Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Baltic discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Sorry for delay, as I have already said I want to round off this discussion, as too much work to doo for me now. So I'll try to be brief

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by pp(est)
    My wife doesn't know what a Kalashnikov is (btw are you sure it is a trademark?). Buratino most definitely isn't a trademark it is a fictional character. Besides I am quite sure that most of the world would think that Buratino is Pinocchio. Uragan - doesn't ring a bell.
    [QUOTE]


    Buratino=pinoccio

    It wasn't that thing what I meant....
    "Buratino"-a rocket launcher flamethrower. When it was used for the first time in Afganistan Americans cried that Soviets used there a tactical atomic bomb...They were very impressed.

    Be sure, that Kalahnikov is a trademark

    "Uragan" and "Smerch" also rocket launchers. Very effective.
    All three named types were used against terrorists in Chechnia.

    Btw, I quickly checked your other threads here and strongly disagree with your opinion about elections in Chechnia. At least they were the most democratic in the whole Chechen history (including soviet period)

    The people employed in those factories are mostly Russian middle aged women with little to no education. Apparently it doesn't take a lot of education to make mobile phones or operate high tech equipment.
    And when does Estonians work then if everwhere are Russians ???

    Denying education rights by occupying powers would be illegal anyway. I don't think I need to be grateful for the occupation forces for not having committed yet another illegal act.
    Disagree with you

    It is commonly held in Estonia that the transit trade is 10% of our economy, 75% is trade with EU and the remaining 15% is trade with Latvia, Lithuania. Russia and Ukraine. At least 90% of people involved with transit trade are Russian professionals who would be needed at the new facilities. Sure shutting the transit trade would cause some minor disturbances, but I doubt it would be very serious, especially since it will be gradual.
    Ok, are you sure your economy really needn't that 10%???
    Or your country wants to build another "wall" on the frontier?

    For me personally the transit trade represents a serious threat to our environment. Some of the oil terminals are in Tallinn. An accident or a terrorist attack on the oil terminals could wipe out a quarter of the city (my home is thankfully far from the oil terminals). The oil tankers represent a single most important threat to our nature (especially the single hull vessels during winter :nonono, there already have been a few scares, but a major oil tanker accident would kill off almost all life in the already way over polluted Finnish Gulf. My best case scenario would be that Russia takes the oil somewhere else or the world finally starts to use fuel cells or other more cleaner alternatives.
    I don't think the transit trade uses any trucks in Estonia. The oil comes in trains.
    Open your eyes!!! Oil tankers, heavy trucks, trains are only a weak shadow of that catastrophe which can occur in Baltic sea if German chemical weapons which had been sank in the sea by Allias after WW2 would lost their impermeability. It can be a terrible disaster!!!

    Even if we chose the socialist system, the mistakes would have been ours. That is the major difference!
    Some part of Estonian society did chose that. It's a discussible item what percent of society accepted it, but it's fact

    I think we would live a better life if we were socialist and independent, but whether we had better life or not is beside the point. The notion that the occupation somehow wasn't real is what really annoys me. How it wasn't real? Weren't the at times almost quarter million soldiers real? Didn't people die fighting them? Why we weren't allowed to celebrate Christmas but the Russian population was allowed? How do we explain the demographics?
    All you say may be speaking about in the terms of "forced attachment". Did you noticed the word "forced" heh?

    I think you have a preconceived idea that occupation has to be something like Dante's hell. A perpetual state of all out war on the population, where you have daily executions, rapes and occasional razing of villages. I don't know any extended occupation in history that would meat that criteria. Any extended occupation will have different periods. In our case the perpetual hell type occupation occured in 1941, 1944-45, which did feature summary executions, rapes and razing of whole villages. The occupation in 1940, 1946-1955 could perhaps be likened to the occupation of France by German forces - you had active resistance and occasional atrocities by the occupying forces, the period after 1955 is probably quite like the occupation in Palestinian areas after the wars and before intifada - it was relatively peaceful, dotted with arrests and disappearances and the tension easily noticeable. Another parallel is that the occupied people were subjected to worse conditions than the occupiers who tried to build settlements in the occupied territories. If you say our occupation wasn't "real" then any of those occupations are real. Can you then give me an example of a real occupation?
    To my mind the Baltic "forced attachment" is more closer to Germans "anshlus" of Austria. Of course, they are not equal, but may be called similar.

    Israel has and still does lots of things to take care of the inhabitants of the occupied territories, Israel helps build dwellings, offers jobs, offers education By international law this is the obligation of the occupier. In Iraq US and my government as well are obligated to maintain peace and order, provide basic services and education - it is not a matter of charity.

    Heh, and that's why the unemployment in Palestinian lands is extremely high?
    Israel mostly destroy dwellings. That dwellings it provides to built are occupation settlements which are separated from Palestinian territories and guarded by Israel Army
    ...
    If as you claim, the Soviet occupation wasn't "real" then there is no way, the German occupations were "real". IRL all of the occupations were very real of course.
    Can't agree. Of course, soviet regime made much harm for all nations, but also made at least what it could do according to its state policy for ALL nations.

    There were lot of work places in Estonia where Estonians were not allowed to work (I don't know if it was regulated so as well, but it was just a matter of fact - no Estonians worked in those factories or facilities - they include some port facilities, some military installations and factories which apparently also had some military applications). The best shops in Estonia were those designated for tourists from Finland, shops for workers of those factories I mentioned before and some communist party shops. In the latter Estonian communist party members were of course allowed however since most of communist party members were Russian, even those were primarily for Russians. There were some special shops for some enterprises where mostly Estonians worked too, but they were clearly inferior to the three types I mentioned above (I managed to sneak into the tourist shop once, but never to the other two - my information is mostly based on word on the street. My babushka (she was Russian) was a party member and she did have access to the party shop - and I know it had stuff all us ordinary Estonians could only dream about.
    Even in Moscow there were only 4 so called "distributors" for communist party members. So again to say that is common prctice for all, not only for Estonians. In lots of Russian towns common people hadn't see meat for a years!!!
    So again you are trying to turn common practice of the Soviet regime to the "feature of occupation".
    Almost all those features you refer to were common practice on the whole territory of the USSR!
    Ok, they could be some limitations for employment of Estonians in some brunches of industry, but to my mind they were due to the absence of traditions for Estonians to work there (I don't mention Army). If you check traditional Estonian sailor employment you'll never see any limitations (except political ones)

    BTW it is really curious that you keep insisting that you know what happened in my hometown better than I do?
    I'm not insisting that I know all better than you. But it's reall amazing fact how you try to turn vommon soviet reality into "features of occupation". You mix all in one heap!!!
    Bismark said once to one of his subordinate:
    -Your mistake that you consider that the things are this way or that, but in reality is that the thing may be this way and that simultaneously, or first this way, then that way...

    Hope I translate the citate correctly...

    Why the arrogance? If we combine the Estonian fleets (they are under different flags), the real Estonian fleet might be more impressive than the ESSR fleet in 1950s-60s. In proportional comparison (considering what other nations in this region had and have) our 1990 fleet is definitely less impressive than our 1940 fleet was.
    And in absolute figures? Can't agree...
    If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by amvas
      [B]Sorry for delay, as I have already said I want to round off this discussion, as too much work to doo for me now. So I'll try to be brief
      No need to apologise. I am sure the updates are more important than this.

      Originally posted by amvas
      Ok, are you sure your economy really needn't that 10%???
      Or your country wants to build another "wall" on the frontier?
      It is not us building the wall. Russia has double customs on our goods not vice versa. I think we can do without the 10% if needed and I am not at all sure that the economic gain is worth the environmental risk. Yes I know that the chemical weapons could potentially cause a lot of damage, but at the moment the most clear risk for the Finnish Gulf are the oil tankers. The oil trains should be diverted to harbours further away from population and should be forbidden in Tallinn. ATM it would be a perfect terrorist target - easy to get a huge explosion, fire and lots of casualties.

      Originally posted by amvas
      Some part of Estonian society did chose that. It's a discussible item what percent of society accepted it, but it's fact
      The support was so minimal that the occupation forces even had to import most of the communist parliament members from Russia.

      Originally posted by amvas
      To my mind the Baltic "forced attachment" is more closer to Germans "anshlus" of Austria. Of course, they are not equal, but may be called similar.
      How? I don't get the comparison at all. Anschluss was about uniting two German speaking states where the leader of the bigger Germany was Austrian and where the Austrians were very much in favor of the move. 14% of the SS were Austrian and 40% of the people involved with Holocaust. In many ways Austria and Vienna was the birthplace of Nazi anti-semitism.

      If you want to compare it to something the Germans did, then the Czech comparison would be a lot closer. The sudeten were used as a proxy problem like the Orzew debacle in Estonia (which BTW is another sign that Russia considered international law to be binding on all states - Estonia hadn't signed any treaties that would require them to intern combatants of warring nations). To "solve" the problem, the czech were given an ultimatum to conclude a treaty with the Germans ceding the territory or face war - just like Estonia was given an ultimatum to allow Russia build some bases and allow 25 000 troops or face war. When it became apparent that no international support was forthcoming, the czech government bowed to German ultimatum, agreed to let the Germans take the sudeten, which through a series of events led to German occupation of the Czech some half a year later without armed resistance by Czech army. Estonia knowing that German support was impossible, allied support unlikely at best and after consultations with Latvia and Finland knew that it would face war with Russia alone, under the pressure, it allowed the bases, which through a series of events led to occupation a year later without armed resistance by the Estonian army.


      Originally posted by amvas
      Can't agree. Of course, soviet regime made much harm for all nations, but also made at least what it could do according to its state policy for ALL nations.
      The term occupation is an international law term. It describes a legal state of a territory. It doesn't say anything about crimes or harm that may be committed during it. Currently even Russia agrees that Iraq is occupied, even though it is probably much better for Iraq and Iraqis to be occupied than to still be under the regime of Saddam. BTW in this case due to Estonian involvement, Estonia is legally one of the occupiers of Iraq with the relevant obligations.

      As to crimes committed during the occupation and especially to Russification programs, I don't think what happened in Moscow is at all relevant. I do understand that there might have been places where Russians had it much worse than Estonians did, but in Estonia, Russian colonists were given preferential treatment compared to the fascist aborigines as we were called. In Estonia, the special shops were predominantly for Russian population (which only grew to a third of population over time), new housing was distributed to Russians first, there were restrictions to Estonians where they could live or work that didn't apply to Russians (for example Narva or Paldiski).

      It is funny that you mentioned sailors, since the maritime traditions of Estonia were almost completely destroyed. Here is an article about one old fisherman's views on the subject http://www.balticsww.com/library/oldman.htm. Estonian language maritime education was almost completely stopped (even the czars allowed Estonian maritime education). Estonian captains were regularly relegated to second class positions due to their supposed unloyalty.

      The German occupation 1941-1944 was in many ways more benevolent than Russian. Most of the crimes committed by Germans in Estonia, the Germans also committed in Germany and usually in more brutal manner (like the killing of the Jews). The comparative benevolence of the regimes is easy to notice if you look at the refugees. In 1941 no ordinary people fled to Russia. The total number of Estonians that fled east might have been a few thousand (mostly communists). The total number of Estonians who fled west - to Sweden or Germany in 1944 has been estimated as 100 000 (a tenth of the population). There would have been a lot more, if there would have been more ships or other means of transport available. And this based only on the experience of the 1940-41 occupation. Nevertheless nobody disputes that the German occupation was an occupation.

      Comment


      • #93
        International law is not european. It is well international. International law was mostly developed in Europe, but there isn't a single country in a world which claims it isn't subject to international law.

        Irrelevant. You claimed that Soviet actions vis-a-vis Estonia should've been governed by international law. So far so good. But when I asked about which particular treaty applied, you started claiming that there was no treaty, but CUSTOM. That's fair. However, now you need to explain why that EUROPEAN custom should be applicable to USSR, especially considering that at that point in time, right before and in the initial period of WW2, very few European states were following such customs.

        You claimed most. Let's have a list then. Can you provide it?

        What for? I've read this assertion somewhere and I chose to trust the source. If you want to dispute the assertion, make your own list to demonstrate it wasn't so. I'll correct it. But if you expect me to spend time doing research for you, you're mistaken. I don't have as much time to waste as you do.

        I am happily married thank you very much. and I like to look what kind of garbage you throw back at me. A waste of time, yes, but no more than say playing a computer game.

        Please tell your wife that I express my condolensces.

        And in general, what happened to your manners about which you attempted to lecture me? "Garbage", hehe. Such a shameful degradation in your terminology. Maybe you'd be better off playing a computer game, eh?

        The first rule of selling is that you need to know to who you need to sell what. I am not selling you anything. You've alredy bought the Soviet propaganda with nuts and bolts and you do not have anything I would want as a return anyway.

        Yes, you are not selling me anything, you just "like to look what kind of garbage" I throw at you. Apparently, you're a connoisseur of garbage.

        I think the only significant items that were found in Tartu that haven't been found elsewhere in Estonia were the three coins minted by Iaroslav.

        Ah... Whenever you use the phrase "I think", I should probably take it as a sign that the rest should be disregarded. Have you read Trummal's book?

        BTW doesn't it seem funny to you that you only accept what is written in Russian as truth. Of course I knew that already, but it is curious you are so blatant about that.

        Well, it's funny only because you make bizarre conclusions. I want a Russian source simply because I don't read Estonian, and I already know that there are no adequate sources in English that cover the subject (at least I didn't find them, which means you won't be able to find them either). In general, I'm only interested in FACTS, regardless of source or language. Conclusions I can come up with on my own.

        You forgot to mention that I don't write in Russian, they do.

        You might wish it were so, but no -- your lack of credibility is entirely your own doing.

        I did. Maybe you should try that too.

        Well, try it again until it starts helping you.

        Odd, I don't know any country that would grant full citizenship rights to immigrants without naturalisation process.

        That's a true and completely irrelevant statement, considering that Russian speakers in Estonia are not "immigrants".

        Since quite a lot of Russians have taken Estonian citizenship, it would seem that there is no problem in getting it.

        Since quite a lot of Russians have filed complaints about the denial of citizenship to them, it would seem that you're prevaricating.

        So why exactly is Russia member of European Council, if judgements by its court are not objective.

        Because Russia practices realpolitik.

        How are HRW or Amnesty International obligated to defend Estonia? I guess their reports are not objective, because they aren't written in Russian.

        You're wrong here as well -- their reports are in fact written in Russian.

        But again, how is this relevant? We have complaints, which are substantially confirmed. Like I said, I consider it to be Russia's moral obligation to protect the rights of the individuals who complained. The continued pressure from Russia has brought marked improvement in Estonia's treatment of its Russian-speaking minority in recent years. Russia should be congratulated on that accomplishment. And therefore, Russia must continue maintaining pressure, until full citizenship rights are granted to all Russian speakers (residents of Estonia at the moment of USSR's break-up) who wish to receive them regardless of other considerations.

        Your protestations to the contrary should be disregarded.

        The purpose of the commission is to investigate all three recent periods of occupation and examine the crimes against humanity during those periods.

        So that's the wrong commission then. The one you need is one that would investigate your current apartheid state. And hopefully, it won't be sham populated entirely by Estonian nationalists.

        BTW, did you finally get that a larger percentage of Estonians had higher education at the moment of USSR's break-up than in Finland, or are you still trying to find a way to weasel out?
        Kak nyne sbiraetsia veschii Oleg otmstit' nerazumnym ... well, you know who you are :)

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Oleg
          Irrelevant. You claimed that Soviet actions vis-a-vis Estonia should've been governed by international law. So far so good. But when I asked about which particular treaty applied, you started claiming that there was no treaty, but CUSTOM. That's fair. However, now you need to explain why that EUROPEAN custom should be applicable to USSR, especially considering that at that point in time, right before and in the initial period of WW2, very few European states were following such customs.
          Where did I claim that Russia broke with custom? Customary law is not the same as custom - it is customary law. International Law isn't European, it is international. While many states broke international law in WWII, none ever claimed that international law didn't apply to them. Germany and Russia both falsified events (most notorious but not the only examples are Germany in the case of Polish invasion, Russia in the case of Winter War) so that they could claim they are acting in accordance with international law.

          Originally posted by Oleg
          The first rule of selling is that you need to know to who you need to sell what. I am not selling you anything. You've alredy bought the Soviet propaganda with nuts and bolts and you do not have anything I would want as a return anyway.

          Yes, you are not selling me anything, you just "like to look what kind of garbage" I throw at you. Apparently, you're a connoisseur of garbage.
          Not every garbage. Studying your replies is like having a time machine and having a discussion with some Stalinist propagandist. That is unique.

          Originally posted by Oleg
          Ah... Whenever you use the phrase "I think", I should probably take it as a sign that the rest should be disregarded. Have you read Trummal's book?
          Yes, but it doesn't state where the other coins were found. That was in a quite recent article. If you want I can dig it out and give you exact places where they were found.

          Originally posted by Oleg
          Well, it's funny only because you make bizarre conclusions. I want a Russian source simply because I don't read Estonian, and I already know that there are no adequate sources in English that cover the subject (at least I didn't find them, which means you won't be able to find them either). In general, I'm only interested in FACTS, regardless of source or language. Conclusions I can come up with on my own.
          Ok, here are links with just the very basic facts in English:

          http://turism.tartumaa.ee/marsruudid.php?mis=1&lang=eng
          http://www.tartuhotell.ee/?page=his&lang=eng
          http://www.einst.ee/factsheets/facts...in_estonia.htm
          http://www.forumbalticum.ee/inglise/.../jaanson_i.htm
          http://victorian.fortunecity.com/woo.../halecki/4.htm
          "But even the conquests of Yaroslav did not reach farther than Yuriev, the city which he founded on the site of the later Dorpat (Tartu). It was Novgorod and Polotsk, however, which remained the permanent Slavic outposts in that direction..."

          Originally posted by Oleg
          Since quite a lot of Russians have filed complaints about the denial of citizenship to them, it would seem that you're prevaricating.
          So where are the complaints? You're mixing some politicians complaining with actual people.

          Originally posted by Oleg
          But again, how is this relevant? We have complaints, which are substantially confirmed. Like I said, I consider it to be Russia's moral obligation to protect the rights of the individuals who complained. The continued pressure from Russia has brought marked improvement in Estonia's treatment of its Russian-speaking minority in recent years.
          Where are the reports and what are the changes? I don't know any major changes. The only major change I am aware of in this field is that the international monitoring stopped.

          Originally posted by Oleg
          So that's the wrong commission then. The one you need is one that would investigate your current apartheid state. And hopefully, it won't be sham populated entirely by Estonian nationalists.
          We have courts for that. If Estonian courts are not objective enough, we have the ECHR where only one Estonian judge sits (just like there is one Russian judge).

          Originally posted by Oleg
          BTW, did you finally get that a larger percentage of Estonians had higher education at the moment of USSR's break-up than in Finland, or are you still trying to find a way to weasel out? [/B]
          Oh, I definitely weasel out on that one. Not going to try and argue with Altapedia. Their information is so true they don't need to cite sources. What do the national statistic boards know anyway.

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X