@Heikki, Why Finland had attacked Russia? Very simple, like Poland, USA and other western imperialist power, they too want to destroy the Soviet Union, the new born socialist state of the them. So far, I am stunned to note that none have EVER ponted to the fact of internal sabotages and other harmful actifivities sponsored by western states inside the newly born socialist state. These activities was much more responsible for the losses of livelihood and other factors during the STALIN REGIME(!) than the Soviet rule itself. The case of Serbia and now-a-days Iran have clearly showed that even today they are trying to SPONSOR PROTESTS(!) against governments, they don't want. These is very much clear even their stronghold in world media remains, I just can't guess what they could do when they have a much much much much ............ control over information at that time, when Stalin was in power. There are pictures of PROTESTERS(!) of Iran all over in the world media against the TYRANNICA(!) Ahmedinezad regime, but so far I haven't seen any picture or dideo of protests against the feudal rulers of Saudi Arab and other Emirates, which are not ELECTED and is running their country in very much the same way as Afghanistan's warlords. I am curious to know SPECIALLY Marzipan6 and Heikki's comment on that matter.
This constant theme of "Hitler/Stalin". Understand something.Both men were evil,that is without doubt and none is better than other. But,as for living under Facist Germany or Soviet Union... If you were not "Germanic",the future held very little for you.Plan was either:You would be exterminated or worked to death. THIS was the plan for Slavs!be it in Poland,Bohemia,Moravia(Czech lands) and Slovakia,Ukraine or Russia. I,myself am East European and Slav.My family went through hell living through communism and it destroyed many aspects of the country.BUT,I do understand that it was fault of dictators in Soviet Union AND our own Communist government.People in actual Soviet Union at that time and what is now present day Russia though,went through even worse than what my family and others did in Czechoslovakia!.It was unfortunate history,and its brought us apart from our brothers in Russia. Overall,Im EXTREMELY appreciative of efforts of Red Army and Soviet Union in WW2 and I DO consider them our liberators.Over 26 million gave their lives in Soviet Union fighting a regime that wanted to wipe them,and half of Europe out.I still to this day say Thank You,to Russia.
CountCash, you do neither law nor the fantasy of Western politics. You do the fantasies of Stalin.
And just for your information, post-Soviet Russia has always had a chronic aversion to bringing legal examination to bear on the Soviet occupation of the Baltics. Estonia has offered many times to take the matter to the International Court of Justice but Russia has always refused, and of course the court cannot have jurisdiction on the matter if Russia does not grant it such jurisdiction. Estonia has also offered repeatedly to set up a bi-lateral committee of academics to provide a joint academic, scholarly evaluation of its Soviet era, but Moscow has consistently refused even that.
Russia has about as much appetite for objectively facing its Soviet history as it does for walking into a wall. Meanwhile its apologists merrily chirp on about “show us a legal decision.” Kind of ridiculous, I know, but there you are.
Please give reference to the court case, where it has been decided that there is illegality in any way. We do law, not fantasy western politics!Western biased history books are paper, but they have the quality of toilet paper, they tear easily under the pressure of the truth and are smeared in pretty nasty stuff in the end. My paper has signatures, my paper follows the normal legal precedent for legal decisions of a state. No decision have been ruled void, and law cannot be applied retrospectively. Your paper just blows away in the wind, or finds its way into a sewer, where it belongs, alongside all of your western, biased, historical perversions on this subject. Until you have a court decision, by a competent court, don't even try to speak of illegality, until then you will have to make do with your rantings and blaming of others, for the total complicity Estonia showed to incorporation in the Soviet Union. Just take heart that Estonia came into existence in 1991.
I agree, Count-Cash, there most certainly is a paper trail to the Soviet invasion and occupation of the Baltic States, and anyone can find it in authoritative and accepted history texts the world over. It is a trail of broken Soviet treaties and promises, illegal invasion, sham “elections” without any legal authority whatever, and utterly illegal and judicially impossible surrender of sovereignty, followed by mass Soviet terror and fifty years of military and secret police enforced repression.
No actually Valdimir is correct " Baltic States were never occupied by the USSR. They joined by voting of the people representatives". The paper trail is there to prove it. Western Historians, try to rewrite history on this one, introducing politicisation, so many from the west swallow the propaganda hook line and sinker. You cannot just invalidate decisions made by a state. You can argue not all the people were behind it, you can argue you didn't like it, but what you can't argue is that it is legally invaid, unless you can find a competent court to rule on it; such a court not being a western kangaroo court, showing the same politically orientated bias of the western historians. So Vladimir has it absolutely spot on, regarding this point.
Vladimir - your answer is a good proof of my points - I should not make broad generalizations of single persons views but your points are the exact falsifications many russians seem to believe in - they are not justified and totally biasd - maybe you're reading historians from the USSR era?
July 04, 2009, 15:07, Vladimir wrote > 1. Baltic States were never occupied by the USSR. They joined by voting of the people representatives.
Marzipan6 answered this allready
> 2. Finnland begun military actions against the USSR already 21 June 1941( mining of the Finnish bay).
Absolutely untrue. Soviet Union opened fire on it's own people, the so called "Bombardment of Mainila" was an attempt to justify the war. Have you ever thought why would Finland have attacked Russia?
> 3. Finnland took part in the Leningrade blocada caused awful sufferings and dying off the civil population. Again, untrue. The fiinnish did not bombard Leningrad, the Nazis did and tried to persuade finns to join in the blockade, unsuccesfully.
> 4. Finnlad betrayed his German ally and attacked it already on the Soviet side!
True - but what were the choices? Finland was forced to do so in order to be able to make a peace deal with USSR.
> 5. Soviet Union treated Finnland very mild after the war and was an object of a profitable trade.
Mildly? The war was started by the Soviets so by what morale should have the finns given anything? It should have been the other way round. Finland was the only country in the world after the war that paid it's commitments fully. During 1945–1949, the compensations took 15–16 % from the state budget and during 1950–1952 7–5 %. Profitable trade? I have never heard anything so idiotic. How can you call that profitable trade? Finland got nothing in return. The good thing about it was that it forced Finland to industrialize but it was not trade.
Finland indeed fought bravely for its independence, its what all nations do, it is their fundamental response to any unwanted impngement on their sovereinty. If you don't fight you agree!
Estonia was the promiscuous woman, there was no rape, no struggle, there was just consensual relationships. She had a consensual relationship with Stalin, she voted to join him in marriage, it turned out sour, she claimed the marriage void and shouted rape. She dreamed of the Nazi hunk. She even fought against Stalin immediately to be with her Nazi Hunk, to drive him from the house. She showed a fight, that she never showed when she met Stalin, because with Stalin it was consensual. She felt at one with her Nazi Hunk, she worked tirelesly with him, in his hobby of exterminating jews. She proudly proclaimed our house is jew free. But back came Stalin stronger and drove the Nazi Hunk from the house, so now she had to live with his sour behaviour for more and more years, it was shown the marriage was valid, and she was never raped. In the end Stalin died, however as she met new friends, they reminded her of here work for the Nazi Hunk killing jews and supporting his hobbly, she didn't like it, so she thought of a plan to distract their thoughts, by constantly referring to Stalin her husband and saying how bad a husband he was, not pointing out that people from her own house, the servants had done most of the things, she complained Stalin had done. However, some people saw this behaviour, and had all the documents to prove it, so she said, I was forced to sign everything, it wasn't really my wishes, blame Stalin!
Pauline, the reason Stalin is equated with Hitler is because he operated a totalitarian terror regime, just like Hitler did. That regime actually murdered more people than the Nazis, operated the world’s largest network of concentration camps (much larger than Germany’s), and occupied, impoverished and terrorized its neighbours for longer than Germany did. When the Red Army drove German forces out of Eastern Europe, it immediately replaced the Nazi terror regime there with its own Soviet version. Russia likes to point out how the Red Army liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp, for example, but does not go on to say that it then immediately changed the camp into an NKVD (KGB) prison. This is as fitting microcosm of what the Soviet “liberation” did to all of Poland and Eastern Europe.
And Pauline, whereas what Stalin did to the Russian people may be Russia’s business. But what he did to Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc. is also very much the business of those peoples.
I am glad your father had a good War, Pauline. The people of Eastern Europe had a ghastly war, and theirs ended only in about 1990 when they at last regained freedom.
To CountCash in regard to Finland: Finland is territorially amongst the largest countries of Europe, Estonia is amongst the smallest. If attacked, Finland has plenty of hinterland into which to withdraw, regroup, and then come out fighting again; Estonia does not. A debate continues in Estonia as to whether it should have militarily resisted Stalin in 1940, but the fact is that it did not. In the judgment of its leaders at the time, this would have caused unnecessary suffering and loss to the people, and would have achieved nothing. So instead, it granted the SU the right to bases on its territory, and chose to believe the many assurances Moscow gave that it would respect its sovereignty. Estonia simply could not imagine the ghastly savagery that was about to be unleashed against it by the Workers’ Paradise, nor that its serial Soviet-German-Soviet occupations would last an unbroken 51 years. Had it known these things, perhaps it would have resisted.
But do I understand you correctly – you are praising Finland because it militarily resisted Soviet Russia, and blaming Estonia because it did not??
And yes, the Finns paid reparations, which is remarkable all by itself. Russia attacks Finland, wipes off a huge slice of its territory of Karelia and makes it its own, and then requires Finland to pay reparations for having had the honour of being savaged by Russia. Can you understand why Russia’s neighbours tend to love it so much?
Finland simply judged that with a country like Russia for a neighbour, there was not much point in arguing about finer points of justice – it simply got on with its life within the realities in which it found itself. As has Estonia. Its realities were much harsher, in terms of population loss and in terms of years of occupation and terrorization. But one thing that was never a reality for either Estonia or Finland was any embrace of Nazism.
CountCash, Estonia’s alleged “dream” of a Nazi future is nothing but your own dream – several years prior to the outbreak of war, the Estonian President even temporarily suspended parliament in order to remove a right-wing war veterans' party from the political scene, so much did it “dream” of a Nazi future. The “elections” you cite, whose “results” were announced 12 hours before close of “voting”, day were conducted in compliance with absolutely no provision of the Estonian constitution or Estonian electoral law, and had zero validity in law. And even a legitimate government was not empowered by the Estonian constitution to do what Stalin’s puppets thereafter did, namely lay down Estonia’s sovereignty.
The Soviet grab of Estonia had exactly the same degree of legality as does the average rape. And continues to evoke the reaction from its victim as is appropriate to the deed.
No Indeed Vladimir has the facts correct. There was a pact in place that allowed the stationing of troops in Estonia. Estonia were not honouring that pact, because they dreamed of a Nazi future and wanted the Nazis to come, their subsequent behaviour demonstrates this fully. Russia therefore had to put more soldiers in to attempt to rebuff the oncoming Nazi onslaught, the effects of this Nazi onsluaght are known to everbody today. Russia had the right under international law of self defence. Then the elections took place as Vladimir suggests. Therefore Vladimir has the legal factual case. Anything else is a political view, rather like challenging your gas contract, saying you have no choice to make it. Look at Iraq today, Estonian soldiers are there claiming that the elections are fair, the Bath party is not present. Then they have the gall to call evrything else unfair, when it suits them. No the legal factual position is as Vladimir says, the alternative advanced is just a political view. All documents are there to prove the legal factual case. Now as we all know the legal view takes precedent, unless it is demonstarted to a competent court to the contrary, this being not a western puppet kangaroo court. We need do law, we don't accept the EU way of everything politicaly justifiable, is allowable, regardless of its illegality. Russians follow the law, you don't exist without the paperwork, and you ned ten pieces of paper to do anything. The west doesn't follow law, it does politics, and makes it all up as it goes along, rather like one big jazz session.
Vladimir claimed that the Baltic States were never occupied by the Soviet Union. The facts are these:
In September 1939 pre-Soviet Estonia allowed Soviet Moscow to base 25,000 troops (almost double the total size of Estonia’s own military) on its soil. In violation of this agreement, Moscow instead overflooded the country with more than 80,000 troops; this was illegal. It used these troops to take control of the country and overthrow its government by force of arms; this was illegal. It then organized sham “elections” which only Communists were able to contest; this was illegal. The conduct of the “elections” was a complete sham, with the ridiculous result of 92.8% of the population supposedly supporting the candidates being announced over Moscow radio 12 hours before the polls closed; this was ludicrous. The puppet regime thus installed at the point of Russian guns immediately arranged to surrender the country’s sovereignty and “applied” for membership in the Soviet Union; even a legitimate government would have had no authority under the Estonian constitution to do this.
So where was the legality in any of this, Vladimir? Form beginning to end the process forcing of Estonia into the Soviet Union conformed to not the least provision of the Estonian constitution, and that was the only arbiter of legality in Estonia. The whole event was nothing but a cynical and utterly illegal land-grab by Moscow and a Stalinist circus. It was immediately followed by the mass Soviet brutality against the civilian population to terrorize the country into submission, involving the arrest and deportation to Siberia of nearly 10,000 civilians, and the murder of hundreds more.
And that, Vladimir, is the procedure which Russia, to this very day, offensively and calls legal. Doing so brings only disrepute on Moscow, and ensures that its relations with its neighbours remain of the nature that they are.
Jnn - well said, spot on! There is a great political lie game being played in Europe - the participants, simple the old Axis allies, they appear time and time again.
Vladimir - spot on with what you write, well said. I agree 100% with you,. However, as I am not selective, I would like to add a little more on Finland. We attacked Finland in 1939, which was condemned by the league of nations, and in my personal view, was not a fair thing to do, yes history is littered with neighbour nation's fighting, changes of land, look at Sweden for instance, but we never hear about them. But on the whole in 1939, I think there is room for saying the world had moved on a little, and the attack was not justified. Others may have a differnt opinion, including yourself, but that is my personal view, and also I think a view that has earned respect for Finland in Russia, because they stood up for themselves and fought so bravely. Finland is a hugely different case to the Baltic Nazis, we attacked once, they answered back without becoming deep Nazis, they maintaiined theri own government. Then they cleared up the Gremans after agreement, so in simple terms I see finland as 2,1 winenrs on the moral stage (sorry JNN for the simplicity). However, if you have better information, then I am happy to listen. Yes there was huge sufferning caused by the Fins acting with the Axis powers, however in my view they paid reparations, and we need to draw a line and move on in this world. Without ever forgetting the fallen ones.
It is a simple fact that Josef Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union before, during and after Hitler's rise to power in Germany. It is a simple fact that Josef Stalin DEFEATED HITLER, specifically at the battle of Stalingrad.
Therefore, how can ANYONE with half a brain say that Hitler and Stalin are the same? Were Lincoln and Jefferson Davis the same? They both slaughtered people! Was Elizabeth I of England the same as her sister, Bloody Mary? They both slaughtered people!
This argument is facially the most OBSCENE nonsense! I am deeply, profoundly insulted by this nonsense! How can anyone take this seriously! It is so illogical as to be PROFANE!
As for what Stalin did within the Soviet Union, that is up to the former Soviet peoples, including Russians, to determine for themselves. Why should they kow tow before those who did not have to fight and die by the 20 millions to defeat Hitler! What right do any of you have to speak on what Stalin did inside his own country. ONLY the Russians have that right!
As for me, my dad and all his brothers of age were soldiers in World War II and my dad was very grateful to the Russian people and spoke often of how we were best of freinds during the War. My dad did not have a very abstract, academic view of the issue; he was grateful for his LIFE, and for the quality of his life, which was much improved from the times during the depression, a fact he thought had something to do with the trade unions established during the Popular Front.
Making complex historical questions look more simple by writing history to one's liking - is it only me or isn't that becoming a popular thing these days. Hey - why make people decide for themselves - it is really boring to read books, published docs or even 5-to-7-paragraph-long online compilations like wikipedia. And these things are written by history geeks - so we simple folk may have to read further to reach the roots of a problem. Can't we make it as short as an A4-sized sheet of paper? Yes we can. Simply paint these guys black, ok? Yeah, a little bit more so our boys look snow white in comparison. Problem solved, next please!
People are lazy, that's their nature, that's not their fault. They tend to believe other people on matters they not good at, and that's fine. Bot you can't betray them on that, that's playing dirty. Now if you publish a book "History for dummies part one: the Bad Guys" and make a list or supposedly pure evil people, regimes or worse - countries, it's wrong. To the point - we have a complex issue. And yeah, before i forget - there are no issues in history or politics which are too simple - don't make them look like that. To not make this too long to even try to read, i'll make some short points.
*communism is an utopia? yes. communism is a dangerous idea that advocates killing or oppressing people, like fascism? no. *Stalin's rule was ehh... bad for people of USSR? most definitely, he was a dictator like thousands of other dictators throughout history, with all the consequences. His rule was bad for USSR as a developing country? not sure about this one. He was dangerous on global scale like Hitler? no.
Personally, i have negative image of Stalin, but saying "Stalin equals Hitler" or even "Stalin is mini-Hitler" means telling lies in my book.
July 03, 2009, 19:28, Heikki wrote > How about the selective and political, revisonistic history writings by the Russians? School books in modern Russia do not for example make it clear that USSR attacked Finland, they imply the contrary, or that it brutally occupied the Baltic states - an extremely shocking attempt to rewrite history for political purposes.<BR /> > <BR /> > It is totally wrong to give the impression that Russians are dealing honestly with their legacy of WWII and their role in it. You should take agood honest look in the mirror in this case, blaming OSCE for polical revisonism is totally ridiculous when one knows how historic events of the WWII events are whitewashed in Russia. 1. Baltic States were never occupied by the USSR. They joined by voting of the people representatives. 2. Finnland begun military actions against the USSR already 21 June 1941( mining of the Finnish bay). 3. Finnland took part in the Leningrade blocada caused awful sufferings and dying off the civil population. 4. Finnlad betrayed his German ally and attacked it already on the Soviet side! 5. Soviet Union treated Finnland very mild after the war and was an object of a profitable trade. 6. Baltic SS units were amongst the most cruel repressors of the peaceful population in Leningrad, Pskov and Novgorod regions. with a blood of innocuous children and oldermen and women. I don't want to remind other allies and friends of Hitler from Europe. Resume: OSCE has no neither moral nor juridic right to demand anything from Russia , the main vistim from and the main winner of the European Fascism.
It is totaly wrong to represent that the OSCE is dealing with anything other than this, along Political block lines of NATO, the EU and old Axis alignment. As the interviewer said, this was basically a political decision, and yes because the Axis powers and collaborators got defeated, that is why they are agitating again, Slovakia,Lithuania in this, Japan starting up over the islands - coincidence, I don't think so! They are dressing in their kit, parading and waiting the next whistle.
95% of the European axis armies got killed on the Eastern front. e-mail me and i will send you the historical basis of this statement. wndublanica@msn.com
The article states, “One can, of course, compare Soviet communism and German Nazism, but there’s one big difference that emerges. Hitler came to power explicitly on the basis of war and racial prosecution. Soviet communism never had a racist element in the way Nazi Germany did.”
But the article fails to acknowledge that Communists came to power explicitly on the basis of class prosecutions. Nor does it attempt to explain how murder, enslavement, repression, persecution, dispossession and terrorization on the basis of class bigotry is even one whit better than murder, enslavement, repression, persecution, dispossession and terrorization on the basis of race bigotry.
September 13, 2009, 06:50
@Heikki,
Why Finland had attacked Russia? Very simple, like Poland, USA and other western imperialist power, they too want to destroy the Soviet Union, the new born socialist state of the them. So far, I am stunned to note that none have EVER ponted to the fact of internal sabotages and other harmful actifivities sponsored by western states inside the newly born socialist state. These activities was much more responsible for the losses of livelihood and other factors during the STALIN REGIME(!) than the Soviet rule itself.
The case of Serbia and now-a-days Iran have clearly showed that even today they are trying to SPONSOR PROTESTS(!) against governments, they don't want. These is very much clear even their stronghold in world media remains, I just can't guess what they could do when they have a much much much much ............ control over information at that time, when Stalin was in power.
There are pictures of PROTESTERS(!) of Iran all over in the world media against the TYRANNICA(!) Ahmedinezad regime, but so far I haven't seen any picture or dideo of protests against the feudal rulers of Saudi Arab and other Emirates, which are not ELECTED and is running their country in very much the same way as Afghanistan's warlords. I am curious to know SPECIALLY Marzipan6 and Heikki's comment on that matter.
August 28, 2009, 15:11
This constant theme of "Hitler/Stalin".
Understand something.Both men were evil,that is without doubt and none is better than other.
But,as for living under Facist Germany or Soviet Union...
If you were not "Germanic",the future held very little for you.Plan was either:You would be exterminated or worked to death.
THIS was the plan for Slavs!be it in Poland,Bohemia,Moravia(Czech lands) and Slovakia,Ukraine or Russia.
I,myself am East European and Slav.My family went through hell living through communism and it destroyed many aspects of the country.BUT,I do understand that it was fault of dictators in Soviet Union AND our own Communist government.People in actual Soviet Union at that time and what is now present day Russia though,went through even worse than what my family and others did in Czechoslovakia!.It was unfortunate history,and its brought us apart from our brothers in Russia.
Overall,Im EXTREMELY appreciative of efforts of Red Army and Soviet Union in WW2 and I DO consider them our liberators.Over 26 million gave their lives in Soviet Union fighting a regime that wanted to wipe them,and half of Europe out.I still to this day say Thank You,to Russia.
July 12, 2009, 01:26
CountCash, you do neither law nor the fantasy of Western politics. You do the fantasies of Stalin.
And just for your information, post-Soviet Russia has always had a chronic aversion to bringing legal examination to bear on the Soviet occupation of the Baltics. Estonia has offered many times to take the matter to the International Court of Justice but Russia has always refused, and of course the court cannot have jurisdiction on the matter if Russia does not grant it such jurisdiction. Estonia has also offered repeatedly to set up a bi-lateral committee of academics to provide a joint academic, scholarly evaluation of its Soviet era, but Moscow has consistently refused even that.
Russia has about as much appetite for objectively facing its Soviet history as it does for walking into a wall. Meanwhile its apologists merrily chirp on about “show us a legal decision.” Kind of ridiculous, I know, but there you are.
July 08, 2009, 14:41
Please give reference to the court case, where it has been decided that there is illegality in any way. We do law, not fantasy western politics!Western biased history books are paper, but they have the quality of toilet paper, they tear easily under the pressure of the truth and are smeared in pretty nasty stuff in the end. My paper has signatures, my paper follows the normal legal precedent for legal decisions of a state. No decision have been ruled void, and law cannot be applied retrospectively. Your paper just blows away in the wind, or finds its way into a sewer, where it belongs, alongside all of your western, biased, historical perversions on this subject. Until you have a court decision, by a competent court, don't even try to speak of illegality, until then you will have to make do with your rantings and blaming of others, for the total complicity Estonia showed to incorporation in the Soviet Union. Just take heart that Estonia came into existence in 1991.
July 08, 2009, 10:38
I agree, Count-Cash, there most certainly is a paper trail to the Soviet invasion and occupation of the Baltic States, and anyone can find it in authoritative and accepted history texts the world over. It is a trail of broken Soviet treaties and promises, illegal invasion, sham “elections” without any legal authority whatever, and utterly illegal and judicially impossible surrender of sovereignty, followed by mass Soviet terror and fifty years of military and secret police enforced repression.
July 07, 2009, 16:01
No actually Valdimir is correct " Baltic States were never occupied by the USSR. They joined by voting of the people representatives". The paper trail is there to prove it. Western Historians, try to rewrite history on this one, introducing politicisation, so many from the west swallow the propaganda hook line and sinker. You cannot just invalidate decisions made by a state. You can argue not all the people were behind it, you can argue you didn't like it, but what you can't argue is that it is legally invaid, unless you can find a competent court to rule on it; such a court not being a western kangaroo court, showing the same politically orientated bias of the western historians. So Vladimir has it absolutely spot on, regarding this point.
July 06, 2009, 21:25
Vladimir - your answer is a good proof of my points - I should not make broad generalizations of single persons views but your points are the exact falsifications many russians seem to believe in - they are not justified and totally biasd - maybe you're reading historians from the USSR era?
July 04, 2009, 15:07, Vladimir wrote
> 1. Baltic States were never occupied by the USSR. They joined by voting of the people representatives.
Marzipan6 answered this allready
> 2. Finnland begun military actions against the USSR already 21 June 1941( mining of the Finnish bay).
Absolutely untrue. Soviet Union opened fire on it's own people, the so called "Bombardment of Mainila" was an attempt to justify the war. Have you ever thought why would Finland have attacked Russia?
> 3. Finnland took part in the Leningrade blocada caused awful sufferings and dying off the civil population.
Again, untrue. The fiinnish did not bombard Leningrad, the Nazis did and tried to persuade finns to join in the blockade, unsuccesfully.
> 4. Finnlad betrayed his German ally and attacked it already on the Soviet side!
True - but what were the choices? Finland was forced to do so in order to be able to make a peace deal with USSR.
> 5. Soviet Union treated Finnland very mild after the war and was an object of a profitable trade.
Mildly? The war was started by the Soviets so by what morale should have the finns given anything? It should have been the other way round. Finland was the only country in the world after the war that paid it's commitments fully. During 1945–1949, the compensations took 15–16 % from the state budget and during 1950–1952 7–5 %.
Profitable trade? I have never heard anything so idiotic. How can you call that profitable trade? Finland got nothing in return. The good thing about it was that it forced Finland to industrialize but it was not trade.
July 06, 2009, 18:58
Finland indeed fought bravely for its independence, its what all nations do, it is their fundamental response to any unwanted impngement on their sovereinty. If you don't fight you agree!
Estonia was the promiscuous woman, there was no rape, no struggle, there was just consensual relationships. She had a consensual relationship with Stalin, she voted to join him in marriage, it turned out sour, she claimed the marriage void and shouted rape. She dreamed of the Nazi hunk. She even fought against Stalin immediately to be with her Nazi Hunk, to drive him from the house. She showed a fight, that she never showed when she met Stalin, because with Stalin it was consensual. She felt at one with her Nazi Hunk, she worked tirelesly with him, in his hobby of exterminating jews. She proudly proclaimed our house is jew free. But back came Stalin stronger and drove the Nazi Hunk from the house, so now she had to live with his sour behaviour for more and more years, it was shown the marriage was valid, and she was never raped. In the end Stalin died, however as she met new friends, they reminded her of here work for the Nazi Hunk killing jews and supporting his hobbly, she didn't like it, so she thought of a plan to distract their thoughts, by constantly referring to Stalin her husband and saying how bad a husband he was, not pointing out that people from her own house, the servants had done most of the things, she complained Stalin had done. However, some people saw this behaviour, and had all the documents to prove it, so she said, I was forced to sign everything, it wasn't really my wishes, blame Stalin!
July 06, 2009, 10:42
Pauline, the reason Stalin is equated with Hitler is because he operated a totalitarian terror regime, just like Hitler did. That regime actually murdered more people than the Nazis, operated the world’s largest network of concentration camps (much larger than Germany’s), and occupied, impoverished and terrorized its neighbours for longer than Germany did. When the Red Army drove German forces out of Eastern Europe, it immediately replaced the Nazi terror regime there with its own Soviet version. Russia likes to point out how the Red Army liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp, for example, but does not go on to say that it then immediately changed the camp into an NKVD (KGB) prison. This is as fitting microcosm of what the Soviet “liberation” did to all of Poland and Eastern Europe.
And Pauline, whereas what Stalin did to the Russian people may be Russia’s business. But what he did to Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc. is also very much the business of those peoples.
I am glad your father had a good War, Pauline. The people of Eastern Europe had a ghastly war, and theirs ended only in about 1990 when they at last regained freedom.
July 06, 2009, 10:29
To CountCash in regard to Finland: Finland is territorially amongst the largest countries of Europe, Estonia is amongst the smallest. If attacked, Finland has plenty of hinterland into which to withdraw, regroup, and then come out fighting again; Estonia does not. A debate continues in Estonia as to whether it should have militarily resisted Stalin in 1940, but the fact is that it did not. In the judgment of its leaders at the time, this would have caused unnecessary suffering and loss to the people, and would have achieved nothing. So instead, it granted the SU the right to bases on its territory, and chose to believe the many assurances Moscow gave that it would respect its sovereignty. Estonia simply could not imagine the ghastly savagery that was about to be unleashed against it by the Workers’ Paradise, nor that its serial Soviet-German-Soviet occupations would last an unbroken 51 years. Had it known these things, perhaps it would have resisted.
But do I understand you correctly – you are praising Finland because it militarily resisted Soviet Russia, and blaming Estonia because it did not??
And yes, the Finns paid reparations, which is remarkable all by itself. Russia attacks Finland, wipes off a huge slice of its territory of Karelia and makes it its own, and then requires Finland to pay reparations for having had the honour of being savaged by Russia. Can you understand why Russia’s neighbours tend to love it so much?
Finland simply judged that with a country like Russia for a neighbour, there was not much point in arguing about finer points of justice – it simply got on with its life within the realities in which it found itself. As has Estonia. Its realities were much harsher, in terms of population loss and in terms of years of occupation and terrorization. But one thing that was never a reality for either Estonia or Finland was any embrace of Nazism.
July 06, 2009, 10:07
CountCash, Estonia’s alleged “dream” of a Nazi future is nothing but your own dream – several years prior to the outbreak of war, the Estonian President even temporarily suspended parliament in order to remove a right-wing war veterans' party from the political scene, so much did it “dream” of a Nazi future. The “elections” you cite, whose “results” were announced 12 hours before close of “voting”, day were conducted in compliance with absolutely no provision of the Estonian constitution or Estonian electoral law, and had zero validity in law. And even a legitimate government was not empowered by the Estonian constitution to do what Stalin’s puppets thereafter did, namely lay down Estonia’s sovereignty.
The Soviet grab of Estonia had exactly the same degree of legality as does the average rape. And continues to evoke the reaction from its victim as is appropriate to the deed.
July 06, 2009, 06:21
No Indeed Vladimir has the facts correct. There was a pact in place that allowed the stationing of troops in Estonia. Estonia were not honouring that pact, because they dreamed of a Nazi future and wanted the Nazis to come, their subsequent behaviour demonstrates this fully. Russia therefore had to put more soldiers in to attempt to rebuff the oncoming Nazi onslaught, the effects of this Nazi onsluaght are known to everbody today. Russia had the right under international law of self defence. Then the elections took place as Vladimir suggests. Therefore Vladimir has the legal factual case. Anything else is a political view, rather like challenging your gas contract, saying you have no choice to make it. Look at Iraq today, Estonian soldiers are there claiming that the elections are fair, the Bath party is not present. Then they have the gall to call evrything else unfair, when it suits them. No the legal factual position is as Vladimir says, the alternative advanced is just a political view. All documents are there to prove the legal factual case. Now as we all know the legal view takes precedent, unless it is demonstarted to a competent court to the contrary, this being not a western puppet kangaroo court. We need do law, we don't accept the EU way of everything politicaly justifiable, is allowable, regardless of its illegality. Russians follow the law, you don't exist without the paperwork, and you ned ten pieces of paper to do anything. The west doesn't follow law, it does politics, and makes it all up as it goes along, rather like one big jazz session.
July 05, 2009, 11:56
Vladimir claimed that the Baltic States were never occupied by the Soviet Union. The facts are these:
In September 1939 pre-Soviet Estonia allowed Soviet Moscow to base 25,000 troops (almost double the total size of Estonia’s own military) on its soil. In violation of this agreement, Moscow instead overflooded the country with more than 80,000 troops; this was illegal. It used these troops to take control of the country and overthrow its government by force of arms; this was illegal. It then organized sham “elections” which only Communists were able to contest; this was illegal. The conduct of the “elections” was a complete sham, with the ridiculous result of 92.8% of the population supposedly supporting the candidates being announced over Moscow radio 12 hours before the polls closed; this was ludicrous. The puppet regime thus installed at the point of Russian guns immediately arranged to surrender the country’s sovereignty and “applied” for membership in the Soviet Union; even a legitimate government would have had no authority under the Estonian constitution to do this.
So where was the legality in any of this, Vladimir? Form beginning to end the process forcing of Estonia into the Soviet Union conformed to not the least provision of the Estonian constitution, and that was the only arbiter of legality in Estonia. The whole event was nothing but a cynical and utterly illegal land-grab by Moscow and a Stalinist circus. It was immediately followed by the mass Soviet brutality against the civilian population to terrorize the country into submission, involving the arrest and deportation to Siberia of nearly 10,000 civilians, and the murder of hundreds more.
And that, Vladimir, is the procedure which Russia, to this very day, offensively and calls legal. Doing so brings only disrepute on Moscow, and ensures that its relations with its neighbours remain of the nature that they are.
July 05, 2009, 10:46
Jnn - well said, spot on! There is a great political lie game being played in Europe - the participants, simple the old Axis allies, they appear time and time again.
Vladimir - spot on with what you write, well said. I agree 100% with you,. However, as I am not selective, I would like to add a little more on Finland. We attacked Finland in 1939, which was condemned by the league of nations, and in my personal view, was not a fair thing to do, yes history is littered with neighbour nation's fighting, changes of land, look at Sweden for instance, but we never hear about them. But on the whole in 1939, I think there is room for saying the world had moved on a little, and the attack was not justified. Others may have a differnt opinion, including yourself, but that is my personal view, and also I think a view that has earned respect for Finland in Russia, because they stood up for themselves and fought so bravely. Finland is a hugely different case to the Baltic Nazis, we attacked once, they answered back without becoming deep Nazis, they maintaiined theri own government. Then they cleared up the Gremans after agreement, so in simple terms I see finland as 2,1 winenrs on the moral stage (sorry JNN for the simplicity). However, if you have better information, then I am happy to listen. Yes there was huge sufferning caused by the Fins acting with the Axis powers, however in my view they paid reparations, and we need to draw a line and move on in this world. Without ever forgetting the fallen ones.
July 05, 2009, 03:05
It is a simple fact that Josef Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union before, during and after Hitler's rise to power in Germany. It is a simple fact that Josef Stalin DEFEATED HITLER, specifically at the battle of Stalingrad.
Therefore, how can ANYONE with half a brain say that Hitler and Stalin are the same? Were Lincoln and Jefferson Davis the same? They both slaughtered people! Was Elizabeth I of England the same as her sister, Bloody Mary? They both slaughtered people!
This argument is facially the most OBSCENE nonsense! I am deeply, profoundly insulted by this nonsense! How can anyone take this seriously! It is so illogical as to be PROFANE!
As for what Stalin did within the Soviet Union, that is up to the former Soviet peoples, including Russians, to determine for themselves. Why should they kow tow before those who did not have to fight and die by the 20 millions to defeat Hitler! What right do any of you have to speak on what Stalin did inside his own country. ONLY the Russians have that right!
As for me, my dad and all his brothers of age were soldiers in World War II and my dad was very grateful to the Russian people and spoke often of how we were best of freinds during the War. My dad did not have a very abstract, academic view of the issue; he was grateful for his LIFE, and for the quality of his life, which was much improved from the times during the depression, a fact he thought had something to do with the trade unions established during the Popular Front.
July 04, 2009, 21:13
Making complex historical questions look more simple by writing history to one's liking - is it only me or isn't that becoming a popular thing these days. Hey - why make people decide for themselves - it is really boring to read books, published docs or even 5-to-7-paragraph-long online compilations like wikipedia. And these things are written by history geeks - so we simple folk may have to read further to reach the roots of a problem. Can't we make it as short as an A4-sized sheet of paper? Yes we can. Simply paint these guys black, ok? Yeah, a little bit more so our boys look snow white in comparison. Problem solved, next please!
People are lazy, that's their nature, that's not their fault. They tend to believe other people on matters they not good at, and that's fine. Bot you can't betray them on that, that's playing dirty. Now if you publish a book "History for dummies part one: the Bad Guys" and make a list or supposedly pure evil people, regimes or worse - countries, it's wrong. To the point - we have a complex issue. And yeah, before i forget - there are no issues in history or politics which are too simple - don't make them look like that. To not make this too long to even try to read, i'll make some short points.
*communism is an utopia? yes. communism is a dangerous idea that advocates killing or oppressing people, like fascism? no.
*Stalin's rule was ehh... bad for people of USSR? most definitely, he was a dictator like thousands of other dictators throughout history, with all the consequences. His rule was bad for USSR as a developing country? not sure about this one. He was dangerous on global scale like Hitler? no.
Personally, i have negative image of Stalin, but saying "Stalin equals Hitler" or even "Stalin is mini-Hitler" means telling lies in my book.
July 04, 2009, 15:07
July 03, 2009, 19:28, Heikki wrote
> How about the selective and political, revisonistic history writings by the Russians? School books in modern Russia do not for example make it clear that USSR attacked Finland, they imply the contrary, or that it brutally occupied the Baltic states - an extremely shocking attempt to rewrite history for political purposes.<BR />
> <BR />
> It is totally wrong to give the impression that Russians are dealing honestly with their legacy of WWII and their role in it. You should take agood honest look in the mirror in this case, blaming OSCE for polical revisonism is totally ridiculous when one knows how historic events of the WWII events are whitewashed in Russia.
1. Baltic States were never occupied by the USSR. They joined by voting of the people representatives.
2. Finnland begun military actions against the USSR already 21 June 1941( mining of the Finnish bay).
3. Finnland took part in the Leningrade blocada caused awful sufferings and dying off the civil population.
4. Finnlad betrayed his German ally and attacked it already on the Soviet side!
5. Soviet Union treated Finnland very mild after the war and was an object of a profitable trade.
6. Baltic SS units were amongst the most cruel repressors of the peaceful population in Leningrad, Pskov and Novgorod regions.
with a blood of innocuous children and oldermen and women.
I don't want to remind other allies and friends of Hitler from Europe.
Resume: OSCE has no neither moral nor juridic right to demand anything from Russia , the main vistim from and the main winner of the European Fascism.
July 04, 2009, 04:39
It is totaly wrong to represent that the OSCE is dealing with anything other than this, along Political block lines of NATO, the EU and old Axis alignment. As the interviewer said, this was basically a political decision, and yes because the Axis powers and collaborators got defeated, that is why they are agitating again, Slovakia,Lithuania in this, Japan starting up over the islands - coincidence, I don't think so! They are dressing in their kit, parading and waiting the next whistle.
July 04, 2009, 02:11
95% of the European axis armies got killed on the Eastern front. e-mail me and i will send you the historical basis of this statement. wndublanica@msn.com
July 04, 2009, 01:19
The article states, “One can, of course, compare Soviet communism and German Nazism, but there’s one big difference that emerges. Hitler came to power explicitly on the basis of war and racial prosecution. Soviet communism never had a racist element in the way Nazi Germany did.”
But the article fails to acknowledge that Communists came to power explicitly on the basis of class prosecutions. Nor does it attempt to explain how murder, enslavement, repression, persecution, dispossession and terrorization on the basis of class bigotry is even one whit better than murder, enslavement, repression, persecution, dispossession and terrorization on the basis of race bigotry.
Post comment