USSR and anti-Allied coalition, directly facilitating realization
> of the entire spectrum of Germany's plans, including murder of 6 million
> Jews, 2 million Poles, 2+ million of Soviet POWs etc.
Regrettably true. But by refusing to participate fully in German offenses,
and preventing the Germans from either interfering in Finnish internal
politics or culling the country for Jews, it consistently maintained a
degree of distance from Germany, unlike, say Slovakia and Hungary, both of
which openly fascisticized their societies. Finland's special status with
relation to Germany was later acknowledged by both the USSR in 1944 and the
Paris Peace Conference, both of which treated Finland less harshly than
those countries which were regarded as Germany's wartime allies.
> It's a bad company
> Finns got themselves into. Poles did not.
All of Poland was a warground, and both Germany and the USSR had attacked
Poland and were thus its enemies.
Many Ukrainians, also the victim of a terrible Holocaust unleashed by
Stalin, participated in SS units and otherwise rendered willing assistance
doing such things as running concentration camps.
> Serbs did not.
Yugoslavia, in addition to being occupied by Germany was also deeply
involved in the same civil war that is still under way today.
> So Finns should
> not look down on Russians who did not even have a luxury of democratically
> elected goverment and had no part in decision making as to attack on
> Finland or signing Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
I don't think that Finns are all that anti-Russian nowadays (many were a
generation ago), despite the fact that both the current president and prime
minister experienced being expelled from their homes in Viipuri and living
their childhoods as refugees. But if you read Molotov's remarks about the
demands the USSR was placing on Finland, and the reason that it attacked in
1939, you can certainly understand the Finnish position. Briefly:
€ the USSR speculated that France and Britain were making secret plans to
use Finland as a bridgehead to attack Leningrad and Moscow.
€ the USSR was angry that Finland had refused to allow Soviet bases on its
territory the way the smaller Baltic states had been strongarmed into
doing.
€ the USSR wanted Finland to hand over the part of its territory upon which
Finland, seeing what the Molotiv-Ribbentrop 'agreement' had meant for
Poland, Romania, and the Baltic States, had just built a defense line
against the USSR, complete with state-of-the-art anti-tank fortifications.
€ this land contained more than 10% of Finland's industrial capacity and
natural resources.
€ the USSR demanded that Finland acceed to Soviet demands aimed at
protecting Leningrad, its second city, which would have left Viipuri,
Finland's second city extremely vulnerable to attack, particularly since
the Soviets were demanding that the fortifications that had been built to
protect Viipuri should be handed over to them.
No country with a democratically elected government could even consider
such insanity.
Besides subjecting Finland to a sneak attack, gobbling up the three
neighbors which had dutifully followed the advice the USSR had been urging
Finland to follow, and setting up a bogus government with which it
negotiated in the hope of unleashing a civil war in Finland, the USSR had
caused a situation in which 1/8 of Finland's population was expelled from
their homes and made refugees.
You don't seem to grasp the magnitude of the wrath and fear Finland had
towards the USSR when it decided to render assistance to Germany and
participate in operation Barbarossa.
This whole thread started as a discussion of why people and governments in
this area of the world regard men who fought alongside Germany or in German
uniforms with the respect due men who have fought honorably for their
countries. Soviet behavior of the type exercised in this part of the world
is the sole reason for thses 'slaps in the face' after having been kicked
in the ass.
Eugene Holman
Yes, but a good-natured one. The thread started as a clever play on a
series of books that has been highly successful in many languages bearing
names like:
"Windows 95 for Dummies". In Russian they have ben translated as "...dlja
chajnikov". I'm sure that some exist in German as well ("Šfür
Dummköpfe/Doofies"?)
David McDuff
On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 14:35:18 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
wrote:
> But I repeat: I understand that
>native speakers of Russian assert the non-existence of so-voyuyushchiy.
Even Ozhegov has an entry for it:
SOVOYU'YUSHCHIY, -aya, -ee (ofits.). Sovmestno s kem-n. voyuyushchiy
protiv kogo-n. Sovoyuyushchie strany.
Regards,
David McDuff
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <359a223b...@news.demon.co.uk>, da...@halldor.demon.co.uk
(David McDuff) wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 09:52:01 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
> wrote:
>
> >(ii) when asking British native speakers, they
> >usually answer: 'oh, you mean ally'. They understand the clumsy
> >expression, but 'translate' it on the spot into colloquial 'ally'.
>
> I disagree. Most educated British native speakers who are familiar
> with the history of the Second World War are well able to distinguish
> between 'co-belligerent' and 'ally', and to appreciate the
> distinction.
I'm sure they are. However, Mammoth Book of the Third Reich at War never
uses the word "co-belligerent" or its derivatives in regard to Finland,
instead it (she?) Finland is described as an ally and in alliance with
Germany. You may not fully appreaciate the driving force behind this
discussion, which is not that of semantic purity or assault on Brits' word
usage. Mr. Holman is defending two "unquestionable" thesisi:
1. USSR and Germany were allies, whereas Finland and Germany were not;
2. In the anglophone historiography Finland is exclusively characterized as
a "co-belligerent" state.
My goals were to show that 2. is incorrect by example, and that USSR and
Germany were not formally allies per Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. It was also
made obvious and left unchallenged by Mr. Holman, that Finland engaged in
policy of Germany appeasement even prior to June 1941 and in greater degree
than USSR did during the same period of time.
Vladimir Svetlov
> BTW, what does "dummies" mean in the Re-line? I know the word only for
> puppets used in crash tests. Furthermore, native speakers of German
> associate the word *dumb*, thus dummies = Doofies. Is it an insult?
No, not an insult. It's an allusion to series of books, popular in the
States, that deals with subjects varying from filing taxes to house
painting to geography to sex. These books are written very simply to be
accessible by a wide audience without prior knowledge of the subject or a
formal/professional training. They are as a rule are not very rigorous and
sometimes contain herrendous errors. There are also similar books called
"Complete Idiot's Guide to ...". Popularity and instant recognition (by
Americans, at least) of the name paved the way for such parodies as
"Quantum Mechanics for Dummies". I understand that initial post in its
title referred to the perceived frivolity/"artistic freedom" and lack of
rigor in Mr. Holman's treatment of history similar to the entry-level books
of the same title.
an_on...@my-dejanews.com
> > >
> > > On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 09:52:01 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >(ii) when asking British native speakers, they
> > > >usually answer: 'oh, you mean ally'. They understand the clumsy
> > > >expression, but 'translate' it on the spot into colloquial 'ally'.
> > >
> > > I disagree. Most educated British native speakers who are familiar
> > > with the history of the Second World War are well able to distinguish
> > > between 'co-belligerent' and 'ally', and to appreciate the
> > > distinction.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > David McDuff
> > > London, U.K.
> > >
> >
> > Ah, you are here again! Nice to meet you.
> >
> > puppets used in crash tests. Furthermore, native speakers of German
> > associate the word *dumb*, thus dummies = Doofies. Is it an insult?
> >
>
> Yes, but a good-natured one. The thread started as a clever play on a
> series of books that has been highly successful in many languages bearing
> names like:
>
> "Windows 95 for Dummies". In Russian they have ben translated as "...dlja
> chajnikov". I'm sure that some exist in German as well ("Šfür
> Dummköpfe/Doofies"?)
>
> Best regards,
> Eugene Holman
>
Believe it or not, "fuer Dummies"... like "Windows 95 fuer Dummies."
-- Max
an_on...@my-dejanews.com
>
> > It's a bad company
> > Finns got themselves into. Poles did not.
>
> All of Poland was a warground, and both Germany and the USSR had attacked
> Poland and were thus its enemies.
>
According to my Polish friends, one reason for the continuing friction
between Poland and the Czech Republic is the fact that the Poles participated
in Hitler's dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. At issue was the area known as
Zaolze, across the border from the Polish town of Cieszyn. While this area
was populated by ethnic Poles who welcomed the annexation of the area by
Poland, much like the Sudetendeutsche, as a rule, welcomed the Germans, this
shows that Poles, too, were Germany's co-belligerents at first.
>
> [snip]
>
> Best regards,
> Eugene Holman
David McDuff
>My goals were to show that 2. is incorrect by example
I'm with you there. No one would argue that some English-speaking
historians have not mistakenly termed Finland and Germany 'allies'.
Undoing that misapprehension has been the work of departments of
Finnish history at universities here in the UK - I don't know how it
is in the States. Though of course, that work is complicated by the
fact that Britain once declared war on Finland...
> and that USSR and
>Germany were not formally allies per Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
They were formally members of a mutual 'non-aggression pact'. But
would you not agree that in practical terms this was a simple
German-Soviet aggression pact against Poland?
Finland at least did not threaten and harm its neighbours in such a
concerted way, no matter how much certain circles in Finland might
have wished for the triumph of Nazism (or should that be Communism?)
in Europe.
Regards,
David McDuff
Vladimir Svetlov
> > "The total German and allied strength on the eastern front, excluding
> > Finland was 3,138,000 men. The Soviet Union had 4,255,000 men either on the
> > front or as readily available reserves."
> The passage says: "allied strength..., excluding Finland" which means that
> Finland is NOT regarded as part of the "allied strength".
Now let's ask the participating English what this paragraph means. It means
from the context that the count of German and allied strength did not
include allied Finland. By some stretch it could be understood that the
Finland is excluded from count as a part of eastern front, but no stretch
would make it mean what you would like it to. In other post here I offered
another example of characterizing Finland as an ally of Germany (Mammoth
Book of the Third Reich at War).
> They signed and publicly proclaimed a document which outlined, facilitated,
> and regularized the actions in question. They were in a long-term,
> formalized relationship, characterized by agreement-generated
> predictability and mutual trust, and containing the instruments for
> mutually assisting each other to achieve their common objectives. Call it
> what you will.
Please indicate precisely what in the text of the pact refers to a)
instruments of mutual assistance and b) common objectives. You have been
restating it repeatedly without proof, so only thing I can call it is
"wishful thinking".
> > When Finland put forward half a million soldiers it became an integral part
> > of anti-USSR and anti-Allied coalition, directly facilitating realization
> > of the entire spectrum of Germany's plans, including murder of 6 million
> > Jews, 2 million Poles, 2+ million of Soviet POWs etc.
>
> Regrettably true.
Thank you. I actually am glad that you decided previously to deviate so
greatly from plausible reasoning just to assert more substantial
dissociation of Finland from Nazi Germany. That means that you and maybe
some other Balts still have some moral problems with that. What does worry
me is that trend by which people are ready to present SS as a some sort of
misunderstood Knights of the Round Table and equalize killing of Russians
with pest control.
> But by refusing to participate fully in German offenses,
> and preventing the Germans from either interfering in Finnish internal
> politics or culling the country for Jews, it consistently maintained a
> degree of distance from Germany
You did not see me objecting to the that, did you? However, I found
misleading this idea of Finland "joining" in the war against Russia post
factum. From the available literature (I still can't get English
translation of Hitler und Finnland and my German is rather poor) I can see
that Finland engaged in appeasement of Germany long before the June of
1941, starting from nickel shipments (that angered British) and allowing
transit of German Army divisions en route to Norway (did Norway sided with
USSR in the winter war?).
> Many Ukrainians, also the victim of a terrible Holocaust unleashed by
> Stalin, participated in SS units and otherwise rendered willing assistance
> doing such things as running concentration camps.
And why that is supposed to make a difference?
> I don't think that Finns are all that anti-Russian nowadays (many were a
> generation ago)
Man, what was it like a generation ago?!
> You don't seem to grasp the magnitude of the wrath and fear Finland had
> towards the USSR when it decided to render assistance to Germany and
> participate in operation Barbarossa.
I seem to grasp it, to myself at least. I also repeatedly stated that I did
not question the fact that Finns felt justified in siding with Germany or
that USSR policies gave them enough reason for that. My arguments were
always directed towards the logical fallacies or factual inaccuracies in
your statements as I perceived them.
> This whole thread started as a discussion of why people and governments in
> this area of the world regard men who fought alongside Germany or in German
> uniforms with the respect due men who have fought honorably for their
> countries. Soviet behavior of the type exercised in this part of the world
> is the sole reason for thses 'slaps in the face' after having been kicked
> in the ass.
Scary-scary, aren't we mean?.. Well, Eugene, if you tried your overly
compassionate approach to the feelings of Baltic SS on the prisoners of the
concentration camps, you'd discover that for them it would not make a
difference where it was a Prussian or Ukranian guard that pushed them to
the gas chamber, or whether the SS mowing them down with machine guns came
from Berlin or from Tallinn. You'd also realize that people endowed with
logical reasoning would find it a very clumsy and feeble defense to say
that it was a very limited objective - to assist Germans in killing as many
Russians as possible (a necessary hygienic operation per some of the
ex-Balts in this thread), and to recover lost territories (well, may be a
bit more, conditions permitting), and it did not help overall the Nazi
cause at all. Personally, I find it offensive when people suggest that
because of the actions of the Soviet totalitarian, mind you, state
individual lives of this regime's subjects don't matter. Poor German
soldiers were essentially all pardoned with exception of a few exemplary
murderers, but somehow Russians have to take all the shit from their own
tyrants, from German agressors and their dish-lickers, and now from private
citizens of the Baltic States. No wonder they are sooo dirty.
Well, if them Balts can't claim for themselves other honors than wearing SS
uniform, that's their problem.
David McDuff
>No wonder they are sooo dirty.
>Well, if them Balts can't claim for themselves other honors than wearing SS
>uniform, that's their problem.
As one of the 'participating English' - and that should really be
'participating Scottish' - I think you overstate your case. Others
here have pointed it out, so I don't really need to repeat it: at
their annual commemorative assemblies the Latvian and Estonian
veterans don't march in SS uniforms, nor do they celebrate the SS.
They celebrate the liberation of their countries from foreign rule,
and the memory of those who died fighting to attain it. It's an honour
to defend one's country from unprovoked attack by an enemy. In the
case of the Baltic States, during this century both Russia and Germany
have acted in this hostile role.
An observer once characterized the situation of the Baltic States
earlier this century as that of someone trying to build a house and
garden in the middle of a six-lane freeway. Mercifully, the traffic
seems to have eased a little. Let's be thankful for that, and hope
that no one threatens the Baltic States again.
Regards,
David McDuff
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <359c509b...@news.demon.co.uk>, da...@halldor.demon.co.uk
(David McDuff) wrote:
> > and that USSR and
> >Germany were not formally allies per Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
>
> They were formally members of a mutual 'non-aggression pact'. But
> would you not agree that in practical terms this was a simple
> German-Soviet aggression pact against Poland?
In practical terms and, moreover, in historic outcome (i.e. Red Army was
not involved in the German offensive against Poland, but did occupy Polish
territories per Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and took ~200 000 polish soldiers
and officers prisoners) this is indeed true. Me never argued that it was
not. Mr. Holman, however, choose to argue that "practical terms" - such as
joint military planning or transferring Finnish Army units under German
command - were of no importance and we'd better consider a) the fact of a
treaty being signed to judge USSR position and b) anti-Russian sentiment to
determine Finland's. By the same token Germany was also justified in its
attack on USSR - they hated Russians, they needed Russian territories and
resources and they could not otherwise to get to kill Jews on the territory
of the USSR.
> Finland at least did not threaten and harm its neighbours in such a
> concerted way, no matter how much certain circles in Finland might
> have wished for the triumph of Nazism (or should that be Communism?)
> in Europe.
No, it did not. They (Finns) were even petitioning with Hitler on behalf of
the Baltic States to return them their independence after they were
recaptured from the Soviet Union. Like Hitler gave a rat's ass what Finns
or Balts wanted. But I felt that Mr. Holman's representation of Finnish
politics of the period is too rosy to be accurate. That concerns omission
of the facts that Finns did not just join in into offensive against USSR
(Mr. Holman thinks much of the delay of Finnish forces engagement but
actually it happened EARLIER than German military plans developed in
cooperation with Finnish High Command prescribed), but were actively
seeking ... whatever - alliance, co-belligerance - with Germany much
earlier, and that in 1941 Finns did not accept British-mediated peace
offerings after reaching pre-March 1940 boundaries, since as Mr. Holman
asserts they were sure that USSR would not be around for much longer. And
then Hitler would have Finnish lands extended to the White Sea... Nice
place, but cold. There you go, sailor.
halm...@msn.com
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
>
> hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
>
> Scary-scary, aren't we mean?.. Well, Eugene, if you tried your overly
> compassionate approach to the feelings of Baltic SS on the prisoners of the
> concentration camps, you'd discover that for them it would not make a
> difference where it was a Prussian or Ukranian guard that pushed them to
> the gas chamber, or whether the SS mowing them down with machine guns came
> from Berlin or from Tallinn. You'd also realize that people endowed with
> logical reasoning would find it a very clumsy and feeble defense to say
> that it was a very limited objective - to assist Germans in killing as many
> Russians as possible (a necessary hygienic operation per some of the
> ex-Balts in this thread), and to recover lost territories (well, may be a
> bit more, conditions permitting), and it did not help overall the Nazi
> cause at all. Personally, I find it offensive when people suggest that
> because of the actions of the Soviet totalitarian, mind you, state
> individual lives of this regime's subjects don't matter. Poor German
> soldiers were essentially all pardoned with exception of a few exemplary
> murderers, but somehow Russians have to take all the shit from their own
> tyrants, from German agressors and their dish-lickers, and now from private
> citizens of the Baltic States. No wonder they are sooo dirty.
> Well, if them Balts can't claim for themselves other honors than wearing SS
> uniform, that's their problem.
>
> Regards,
> V.
>
same lie over and over ad nauseum - as though that will make it true. Well,
perhaps in Russia it does. Blame someone else - the soviets (those damn
foreigners not doubt). Do not accept any responsibility for anything. If
possible whine while lying (e.g. German soldiers were pardoned - hell, you
people killed nearly all of the ones you had (a few exemplary murderers?)
The poor Russians unforgiven? When will these poor Russians admit some
guilt? Even for something as recent as Chechnya?
Best - - Henry
Eugene Holman
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> In article <359a223b...@news.demon.co.uk>, da...@halldor.demon.co.uk
> (David McDuff) wrote:
> I'm sure they are. However, Mammoth Book of the Third Reich at War never
> uses the word "co-belligerent" or its derivatives in regard to Finland,
> instead it (she?) Finland is described as an ally and in alliance with
> Germany. You may not fully appreaciate the driving force behind this
> discussion, which is not that of semantic purity or assault on Brits' word
> usage. Mr. Holman is defending two "unquestionable" thesisi:
(the correct plural of 'thesis' is 'theses'.)
> 1. USSR and Germany were allies, whereas Finland and Germany were not;
€ 'Ally' means being bound by a formal, legally binding, and publicly
declared treaty regulating mutual behavior as well as behavior towards
third parties in order to achieve common objectives. This type of
relationship obtained between Nazi Germany and the USSR between Aug. 23,
1939 and June 22, 1941. After being betrayed by its former ally, the USSR
bound its fate by numerous protocols and diplomatic agreements with the
USA, the UK and France, all of which are referred to collectively as 'the
Allies/Allied Powers' in histories of WW II.
€ Italy, which began the war as an ally of Germany, but switched sides and
fought in the final stages of the war on the side of the Allied Powers was
not bound by such agreements or protocols and is regarded as a
cobelligerent.
€ Much the same holds for Romania, but Romania's relationship with Germany
at the outset of the war was regarded at the Paris Peace Conference to have
been regulated by agreements formal enough for its claim to have been a
cobelligerent rather than an ally of Germany to have been rebuffed.
> 2. In the anglophone historiography Finland is exclusively characterized as
> a "co-belligerent" state.
>
I do not have access to the "Mammoth Book of the Third Reich at War" so I
cannot contest your claim. Nor have I claimed 'exclusivity'. If a work
dealing with history is written for a general readership it hardly
qualifies as serious 'anglophone historiography'. As is always the case
with such works, the editors might well have decided not to use as complex
a word as
'cobelligerent'. Diplomats and professional historians cannot afford
themselves such luxuries, and as I have mentioned above, the issue of
whether countries such as Finland and Romania were fighting on Germany's
side as 'allies' or 'cobelligerents' in the war against the USSR was an
issue discussed at the Paris Peace Conference in 1947. The facts that
Finland had cooperated selectively with Germany, but without formal treaty
obligations, and had successfully rebuffed German repeated
efforts and diplomatic pressure to fascisticize Finnish society
were regarded as crucial factors in determining it to have been a
'cobelligerent' but not an 'ally' of Germany. People who want "...for
dummies" type answers are unwilling to do the necessary homework and thus
live in a
terminologically and conceptually simpler world.
> My goals were to show that 2. is incorrect by example, and that USSR and
> Germany were not formally allies per Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. It was also
> made obvious and left unchallenged by Mr. Holman, that Finland engaged in
> policy of Germany appeasement even prior to June 1941 and in greater degree
> than USSR did during the same period of time.
>
Obviously the issue is one of quality rather than quantity. Finland
supplied Germany with aid, supplies, and manpower, so the quantitative
factor is there. But since this was done within the framework of ad hoc
agreements, exchanges, 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'
wheeling and dealing, rather than within the framework of formal treaty
obligations of the type signed between the USSR and Germany on August 23,
1939, the crucially determining qualitative factor is absent.
Once again to use the analogy which you reject, a person can cohabit with a
woman and have five children by her, and then leave her to marry someone
else, and have a child by his wife. Only the child that issued from the
marriage is regarded as legitimate offspring from the standpoint of various
insurance policies, pensions, and inheritance laws. Often the illegitimate
offspring is not even mentioned in family records (cf. the four 'alleged'
children of Thomas Jefferson by his slave Sally Hem[m]ings).
Eugene Holman
In article <359b4861...@news.demon.co.uk>, da...@halldor.demon.co.uk
(David McDuff) wrote:
Which edition? It was the first place I looked, but it was lacking in mine
(2-e izdanie, ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe), Moskva 'AZ"', 1994.
David McDuff
Admittedly, I looked up an older edition - Imprint Moskva, "Sov.
entsikl.," 1968.
Regards,
David McDuff
AHetzer
David McDuff wrote:
>
> On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 14:35:18 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
> wrote:
>
> > But I repeat: I understand that
> >native speakers of Russian assert the non-existence of so-voyuyushchiy.
>
> Even Ozhegov has an entry for it:
>
> SOVOYU'YUSHCHIY, -aya, -ee (ofits.). Sovmestno s kem-n. voyuyushchiy
> protiv kogo-n. Sovoyuyushchie strany.
>
>
> David McDuff
Sie geben wohl nie auf?
Я только что спросил свою жену, Татьяну Николаевну. Между прочим, она
училась в Псковском пединституте и работала 20 лет учителем русского
языка.
Я беру словарь Ожегова в руки и спрашиваю "Что такое значит
"совоюющий"?"
Что? завоюющий?
Нет! со во ю ю щий!
Союзник, может быть?
Добавляем, что у Ожегова есть отметка (офиц.) = официальный.
This is real life.
I did not doubt at any moment, that the word DOES exist in international
law. But common people do not understand it. How will you prove the
contrary? I am convinced, that even not every English native speaker has
the degree of erudition you presuppose.
Wir reden hier aneinander vorbei: your proof is a dictionary, my
evidence is the actual understanding of people who did not study Finnish
history. I admitted, that I have learned the ENGLISH term in the early
sixties already, but only in context of Finnish history (at that time I
had courses in Finnish). Thus, you should baptize the thread: Finnish
history for dummies.
спокойной ночи
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <359e6ae8...@news.demon.co.uk>, da...@halldor.demon.co.uk
(David McDuff) wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 11:08:18 -0600, sve...@oncology.wisc.edu
> (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
>
> >No wonder they are sooo dirty.
> >Well, if them Balts can't claim for themselves other honors than wearing SS
> >uniform, that's their problem.
>
> As one of the 'participating English' - and that should really be
> 'participating Scottish' - I think you overstate your case.
I did not state anything except what Mr. Holman just said (quote)
> people and governments in
> this area of the world regard men who fought alongside Germany or in German
> uniforms with the respect due men who have fought honorably for their
> countries.
> Others
> here have pointed it out, so I don't really need to repeat it:
There is a good rule - if you want to start your sentence with "Needless to
say", try and not say it.
> An observer once characterized the situation of the Baltic States
> earlier this century as that of someone trying to build a house and
> garden in the middle of a six-lane freeway. Mercifully, the traffic
> seems to have eased a little. Let's be thankful for that, and hope
> that no one threatens the Baltic States again.
It looks like traffic trickled down to that of a dirt road. For what it is
worth I'm not going to threaten Baltic States in any form.
Regards,
V.
Sorry for the underappreciation of national diversity of the GB. Long live
Scottish Nationalist Party, contributions to which keep Sean Connery from
getting his well deserved knighthood!
David McDuff
On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 19:11:39 +0300, hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene
Holman) wrote:
>> In article <359a223b...@news.demon.co.uk>, da...@halldor.demon.co.uk
>> (David McDuff) wrote:
>
>> I'm sure they are. However, Mammoth Book of the Third Reich at War never
>> uses the word "co-belligerent" or its derivatives in regard to Finland,
>> instead it (she?) Finland is described as an ally and in alliance with
>> Germany. You may not fully appreaciate the driving force behind this
>> discussion, which is not that of semantic purity or assault on Brits' word
>> usage. Mr. Holman is defending two "unquestionable" thesisi:
Wrong attribution. This paragraph is not by me, but was addressed to
me. BTW what *is* the Mammoth Book of the Third Reich at War? I'm sure
it's not by Martin Gilbert, at any rate - am starting to get
curious...
Regards,
David McDuff
AHetzer
Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> In article <359b4861...@news.demon.co.uk>, da...@halldor.demon.co.uk
> (David McDuff) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 14:35:18 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > But I repeat: I understand that
> > >native speakers of Russian assert the non-existence of so-voyuyushchiy.
> >
> > Even Ozhegov has an entry for it:
> >
> > SOVOYU'YUSHCHIY, -aya, -ee (ofits.). Sovmestno s kem-n. voyuyushchiy
> > protiv kogo-n. Sovoyuyushchie strany.
> >
> >
>
> (2-e izdanie, ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe), Moskva 'AZ"', 1994.
>
> Best regards,
> Eugene Holman
I used the 7th edition, 1968. There, the entry совоюющий is.
You have the post-soviet edition, it's not the real "Ozhegov", but
chto-to pererabotannoe. It should be quoted as Ozhegov-XY (I do not
remember the name of the new co-editor).
an_on...@my-dejanews.com
In article <359e6ae8...@news.demon.co.uk>,
da...@halldor.demon.co.uk (David McDuff) wrote:
>
> On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 11:08:18 -0600, sve...@oncology.wisc.edu
> (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
>
> >Well, if them Balts can't claim for themselves other honors than wearing SS
> >uniform, that's their problem.
>
> here have pointed it out, so I don't really need to repeat it: at
> their annual commemorative assemblies the Latvian and Estonian
> veterans don't march in SS uniforms, nor do they celebrate the SS.
> They celebrate the liberation of their countries from foreign rule,
> and the memory of those who died fighting to attain it. It's an honour
> to defend one's country from unprovoked attack by an enemy. In the
> case of the Baltic States, during this century both Russia and Germany
> have acted in this hostile role.
>
> earlier this century as that of someone trying to build a house and
> garden in the middle of a six-lane freeway. Mercifully, the traffic
> seems to have eased a little. Let's be thankful for that, and hope
> that no one threatens the Baltic States again.
>
>
> David McDuff
>
And what better way to ensure this than to have a friendly Russia on one's
Eastern borders... And, if we take Lithuania's example, it does work. Not
that the ball is completely in Latvia's and Estonia's court, but a modicum of
effort could do wonders. Besides, one of the most important reasons for
Latvia's and Estonia's relative prosperity is their position on Russia's
transit routes. You might recall that the mayor of Ventspils is one of the
most vocal critics of his government's policies towards both Russia and the
Russian-speaking population.
-- Max
David McDuff
On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 22:31:27 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
wrote:
>Я только что спросил свою жену, Татьяну Николаевну. Между прочим, она
>училась в Псковском пединституте и работала 20 лет учителем русского
>языка.
>Я беру словарь Ожегова в руки и спрашиваю "Что такое значит
>"совоюющий"?"
>Что? завоюющий?
>Нет! со во ю ю щий!
>Союзник, может быть?
No problem. I'm glad your wife was able to help out. But none the
less, we need to look further than that.
>Добавляем, что у Ожегова есть отметка (офиц.) = официальный.
>
>This is real life.
Official language is sometimes a reflection of real life, too,
especially where political processes are concerned.
>I did not doubt at any moment, that the word DOES exist in international
>law. But common people do not understand it. How will you prove the
>contrary? I am convinced, that even not every English native speaker has
>the degree of erudition you presuppose.
>
>Wir reden hier aneinander vorbei
No, I don't think we are.The point at issue is a very simple one: just
because a word isn't widely used, or recognized by 'common people'
doesn't mean that it's devoid of significance. In our discussion, the
point at issue was whether Finland can be considered to have been an
'ally' or a 'co-belligerent' of Germany in World War II. The fact is
that Finland was the latter. The significance - and the importance -
of the term is that although Finland fought alongside Germany, Finland
did not share Germany's national socialist ideology and war aims.
Finland's aim was to protect its national security in the face of
Soviet aggression - no more and no less than that. That's something
that everyone can understand.
>спокойной ночи
And to you, too.
Best regards,
David McDuff
http://www.halldor.demon.co.uk/
PS - if it makes you feel any better, in Finnish one has to say 'sotaa
kДyvД liittolainen', which is a bit of a kludge, to say the least.
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <359c9fe9...@news.demon.co.uk>, da...@halldor.demon.co.uk
(David McDuff) wrote:
BTW what *is* the Mammoth Book of the Third Reich at War? I'm sure
> it's not by Martin Gilbert, at any rate - am starting to get
> curious...
That must be one of those rare books on military history that were not
written by Martin Gilbert. It was actually first published in UK by
Robinson Publishing, but the volume I got for some measly three bucks at
Hamilton's is published by Carrol & Graf in 1997, ISBN 0-7867-0478-0. As
all Mammoth books it's a derivative study or compilation of other historic
books; this one is done by some Angus McGeoch. The quote in question came
from p.198 "... Finland, an ally of Germany and chief source of nickel for
the Reich." It in no way proves that Finland was an ally, just that this
word is used to characterize its siding with Germany. This book is not
however, my primary source of information for this discussion, which I'd
have to say is actually two books - immortal Shirer with his obsessive
quotations and Weinberg's "World at Arms".
Regards,
V.
Vladimir Svetlov
Please don't start it all over again. I was just explaining the Braveheart
here (that's my turn to throw in some stereotypes) how it all started
between you and me, bubba.
> € 'Ally' means being bound by a formal, legally binding, and publicly
> declared treaty regulating mutual behavior as well as behavior towards
> third parties in order to achieve common objectives.
You are making it up as you go along... And what the hell is "mutual behaviour"?
> € Italy, which began the war as an ally of Germany, but switched sides and
> fought in the final stages of the war on the side of the Allied Powers was
> not bound by such agreements or protocols and is regarded as a
> cobelligerent.
So Finland should too, as it declared war on Germany in March of 1945...
> I do not have access to the "Mammoth Book of the Third Reich at War" so I
> cannot contest your claim. Nor have I claimed 'exclusivity'. If a work
> dealing with history is written for a general readership it hardly
> qualifies as serious 'anglophone historiography'.
And your quote from allegedly American newspaper does? Eugene, it's really
tiresome to deal with your double standards all the time.
> Diplomats and professional historians cannot afford
> themselves such luxuries, and as I have mentioned above, the issue of
> whether countries such as Finland and Romania were fighting on Germany's
> side as 'allies' or 'cobelligerents' in the war against the USSR was an
> issue discussed at the Paris Peace Conference in 1947.
Pray, tell me, did somebody on that conference call Germany and USSR allies?
> Finland
> supplied Germany with aid, supplies, and manpower, so the quantitative
> factor is there.
Supplied during the war with the Allied powers.
> But since this was done within the framework of ad hoc
> agreements, exchanges, 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'
> wheeling and dealing, rather than within the framework of formal treaty
> obligations of the type signed between the USSR and Germany on August 23,
> 1939, the crucially determining qualitative factor is absent.
That's why I called them de facto allied. Obligations you are so kind to
mention contain nothing regarding supplies or military support, but
specifically provides for not interference in the carrying out territorial
annexation plans. Many other countries chose not to interfere in Germany
and/or USSR acting out their territorial aspirations (Finns actually
directly helped Germany occupation of Norway) but did not sign such pacts.
I already stated what crucial parts of alliance pact are missing from the
Ribbentrop-Molotov document and enough of repetitions.
Vladimir Svetlov
> Absolutely typical Russian mode of argumentation.
Snip.
Typical redneck with a commercial Internet account, who for under 20 bucks
a month is clogging the lines with his racial stereotypes, conspiracy
theories, creationist drivel and personal accounts of the anal probing by
ET and his friends... Eternal thanks to Comrade Bill Gates for bringing
these troglodites to us at 56 kb/sec. Pusti kozla v Internet... Well, I
guess that is the price of the freedom of speech and cheap Malaysian
computers...
halm...@msn.com
In article <6nehgj$kgp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
an_on...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <359e6ae8...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> da...@halldor.demon.co.uk (David McDuff) wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 11:08:18 -0600, sve...@oncology.wisc.edu
> > (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> >
> > >Well, if them Balts can't claim for themselves other honors than wearing SS
> > >uniform, that's their problem.
> >
I am certain that the Lithuanians will be just thrilled to have earned your
approval. But, ahem, have you looked at a map lately? Where does Lithuania
border on Russia to the east? Has the incorporation of Belorussia proceeded
so far that it need not be mentioned anymore? I realize that as far as
Russia is concerned that poor nation is the ideal "post-soviet" state, but
still - have some respect.
Best - - Henry
AHetzer
AHetzer wrote:
>
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> >
> > (David McDuff) wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 14:35:18 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > But I repeat: I understand that
> > > >native speakers of Russian assert the non-existence of so-voyuyushchiy.
> > >
> > > Even Ozhegov has an entry for it:
> > >
> > > SOVOYU'YUSHCHIY, -aya, -ee (ofits.). Sovmestno s kem-n. voyuyushchiy
> > > protiv kogo-n. Sovoyuyushchie strany.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Which edition? It was the first place I looked, but it was lacking in mine
> > (2-e izdanie, ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe), Moskva 'AZ"', 1994.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Eugene Holman
>
> You have the post-soviet edition, it's not the real "Ozhegov", but
> chto-to pererabotannoe. It should be quoted as Ozhegov-XY (I do not
> remember the name of the new co-editor).
The co-editor is N. Yu. Shvedova, thus: *Ozhegov-Shvedova* would be more
appropriate, in order to avoid confusion.
As to the normativity of such dictionaries (viz. Ozhegov, Ushakov etc.)
cf.
L.I. Rakhmanova, V. N. Suzdal'tseva: Sovremennyi russkii yazyk. Moskva
1997, p. 9 sq. ISBN 5-211-03552-6
Eugene Holman
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> In article <holman-ya02408000...@news.helsinki.fi>,
> hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
>
> > € 'Ally' means being bound by a formal, legally binding, and publicly
> > declared treaty regulating mutual behavior as well as behavior towards
> > third parties in order to achieve common objectives.
>
> You are making it up as you go along... And what the hell is "mutual
> behaviour"?
Cf. the German description of 'cobelligerent' I posted yesterday:
"mitkriegführender Staat (ohne Bestehen eines Bündnisvertrages)" [= a state
fighting along in a war (without the existence of a treaty of alliance)].
The countries between Germany and Russia/USSR, have long been arenas for
German and Russian interference/intervention/interest. During this century
German intervention stabilized the situation in Finland during the events
which led to its independence in 1917, and Russia, justifiably, is
concerned about the fate and interests of the Russian-speaking post-Soviet
diasporas in Estonia and Latvia, to name two obvious examples. The
Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement divides the area up between the two
contracting parties, and says that they can interfere in the internal
affairs of the states in this area that are assigned to their respective
spheres of influence. If there had been no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Germany
could legitimately have used the presence of a considerable Baltic-German
minority in Estonia and Latvia as a pretext for persuading the Soviet Union
to ease diplomatic pressure on those governments. Similarly, Germany had
enough economic and historical ties with Finland, not to mention the
considerable grass-roots sympathy for Finland that Germans had during the
1930s, that it would have exerted diplomatic and other pressure on the USSR
when the absurd demands being made by the Soviet government were being
presented. An understanding of the implications of this alliance,
specifically that Finland could no longer rely on Germany to exert diplomatic
pressure on the USSR, as would otherwise be normal in this part of the
world, to stop making territorial demands on it which by any standard were
unjustified, was, in the light of what it saw happen to Poland a little
more than a week after the Treaty was signed, the primary reason for its
frantic build-up of defense systems ('the Mannerheim Line') in the
south-eastern part of the country, a build-up which Molotov subsequently
referred to as a primary justification for the Soviet attack.
The future mutual behavior of the USSR vis ŕ vis Germany - the manner in
which the two contracting parties were going to relate to one another in
areas where they had both historically had legitimate economic and other
interests - was regulated by the treaty. Paraphrased, the essence of the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement is:
'Contrary to what has previously been the norm in the mutual relations
between the contracting major powers regarding the smaller powers between
them in an area of mutual historical, economic, and diplomatic interest,
Germany is henceforth allowed by the USSR do whatever it wants to and in
the countries which this agreement assigns to its sphere of interest
without fear of Soviet interference, intervention, or reprisal. This is
reciprocated by the USSR being allowed the same privileges in those
countries assigned to its sphere of influence'.
The common objective is to facilitate by *minimizing the investment needed
and maximizing returns* the division of central Europe into well-defined
cores and peripheries of economic, diplomatic, and military influence. This
facilitation is a function of the future behavior of the contracting
parties towards one another as well as towards third parties being
regulated so as to follow specific and pre-defined trajectories. That is
what the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement is all about. Call it what you like;
to me and many people writing in English about the prelude to World War II,
this has all the distinctive features of an alliance: "a formal, legally
binding, and publicly declared treaty regulating mutual behavior as well as
behavior towards third parties in order to achieve common objectives". The
parties to an alliance are, by definition, allies. Q. E. D.
> > € Italy, which began the war as an ally of Germany, but switched sides and
> > fought in the final stages of the war on the side of the Allied Powers was
> > not bound by such agreements or protocols and is regarded as a
> > cobelligerent.
>
> So Finland should too, as it declared war on Germany in March of 1945...
And it is.
> > I do not have access to the "Mammoth Book of the Third Reich at War" so I
> > cannot contest your claim. Nor have I claimed 'exclusivity'. If a work
> > dealing with history is written for a general readership it hardly
> > qualifies as serious 'anglophone historiography'.
>
> And your quote from allegedly American newspaper does? Eugene, it's really
> tiresome to deal with your double standards all the time.
My quote, for which I gave the URL, was one of many using the term 'allies'
with respect to the USSR and Germany that I found on the net using a simple
search machine and was thus independently verifiable. A simple web search
would have yielded many more texts written by native speakers of English
following the same usage. I was not working by a double standard.
>
> > Diplomats and professional historians cannot afford
> > themselves such luxuries, and as I have mentioned above, the issue of
> > whether countries such as Finland and Romania were fighting on Germany's
> > side as 'allies' or 'cobelligerents' in the war against the USSR was an
> > issue discussed at the Paris Peace Conference in 1947.
>
> Pray, tell me, did somebody on that conference call Germany and USSR allies?
The conference did not deal with the phase of the war when Germany and the
USSR were allies. I will have to do some research to find out how their
relationship is referred to (the text of the Peace Treaty is not, as far as
I have been able to ascertain, available on the Net). In any case a
'special relationship' obtained between the USSR and Germany between August
23, 1939 and June 22, 1941, one that allowed them maximum return from
minimal investment, with the only risk being the other partner's
willingness to continue to play by the new rules. From the standpoint of
the people in this area, who were used to a world in which the two
contracting parties had historically influenced and
checked the behavior of the other in a more adversarial type of
relationship, the bilateral decision of Germany and the USSR to divide the
spoils of central Europe between them rather than continue to compete with
and mutually restrain each other was an alliance, contracted above their
heads and in secret, which effected a major change in the rules of the
game.
Best regards,
Eugene Holman
David McDuff
>That's why I called them de facto allied. Obligations you are so kind to
>mention contain nothing regarding supplies or military support, but
>specifically provides for not interference in the carrying out territorial
>annexation plans. Many other countries chose not to interfere in Germany
>and/or USSR acting out their territorial aspirations (Finns actually
>directly helped Germany occupation of Norway) but did not sign such pacts.
Do you suppose that Finland had much choice in the matter of becoming
involved in 'territorial annexation plans'? Let's just remember for a
moment what Finland had to endure when Russia began to 'act out its
territorial aspirations' on 30th November 1939:
'As Hitler's Air Force had earlier bombed Warsaw, so Stalin's Air
Force bombed Helsinki. On that first day of war, as a result of a
Soviet air raid, sixty-one Finns were killed in the capital. The
hospitals were overwhelmed with casualties. "One dying woman," a New
Zealand born journalist, Geoffrey Cox, later wrote, "was brought in
clutching a dead baby in her arms. One girl, Dolores Sundberg, twelve
years old, had both her legs smashed to ragged stumps, and died on the
operating table."
'This air raid, and the photographs of it which were reproduced
throughout Finland for many weeks to come, convinced the Finns of the
need to resist. "On every front I was to visit later," Geoffrey Cox
recalled, "man after man spoke angrily of this afternoon of November
30. I saw newspapers and photographs of the burning streets of
Helsinki in peasants' homes and workers' flats all over the country.
Not a little of the steel strength of Finnish morale in this war was
due to the raid on Helsinki."'
(M. Gilbert, 'Second World War', p.31.)
Regards,
David McDuff
an_on...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6nem00$qde$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
halm...@msn.com wrote:
>
> I am certain that the Lithuanians will be just thrilled to have earned your
> approval. But, ahem, have you looked at a map lately? Where does Lithuania
> border on Russia to the east? Has the incorporation of Belorussia proceeded
> so far that it need not be mentioned anymore? I realize that as far as
> Russia is concerned that poor nation is the ideal "post-soviet" state, but
> still - have some respect.
> Best - - Henry
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
Dear Henry:
If you look at Lithuania's *southwestern* border, you'll see an enclave known
as the Kaliningrad region. Not that it's historically been Russian, but now
it is, just like Danzig/Gdansk is now Polish, and, yes, Memel/Klaipeda
Lithuanian. And, as a result, this particular stretch of the border
constitutes (oh no!) a bona fide Lithuanian-Russian international boundary.
So, do check your facts occasionally, would you?.. Thanks...
Max
Eugene Holman
> In article <6nem00$qde$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> halm...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > I am certain that the Lithuanians will be just thrilled to have earned your
> > approval. But, ahem, have you looked at a map lately? Where does Lithuania
> > border on Russia to the east? Has the incorporation of Belorussia proceeded
> > so far that it need not be mentioned anymore? I realize that as far as
> > Russia is concerned that poor nation is the ideal "post-soviet" state, but
> > still - have some respect.
> > Best - - Henry
> >
> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> >
>
> Dear Henry:
>
> If you look at Lithuania's *southwestern* border, you'll see an enclave known
> as the Kaliningrad region. Not that it's historically been Russian, but now
> it is, just like Danzig/Gdansk is now Polish, and, yes, Memel/Klaipeda
> Lithuanian. And, as a result, this particular stretch of the border
> constitutes (oh no!) a bona fide Lithuanian-Russian international boundary.
> So, do check your facts occasionally, would you?.. Thanks...
>
Ahem. Henry stated clearly:
> Where does Lithuania border on Russia to the east?
And then wrote about Lithunia's quirky *eastern* neighbor, Belarus
(Belorussia). Kaliningrad, as you correctly point out, is Lithuania's
*southwestern* neighbor. East é Southwest, as I'm sure you realize. Geez,
talk about checking...
With best regards,
Eugene Holman
halm...@msn.com
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
>
>
> > Absolutely typical Russian mode of argumentation.
> Snip.
>
> Typical redneck with a commercial Internet account, who for under 20 bucks
> a month is clogging the lines with his racial stereotypes, conspiracy
> theories, creationist drivel and personal accounts of the anal probing by
> ET and his friends... Eternal thanks to Comrade Bill Gates for bringing
> these troglodites to us at 56 kb/sec. Pusti kozla v Internet... Well, I
> guess that is the price of the freedom of speech and cheap Malaysian
> computers...
>
> Regards,
> V.
thought your job was to subtract 10 yrs. from the US population's life
expectancy - just as you supermedics managed to do in Russia. Yet here
you just watch talk shows.
halm...@msn.com
In article <6nfme3$4m5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
an_on...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <6nem00$qde$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> halm...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > I am certain that the Lithuanians will be just thrilled to have earned your
> > approval. But, ahem, have you looked at a map lately? Where does Lithuania
> > border on Russia to the east? Has the incorporation of Belorussia proceeded
> > so far that it need not be mentioned anymore? I realize that as far as
> > Russia is concerned that poor nation is the ideal "post-soviet" state, but
> > still - have some respect.
> >
> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> >
>
>
> If you look at Lithuania's *southwestern* border, you'll see an enclave known
> as the Kaliningrad region. Not that it's historically been Russian, but now
> it is, just like Danzig/Gdansk is now Polish, and, yes, Memel/Klaipeda
> Lithuanian. And, as a result, this particular stretch of the border
> constitutes (oh no!) a bona fide Lithuanian-Russian international boundary.
> So, do check your facts occasionally, would you?.. Thanks...
>
More Russian-style argumentation? Look at your original post - You very
specifically indicated the "Eastern borders".
Eugene Holman
> In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
> sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> >
> > In article <6ne1og$1h9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, halm...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > > Absolutely typical Russian mode of argumentation.
> > Snip.
> >
> > Typical redneck with a commercial Internet account, who for under 20 bucks
> > a month is clogging the lines with his racial stereotypes, conspiracy
> > theories, creationist drivel and personal accounts of the anal probing by
> > ET and his friends... Eternal thanks to Comrade Bill Gates for bringing
> > these troglodites to us at 56 kb/sec. Pusti kozla v Internet... Well, I
> > guess that is the price of the freedom of speech and cheap Malaysian
> > computers...
> >
> > Regards,
> > V.
> I hate to mention it, comrade, but you have been watching too much TV. I
> thought your job was to subtract 10 yrs. from the US population's life
> expectancy - just as you supermedics managed to do in Russia. Yet here
> you just watch talk shows.
> Best - - Henry
You are truly a source of rapier-sharp wit and sparkling repartee today, Henry!
Best,
Eugene Holman
halm...@msn.com
>
> > Where does Lithuania border on Russia to the east?
>
> (Belorussia). Kaliningrad, as you correctly point out, is Lithuania's
> *southwestern* neighbor. East é Southwest, as I'm sure you realize. Geez,
> talk about checking...
> With best regards,
> Eugene Holman
This should be right down your line Holman. What is the *proper* current
English version of the name. In the US I have seen: Byelorussia, Byelorus,
Belorussia, Belorus and now you have Belarus. Thanks.
an_on...@my-dejanews.com
Well, Eugene, Henry was attempting to reply to my original posting, which
was *not* limited to eastern neighbors. Thus, my reply is entirely justified.
Had I known you'd be prone to nitpick, I would've included my original text in
its entirety. :)
The point I was trying to make is this: Henry's argument this time was that
Lithuania did not share a border with Russia, and thus was in a different
position than Latvia and Estonia. An argument with a disregard for geography,
as you might be inclined to agree.
Sincerely,
Max
an_on...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6ng62h$oin$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>
> More Russian-style argumentation? Look at your original post - You very
> specifically indicated the "Eastern borders".
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
Well, Henry, like I've told you before, I'm an American. And the statement
about the borders you're quoting above was about Latvia and Estonia. You are
not seriously trying to suggest that eastern borders have an innate quality to
them that southwestern borders don't have, are you?
Incidentally, there you go again. Anything you don't agree with you dismiss
as "Russian-style." You don't expect anybody to take this sort of
argumentation seriously, or do you?
Eugene Holman
In article <359b5b44...@news.demon.co.uk>, da...@halldor.demon.co.uk
(David McDuff) wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 18:09:58 -0600, sve...@oncology.wisc.edu
> (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
>
> >That's why I called them de facto allied. Obligations you are so kind to
> >mention contain nothing regarding supplies or military support, but
> >specifically provides for not interference in the carrying out territorial
> >annexation plans. Many other countries chose not to interfere in Germany
> >and/or USSR acting out their territorial aspirations (Finns actually
> >directly helped Germany occupation of Norway) but did not sign such pacts.
>
>
> Do you suppose that Finland had much choice in the matter of becoming
> involved in 'territorial annexation plans'? Let's just remember for a
> moment what Finland had to endure when Russia began to 'act out its
> territorial aspirations' on 30th November 1939:
>
[DELETION]
Even if the account of the death of this poor child makes an emotional
impact, it was repeated untold thousands of times elsewhere and really
isn't any different from scenes that took place in London, Viipuri,
Leningrad, Bucharest, Tallinn, Rotterdam...
More important, I think, is to concentrate on the *surrealistic insanity*,
the almost dadaist quality, of the events that led to and regulated the
course of the war, and which redefined the character of international
relations in this area of the world after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement.
1. Historical rivals Germany and the USSR sign a blockbuster agreement,
suddenly making them allies (or conspirators) rather than the adversaries
they had traditionally been, thus removing any risks of reprisal from the
other party for using aggression to pick up the 'small change' in their
respective back yards.
2. This deprives Finland of the possibility of exerting diplomatic pressure
through the major power which has historically defended its interests
against the other major power.
3. The USSR intensifies diplomatic pressure on Finland to accept its
proposal that it hand over a tenth of its territory, including recently
built *defensive* fortifications and much of its industrial heartland and
resources, in exchange for an equivalent amount of virgin forest in the
north, on the pretext that France, Britain, or some other country (not
Germany, though) might be making long-term preparations for an eventual
attack on Moscow through Finland and Leningrad.
4. The USSR supports its proposals by noting that the three Baltic
countries have, mutatis mutandis, agreed to similar arrangements, and are
all the better off for it.
5. Finland replies that no nation with a democratic government could even
consider such outrageous proposals, proposals far beyond what the Baltic
countries accepted.
6. The USSR engineers a minor border incident, and uses this as a pretext
for an all-out invasion of Finland.
7. Germany, which normally would be expected to exert diplomatic pressure
on the USSR in such a situation, looks the other way in accordance with the
terms of its alliance with the USSR..
8. The USSR sets up a bogus government which agrees to all of its demands.
9. The USSR continues the war on the pretext that its bogus government has
accepted the Soviet proposals without qualification, that the territory is
now Soviet territory, and that the Soviets are fighting to evict a foreign
army from territory which has been ceded to it by the 'Finnish government'
which it recognizes.
10. The Finnish government in Helsinki, now irrelevant from the Soviet
standpoint, eventually realizes that it cannot sustain the losses that the
Finnish army is taking, and negotiates a cease fire through diplomatic
channels.
11. The bogus government 'agrees' to allow the USSR to negotiate with the
Helsinki government and is disbanded.
12. The Soviet Union gets the territory and fortifications it wanted;
Finland loses a tenth of its territory; an eighth of its population,
expelled from the territory taken over from the USSR and only allowed to
take those personal possessions they could carry, becomes impoverished
refugees.
13. Molotov reports on the war to the Soviet Government, telling how
benevolently the USSR has treated Finland: 'Finland, despite territorial
losses, is still four times larger than Hungary, and we didn't even demand
reparations'.
14. Three months later, the Baltic countries, whose example Finland had
been urged to follow in the first place, are occupied and swallowed up by
the USSR using a variant of the bogus government trick.
15. Finland decides that its only chance of survival is to curry favor with
Germany which, despite everything, is the devil it knows better and the
only country in the region which, tied to the USSR by the intensification
of their relationship due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement, is in a
position to influence Soviet behavior.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement permitted and encouraged a new form of
criminal behavior in international relations. The small countries affected
by it had no hopes for survival if they could not figure out a way to play
one rapacious power off against the other, a risky business, but one
unlikely to produce anything as surrealistic as the above scenario.
Finland, for easily understandable reasons, had no other choice but align
itself with Germany against the USSR. The behavior of the USSR towards
Finland in 1939-40, as well as the instructive lesson of the fate of the
three Baltic states, despite their having played the game as requested by
the USSR, during the summer of 1940, had closed the door to any other
possibility.
Best regards,
Eugene Holman
Vladimir Svetlov
> Do you suppose that Finland had much choice in the matter of becoming
> involved in 'territorial annexation plans'?
Did any other country seriously tried to stop German or Soviet expansionism
at the time? GB was not very forthcoming with her expedition force when SU
attacked Finnland in 1939-40...
Anyway, I already stated that I did not think that Finland had a feasible
alternative to its intimate involvement with Germany. But as Mr. Holman
found it necessary to prove the reality of the secret supplement to the
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, I in turn have to bring up some facts that he
choose to ommit from his account of Finnland's role in WWII. Recall, please
that his abridged version of events looked like - Germany started an
offensive against USSR, that Finns were reluctant to join untill few days
later out of the blue the Red Army started bombing attacks on Finnish
territory. By adding few historical details I was trying to demonstrate
that this opportunist idea was acted upon by Finns long in advance of June
of 1941.
I find bombing civilian installations the most reprehensible and
indefensible practice of achieving military objectives. But, since as Mr.
Holman would put it, my USA co-habitant Henry (if that's is his real name -
for all I know he could be Mervin or Marry Joe) mentioned something about
typical Russian reasoning, I'm going to risk an avalanche of other similar
responses and remind you of an official and most popular justification of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombings. Although some enemies of the United
States now try to argue that it was not necessary, or that the bombings
should have been directed against Japanese forces on the continent, it is
well known that bombing Japan into submission was best achieved through
generating enormous civilian casualties in the areas of highest population
densities - cities, and on in relatively dispersed and fortified, i.e.
protected military personnel. At least one of the historians, I recall,
even insisted that bombing these Japanese cities was actually a blessing in
disguise, since supposedly fierce islands' defence to be put up by
fanatical Japanese would infuriate American soldiers so much that they
would obliterate even more Japanese people, than the atom bombs did. So
apparently is was a popular technique (Germans used it extensively and got
back from the Allies more than they ever bargained for).
Vladimir Svetlov
> I hate to mention it, comrade, but you have been watching too much TV.
I mostly rent videos - Bergman, Kurosawa, Wajda, that is when is no new
X-rated releases.
> I
> thought your job was to subtract 10 yrs. from the US population's life
> expectancy - just as you supermedics managed to do in Russia.
My job description saz to study architecture of RNA polymerase II, and
that's what I do. Post your mail address and I'll send you a reprint of my
last paper.
> Yet here
> you just watch talk shows.
Wrong as always. I work, read Anouilh and Kafka or just throw knives into a
target depicting an average MSN subscriber, visit the shooting range, hike
or play ME with my son, teach him about mol. biology or tell him stories
about those evil descendants of Moomintrolls - ex-Soviet Balts (ex-Balts
especially). The rest of the time is divided between sex and competitive
level dismemberment (WI is the state of Jeffrey Dahmer). As you see - no
time for talk shows.
Vladimir Svetlov
> You are truly a source of rapier-sharp wit and sparkling repartee today,
Henry!
Tell me who your friend is... I thought better of you, Eugene, that you
warrant with your conduct. What, you can't come up with such lame bigotry
yourself?! Must be the demoralizing effects of academia... But don't worry,
it looks like you are getting there, where Henry already is - in the KKK
recruitment and the Bigfoot dating pool.
Vladimir Svetlov
> Even if the account of the death of this poor child makes an emotional
> impact, it was repeated untold thousands of times elsewhere and really
> isn't any different from scenes that took place in London, Viipuri,
> Leningrad, Bucharest, Tallinn, Rotterdam...
How in hell Russian city made it into this list? Few more egalitarian slips
like that and you'll be tried for anti-Baltic activity.
Anyway, you account of the events serves its purpose - to explain how come
Finnland associated itself against USSR - this sentiment I never
questioned. What it does not say much about is why Finalnd associated with
Germany and not, say, with GB. After all, it was GB and not Germany who was
at least considering helping Finns in their defensive war against USSR and
was exerting favorable for Finns diplomatic pressure on USSR. At this point
Germany was bound by an agreement with Soviet Union, according to which
Finland was in the Soviet area of interests. Germany was actually
supporting all out annexation of all Finnish territories at the time - was
it not a bit illogical to seek defense from the immenent agression by
aligning with the only state that expressly agreed not to interfere with
it?
> Finland, for easily understandable reasons, had no other choice but align
> itself with Germany against the USSR. The behavior of the USSR towards
> Finland in 1939-40, as well as the instructive lesson of the fate of the
> three Baltic states, despite their having played the game as requested by
> the USSR, during the summer of 1940, had closed the door to any other
> possibility.
I'm afraid that you are overdoing this used car-salesman trick - hiding
disagreeable statement in a pile of agreeable ones, in hope that having
said "yes" several times your adversary might keep on saying it no matter
what you feed'im. If Germany and USSR were indeed allies, why Finnland in
its quest for protection against USSR would turn to its only ally, and say
not to a neutral or unfriendly power like GB or USA? If, on the other hand,
this "alliance" was seen as a cynical way to buy time, agreed upon by both
sides in attempt to outsmart each other, and a mere prelude to an outright
conflict, why all this outcry about Finnland suddenly finding itself
abandoned by its "traditional" protector etc.? Now, if Germany confided its
plans to annex Western USSR altogether and promised Finnland not only
recovery of the territories lost to USSR in March 1940, but actually some
territorial surplus, there is something to think about. If then Germans had
thrown into the deal the opportunity not to have Russians as neighbors at
all plus Germany-controlled and cleaned-up Baltic ex-states, purged of
undesirables and being constantly improved through insemination of the
locals by re-settled German war veterans, that would make it an offer one
could not and should not refuse...
zaga...@mail.stcc.mass.edu
Eugene the backslapper roared:
> > You are truly a source of rapier-sharp wit and sparkling repartee
> > today, Henry!
but Vladimir Svetlov fingerwagged:
> I thought better of you, Eugene, that you warrant with your conduct.
Listen Vlad the Impaler, this was Eugene's first ever attempt at
humor. Don't discourage him.
Juris Zagarins
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <359aa47c...@news.demon.co.uk>, da...@halldor.demon.co.uk
(David McDuff) wrote:
> No, I don't think we are.The point at issue is a very simple one: just
> because a word isn't widely used, or recognized by 'common people'
> doesn't mean that it's devoid of significance.
My objections to the word "sovojujushij" were steming from the personal
experience that it is not used widely even in the historical literature,
being substituted by English word "satellit(e)". Ozhegov dictionary is not
a reflection of current word usage. BTW, both Ozhegov and Dal, preeminent
linguists of their time, objected to incorporation of foreign words into
the Russian vocabulary. This war on foreign terminology never quite died
out - I remember as a student at the Department of Molecular Biology having
a lecturer bent upon coming up with a Russian name for every enzyme he
talked about. One of the most problematic was the enzyme called "maturase"
- the one that removes parts of the nascent RNA molecule to make a
functional (thus "mature") RNA. The versions he came up with ranged from
"po-vzroslyaza" (vzroslyj=adult, mature) to more "descriptive"
"RNK-lishnie-kuski-vyrezaza" ("excessive-parts-of-RNA-excising enzyme").
That's what I call cruel and unusual.
> In our discussion, the
> point at issue was whether Finland can be considered to have been an
> 'ally' or a 'co-belligerent' of Germany in World War II.
In OUR discussion the issue was whether USSR and Germany were allies,
whereas Finland and Germany were co-belligerent. That was the original
thesis presented by Mr. Holman. I attempted and within the limitations
succeeded to show that at least one of these statements has to be untrue if
Mr. Holman's criteria are applied rigorously and consistently.
> The fact is
> that Finland was the latter. The significance - and the importance -
> of the term is that although Finland fought alongside Germany, Finland
> did not share Germany's national socialist ideology and war aims.
USSR did not share them either, as an added bonus it did not fight
alongside Germany.
halm...@msn.com
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
>
life? But then, reading Kafka must bring fond memories of the Russian
system - I understand. I do wish you would quit picking on Bill Gates
however. One word from him and the whole internet disappears. Then the
Russians would have to invent it. What a bother!
Best - - Henry
Maris Ozols
an_on...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <359e6ae8...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> da...@halldor.demon.co.uk (David McDuff) wrote:
>> An observer once characterized the situation of the Baltic States
>> earlier this century as that of someone trying to build a house and
>> garden in the middle of a six-lane freeway. Mercifully, the traffic
>> seems to have eased a little. Let's be thankful for that, and hope
>> that no one threatens the Baltic States again.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> David McDuff
>>
>
>And what better way to ensure this than to have a friendly Russia on one's
>Eastern borders... And, if we take Lithuania's example, it does work. Not
>that the ball is completely in Latvia's and Estonia's court, but a modicum of
>effort could do wonders.
Max, you're being incredibly naive again. Russia isn't interested in
having any kind of relations with the Baltic States - it's simply
interested in swallowing them whole again. Currently it's playing good
guy bad guy and Lithuania is seeing the good guy. Why do you think
Russia can't find it within itself to admit that the Baltic States
were illegally occupied (as the rest of the world has) - so that it
does not have to backtrack later. Krasts, Latvia's Prime Minister made
the point very succintly when he said even if Latvia acceded to
Russia's wishes on the non-citizen issue, recently, Russia would
simply move the goalposts the next time (the last bit is my
paraphrasing!).
> Besides, one of the most important reasons for
>Latvia's and Estonia's relative prosperity is their position on Russia's
>transit routes. You might recall that the mayor of Ventspils is one of the
>most vocal critics of his government's policies towards both Russia and the
>Russian-speaking population.
Are you surprised? He's one hell of a greedy bastard - he doesn't want
to share the wealth with the rest of Latvia, either.
Maris
>
>-- Max
>
WARNING!!!
The return email address was altered to foil the bulk email
spammers. If you reply to this message, please manually remove
* from the end of the return address or it'll bounce. Thanks!
David McDuff
>My objections to the word "sovojujushij" were steming from the personal
>experience that it is not used widely even in the historical literature,
>being substituted by English word "satellit(e)". Ozhegov dictionary is not
>a reflection of current word usage
None the less, I suspect that 'sovoyuyushchiy' corresponds rather
closely to English 'cobelligerent', which is also not too common a
term. In English it is often used, however, in the specific instance
of discussing Finland and its relation to Germany in the Continuation
War.
>In OUR discussion the issue was whether USSR and Germany were allies,
>whereas Finland and Germany were co-belligerent.
From what I've read of it, that's a moot point. You were arguing that
USSR and Germany were not allies, while Eugene Holman contradicted
that, and also argued that Finland and Germany were cobelligerents. So
I think we can take our pick.
> I attempted and within the limitations
>succeeded to show that at least one of these statements has to be untrue if
>Mr. Holman's criteria are applied rigorously and consistently.
You obviously didn't convince me.
>USSR did not share them either, as an added bonus it did not fight
>alongside Germany.
Again, a moot point. It's often observed that there's an uncanny
resemblance between the ideologies of Nazism and Soviet Communism.
And as for the bonus: in 1940 didn't German troops pass by rail, with
full approval of the Soviet authorities, from Leningrad to Murmansk,
in preparation for a possible pincer attack into northern Norway?
Regards,
David McDuff
David McDuff
>Did any other country seriously tried to stop German or Soviet expansionism
>at the time? GB was not very forthcoming with her expedition force when SU
>attacked Finnland in 1939-40...
I think that perhaps you misunderstood my - admittedly rhetorical -
question. If a small country is violently attacked by a much larger
and more powerful one, it doesn't haveany option but to be involved.
That was the principle that underlay the large-scale terror operations
introduced to modern warfare by Hitler and Stalin. The fact Finland
was able for so long to defy the 'helplessness factor' that is the
intended result of such operations was a tribute to Finnish endurance
and military skill. In the end, however, as a smaller, weaker entity,
like Poland, Finland *had* to become involved - if only as a victim -
in the 'territorial annexation plans' of one or both of the
signatories to the Nazi-Soviet pact.
As for the cancellation of 'Stratford', it was mainly due to the still
precarious situation of British war resources. As Gilbert points out,
quoting Churchill, 'any despatch even of further aircraft to
Finland... would "weaken ourselves against Germany".' There was also
the probability of opposition from Sweden, which would have delayed
the arrival of the Franco-British force beyond a point where it could
have been of any practical assistance.
> By adding few historical details I was trying to demonstrate
>that this opportunist idea was acted upon by Finns long in advance of June
>of 1941.
Would you care to recapitulate these details, or elaborate on them,
please? I mean, I notice that in an earlier article to this thread you
wrote: 'When Finland put forward half a million soldiers it became an
integral part of anti-USSR and anti-Allied coalition, directly
facilitating realization of the entire spectrum of Germany's plans,
including murder of 6 million Jews, 2 million Poles, 2_ million of
Soviet POWs etc.' You are saying that by defending itself against
unprovoked Soviet attack, Finland automatically aligned itself with
Nazi war aims and objectives? I don't think you'll find that many
historians agree with you. In what essential way was Finland's defence
of its territory different from Poland's - a distinction you also made
(additionally citing Serbia)? Was it only that, in relative terms, it
was a more successful one?
>So
>apparently is was a popular technique (Germans used it extensively and got
>back from the Allies more than they ever bargained for).
The way that Stalin used the technique against Finland was, however,
reminiscent of Hitler at his worst.
Regards,
David McDuff
David McDuff
>Even if the account of the death of this poor child makes an emotional
>impact, it was repeated untold thousands of times elsewhere and really
>isn't any different from scenes that took place in London, Viipuri,
>Leningrad, Bucharest, Tallinn, Rotterdam...
The bombing of an almost totally defenceless civilian population -
there was no warning of the attack, which took place in the afternoon
- was not what one might have expected from the world's great
socialist superpower. In that respect, the Soviet aerial bombing of
Helsinki was a 'first', though of course in all other ways I agree
with you. What the Soviet bombing showed was that Stalin was quite
prepared to employ Hitler's methods in crushing civilian populations.
>More important, I think, is to concentrate on the *surrealistic insanity*,
>the almost dadaist quality, of the events that led to and regulated the
>course of the war, and which redefined the character of international
>relations in this area of the world after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement.
I think that both aspects are equally important and worthy of
consideration and reflection. But I don't have any objections to the
way in which you paint the scenario in your list of 15 points. It's a
scenario that does indeed possess an 'almost dadaist quality' - though
I wouldn't go quite so far as to categorize it as 'insane'. It has a
special logic of its own, one that has become in some sense, perhaps,
the logic of our postwar world.
Best regards,
David McDuff
Evaldas Zvinys
Vladimir Svetlov (sve...@oncology.wisc.edu) wrote:
: Now, if Germany confided its
: plans to annex Western USSR altogether and promised Finnland not only
: recovery of the territories lost to USSR in March 1940, but actually some
: territorial surplus, there is something to think about. If then Germans had
: thrown into the deal the opportunity not to have Russians as neighbors at
: all plus Germany-controlled and cleaned-up Baltic ex-states, purged of
: undesirables and being constantly improved through insemination of the
: locals by re-settled German war veterans, that would make it an offer one
: could not and should not refuse...
: Regards,
: V.
If this is a joke, it is a rather bad one.
If you are serious, you are quite a cynic to post bullshit like this.
Not that it could not have happened, but that it seems that you have no
understanding of nor respect for small countries and their cultures which
withstood centuries of "inmprovement through insemination" by numerous
occupants, some of them rather desperate to get the job done.
I guess Kurosawa did not help much here...
-Evaldas
pasi.ku...@bof.fi
...
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
>
> Finnland associated itself against USSR - this sentiment I never
> questioned. What it does not say much about is why Finalnd associated with
> Germany and not, say, with GB. After all, it was GB and not Germany who was
> at least considering helping Finns in their defensive war against USSR and
> was exerting favorable for Finns diplomatic pressure on USSR. At this point
> Germany was bound by an agreement with Soviet Union, according to which
Germany was the only big power around with any capacity to support the
Finnish stand. GB, or USA at that point, was in no position of being able to
send real help, warm sentiments didn't help much during the winter war. I
came up with a poor analogy from the mafia. Its like two big mobster gangs,
Nazi-Germany and Soviet Union, had made a deal of sharing the territory for
criminal purposes and possibly supporting stand against the cops, ie western
democracies. After Finland had been able to stop the bully mobster from east
once, and having paid a heavy fee, it needed quarantees for its future. The
cops were weak at that point and were even trying to keep in pragmaric
relationship with the eastern mob. Thus, the only choice was to look
protection from the direction of the other big bully, one with which there
had been good relations during the previous "capos". The price was more moral
of having to cooperate with a mobster, but it was a far better solution than
anything else around at that point of time. It was clear that diplomatic
pressure from west had no value at that point and Finland needed iron behind
its own diplomacy. Furthermore, there was a clear threat of renewed Soviet
aggression during the summer 1940 or later that made it necessary to find
strong "friends". Here I do not want to want to debate the allies vs.
cobelligerents discussion. I just note that Finland kept its hands relatively
free during the whole war often not comlying to the German wishes. Thus,
there was no full alliance but something closer than mere cobelligerence,
especially after Ryti had signed a treaty of continuing war against SU in
1944 after the major summer offensive. I think the common term during the
time was "comrades in arms" which hints to the direction of fighting the same
enemy without closer integration.
Finns have a centuries long history of repeated long harsh wars against
Novgorod, Russia and Soviet Union, mainly as part of the Swedish
kingdom, which have never helped to create much trust and faith
in good relationships. Hopefully that is changing with new generations
on both sides.
> Finland was in the Soviet area of interests. Germany was actually
> supporting all out annexation of all Finnish territories at the time - was
> it not a bit illogical to seek defense from the immenent agression by
> aligning with the only state that expressly agreed not to interfere with
> it?
See above. German military leaders, and Hitler probably too, were
somewhat impressed by the Finnish fighting spirit and as it fit to their
plans of gathering allies (from their point of view) they actually
started to support Finland fairly early on after the winter war. Hitler
refused to let the Soviets to deal finally with Finland, when Molotov
asked Hitler's opinion on that matter in November 1940.
Cheers,
Pasi Kuoppamaki
PS. Two WWW pages on the unholy pact (with some nice pictures ;) and the
timeline of Finnish wars.
http://cobweb.washcoll.edu/student.pages/karen.sieger/war/pact.htm
http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/mirror/sa-int/hist.html
All opinions are mine.
AHetzer
Yelena Perkhounkova wrote:
>
> A brief outline of the historic play "Say us who your allies are"
>
> Act 1. A grand ceremony. Mr. G marries Miss U.
>
> Act 2. Mr. G wipes his ass with his wedding certificate and
> starts beating Mrs. U up.
>
> Act 3. Miss F gladly joins Mr. G and kicks Mrs. U.
> (She has her own scores to pay off.)
> Then Miss F jumps into still warm Mr. G's bed.
> The newly unwed live happily producing a number of perfectly
> illegitimate children.
>
> Act 4. Mrs. U marries some mighty guy, and together they beat the hell out
> of Mr. G and Miss F.
>
> Act 5. Happy end.
>
> Prologue. 50 years have passed. A famous historian Mr. Holman proves that
> Miss F has never lost her virginity.
>
> The curtain falls.
Анкор! Вот как я люблю гендерные исследования!
David McDuff
>Even if the account of the death of this poor child makes an emotional
>impact, it was repeated untold thousands of times elsewhere and really
>isn't any different from scenes that took place in London, Viipuri,
>Leningrad, Bucharest, Tallinn, Rotterdam...
One further point. I think it's worth noting that the emotional charge
of the quotation is in keeping with the general style of the work from
which it is drawn, Martin Gilbert's 'Second World War', where the
accounts of events, including atrocities, are not merely lists, but
are based on eyewitness and press reports, and have a graphic, human
quality that does much to uncover the real nature of what took place.
In this respect, Gilbert's description of what befell Helsinki at the
hands of the Soviet airforce is not at all at variance with his
descriptions of what happened in the other cities you mention.
an_on...@my-dejanews.com
In article <359be0ad...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
de...@pobox.com* wrote:
>
> an_on...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> [skip]
>
> >And what better way to ensure this than to have a friendly Russia on one's
> >Eastern borders... And, if we take Lithuania's example, it does work.
Not
> >that the ball is completely in Latvia's and Estonia's court, but a modicum of
> >effort could do wonders.
>
> Max, you're being incredibly naive again. Russia isn't interested in
> having any kind of relations with the Baltic States - it's simply
> interested in swallowing them whole again. Currently it's playing good
> guy bad guy and Lithuania is seeing the good guy. Why do you think
> Russia can't find it within itself to admit that the Baltic States
> were illegally occupied (as the rest of the world has) - so that it
> does not have to backtrack later. Krasts, Latvia's Prime Minister made
> the point very succintly when he said even if Latvia acceded to
> Russia's wishes on the non-citizen issue, recently, Russia would
> simply move the goalposts the next time (the last bit is my
> paraphrasing!).
>
I'm sorry, Maris, maybe it's just me, but I cannot see any evidence that
Russia is planning to swallow up the Baltics again. And even if it did, I
somehow doubt the Russian Army would be in any condition to do that any time
soon.
And, as for Mr. Krasts, I believe he suffers from the same assumption,
namely, that Russia is necessarily evil. This belief of mine is supported
both by the position of his party and by some of his own statements. Be that
as it may, by changing the citizenship rules, Latvia has considerably
improved its image in the West, in addition to doing what I believe is the
right thing to do; of course, if a referendum against these changes does take
place, and especially if these changes are voted down, Latvia's reputation
will be back to square one, so I sincerely hope this does not happen. And
support from the West will make it very hard for Russia to "move the
goalposts," as it were, even if Mr. Krasts is correct in his assumption.
And, as far as Russia's admitting that the Baltics were illegally occupied, I
believe that was the argument Yeltsin used when he forced Gorby to grant the
Baltics immediate and unconditional independence. Please correct me if I am
wrong.
Moreover, better relations were on the horizon prior to the incident this
spring, and it is my impression that, if these changes do get implemented,
Russia's attitude will change. (For one thing, it will give them a chance to
save face...)
Sincerely,
Max
P. S. This kinda reminds me of an old joke.
A mafia boss comes to his local priest and says, "Father, if I donate ten
million to your parish, will I go to heaven?" "I can't guarantee it, my son,
but let's give it a try!"
Kari Yli-Kuha
David McDuff kirjoitti viestissä <359f932f....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>impact, it was repeated untold thousands of times elsewhere and really
>>isn't any different from scenes that took place in London, Viipuri,
>>Leningrad, Bucharest, Tallinn, Rotterdam...
>
>of the quotation is in keeping with the general style of the work from
>which it is drawn, Martin Gilbert's 'Second World War', where the
>accounts of events, including atrocities, are not merely lists, but
>are based on eyewitness and press reports, and have a graphic, human
>quality that does much to uncover the real nature of what took place.
>In this respect, Gilbert's description of what befell Helsinki at the
>hands of the Soviet airforce is not at all at variance with his
>descriptions of what happened in the other cities you mention.
It's not as if the Soviets didn't try. Before 1944 the Soviets were too busy
elsewhere, but that changed in the winter 1944, after Finland had
turned down the Soviet peace proposal because of harsh conditions.
Altogether during the Continuation War the Soviet air force made
>2100 attacks against Helsinki, causing 146 dead, 356 wounded -
mostly civilians. 109 houses were destroyed, >300 damaged.
The reason for the low-ish casualties was the air raid defence and its
effective barrage system, designed by colonel Jokipaltio - he was in
charge of the defence. The system consisted of concentrated barrages,
each 1km wide / 300m high, which could be aimed anywhere
depending on the direction and height of the approaching fleets.
The Soviets attacked mostly during the nights, and the barrages
scared the pilots so that majority of the bombs were dropped
before the planes reached the target area.
An example: during the night on Feb 26/27 1994 Soviet bombers
dropped >9000 bombs: 338 fell in the city, about 7000
in the sea.
>Regards,
>
>David McDuff
regards,
/Kari
Kari Yli-Kuha
Oops... time warp...
Kari Yli-Kuha kirjoitti viestissä <6nifme$n8i$1...@tron.sci.fi>...
...
>An example: during the night on Feb 26/27 1994 Soviet bombers
Should be, of course, 1944
>dropped >9000 bombs: 338 fell in the city, about 7000
>in the sea.
/Kari