Estonia's Decision to Remove Soviet WWII Monument Sparks Protest

[Ice]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/27/soviet.statue.reut/index.html


TALLINN, Estonia (Reuters) -- Estonia spirited away the controversial statue of a Red Army Soviet soldier from the Centrex of the capital in the early hours on Friday after violent riots against its removal in which one man was killed.

Russia reacted furiously to the move and its upper house of parliament voted to ask President Vladimir Putin to sever relations with the small Baltic state.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow would "take serious steps" against Estonia, Russian news agencies reported.

The statue was taken away in the early hours after the worst violence seen in years in Estonia, including vandalism and looting by mainly Russian-speaking protesters.

"The aim of the government decision was to avoid further possible actions against the public order," Estonia's government said in a statement.

Russia, which has had troubled ties with Estonia since it won independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, has protested against the plan to move the World War Two monument as an insult to those who fought fascism. It has also angered local Russian-speakers, a large minority of around 300,000 in the country of 1.3 million.

Estonians tend to view it as a reminder of 50 years of Soviet occupation.

"Yet again, we can qualify the actions of official Tallinn as sacrilegious and inhuman ...," Interfax news agency quoted Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin as saying. "We are working to formulate a concrete reaction towards what has happened," he added.

He said the move was harsh ahead of the May 9 anniversary of the end of World War Two, a popular public holiday in Russia.

By mid-morning the area around the statue was calm and traffic was flowing freely. Estonia said the statue was now somewhere under police control. People continued to clean up the streets and windows in many residential and office buildings nearby were smashed.
Russian anger

The vote by Russia's upper house of parliament on severing diplomatic ties with Estonia reflected Moscow's anger.

"We've seen enough of this mocking the dead and scoffing at the victory in World War Two," Russian news agencies quoted Federation Council Speaker Sergei Mironov as telling the chamber.

The senators then backed the non-binding decision. Mikhail Margelov, head of the foreign relations committee at the Federation Council, said the events in Tallinn showed that "the war against fascism did not end on May 9, 1945."

"This fight goes on and it will continue as long as there are grave-diggers who are ready to throw out from the graves those who defeated fascism," he told Russian television.

The violence came amid strong feelings about the 2-meter (6 1/2 ft) high bronze statue of a World War Two Red Army soldier, set in a large stone wall in a park, which was erected in 1947.

The government said one man died in the disturbances, which began after more than 1,000 people gathered to protest on Thursday, after being stabbed in the subsequent violence.

The government said 44 of the protesters and 13 police were injured and 300 people were arrested. Looters smashed windows, fires were started and cars overturned.

Estonia has said the monument is a public order problem as it attracts Estonian and Russian nationalists. It has also said it is more respectful to the dead to be buried in a cemetery.

The authorities had fenced off the area around the monument and the statue itself and erected a long white tent as they prepared to dig for the remains of any soldiers.

I have mixed feelings about this. Part of sees this as a bad idea because you it really isn't a good idea to piss off the Russians if you are Estonia. Part of me also says it is good because it shows that Estonia has enough guts to do so.

[InsaneApache]

I say let them piss off the ruskis. 50 years of Soviet occupation is a long time. Anyway, now that they are in NATO, you guys can always ride to the rescue, ala 7th cavalry, if Putin gets his sabre out.

It's their country, they can do what they want. It's got bugger all to do with Moscow.

Just my tuppenth worth.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Does Estonia even need Russia? I was under the impression that they were one of the "Baltic Tigers" whose economy was growing rapidly.

[rory_20_uk]

Gas supplies? I imagine they need them as well as the rest of Europe. And since when have (European) NATO had the guts to do anything apart from argue?

It has only been moved elsewhere, not scrapped, so no biggie.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Monument should stay, screw post-war resistance heroes. It's for dead soldiers not for politicians.

[Vladimir]

And since when have (European) NATO had the guts to do anything apart from argue?
~:smoking:

Afghanistan.

[Odin]

Does Estonia even need Russia?

Yes, if they wish to recieve thier natural gas.

"Gazprom is also increasingly becoming an owner of natural gas utilities in the Baltic region. Gazprom holds a 25% stake in Latvia's Latvian Gaze and a 37% stake in Estonia's Eesti Gaas (along with other major foreign shareholders, Germany's Ruhrgas and Finland's Fortum). Most recently, in January 2004, Gazprom finalized its acquisition of a 34% stake in Lithuania's natural gas company, Lietuvos Dujos. With the three Baltic states scheduled to join the European Union in May 2004, Gazprom's growing influence in the Baltics could serve as a staging ground for greater exports to the countries of the European Union." Source (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/estonia.html)

the baltics are major distribution points for energy from Russia, both via the sea and pipeline.

Other then national intrests (of Estonia) I dont see how this helps them diplomatically.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monument should stay, screw post-war resistance heroes. It's for dead soldiers not for politicians.

One mans hero is another mans army of occupation. Screw the Russians. All this over a stinking statue? Imagine if they had burned Russian flags.

[Kralizec]

One mans hero is another mans army of occupation. Screw the Russians. All this over a stinking statue? Imagine if they had burned Russian flags.

Living in the USSR wasn't nice, but do you think a prolonged German occupation would have been any better? I agree with Frag on this one.

If the monument is seen as a sanctuary for certain extremists they should crack down on those instead of trying to remove the symptons.

[HoreTore]

Can't really see why they want to do this.... The Red Army was made up of Estonians as well... Kinda looks like they want to spit at their own citizen who fought and died in ww2...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Living in the USSR wasn't nice, but do you think a prolonged German occupation would have been any better? I agree with Frag on this one.


Whats the difference. Brutal occupation is brutal occupation. I guess we better put that statue of Saddam back up. Look these people dont look at the Russian soldiers of WW2 as liberators. And in that view they are correct. People burn american flags everyday yet we dont sanction them for it. Big deal they moved a statue that was errected by anothor nation on thier soil. They have the perfect right to.

[Kralizec]

Whats the difference. Brutal occupation is brutal occupation. I guess we better put that statue of Saddam back up. Look these people dont look at the Russian soldiers of WW2 as liberators. And in that view they are correct. People burn american flags everyday yet we dont sanction them for it. Big deal they moved a statue that was errected by anothor nation on thier soil. They have the perfect right to.

It's a statue commemorating soldiers who died over 50 years ago, pure and simple. Of course they have every right to remove it, though that doesn't mean I agree with the decision itself. The Estonians share their country with a sizable Russian minority, what good is this going to do?

[Odin]

It's a statue commemorating soldiers who died over 50 years ago, pure and simple.

isnt it also a burial site for war dead?

thats whats put me off to it (if thats true) I dont care how people run thier affairs but why move a memorial to war dead and exhume thier bodies in the process? That seems real antagonistic to me.

[PanzerJaeger]

Great news!

They should replace it with a statue of a German soldier, representing the thousands that fought and died with the Estonians trying to wipe communism off the face of the earth.


http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/media/worldevents_0101.jpg

[InsaneApache]

:dizzy2:

[Xehh II]

Why would Russia care about the statue, it's not like they're Soviets anymore.
I mean if I was the leader of Russia I would try to get rid of everything that had anything to do with it.

[scotchedpommes]

Why would Russia care about the statue, it's not like they're Soviets anymore.
I mean if I was the leader of Russia I would try to get rid of everything that had anything to do with it.

Just as well you are not, then.
Putin has proclaimed that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a disaster for his
country, has he not? Distancing wouldn't be foremost on the agenda, and rightly
so.

The statue should've stayed; as a memorial it's only right that it remain
undisturbed.

[Xehh II]

Just as well you are not, then.
Putin has proclaimed that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a disaster for his
country, has he not? Distancing wouldn't be foremost on the agenda, and rightly
so.

Why was it a disaster? It would've been the best thing to happen to them.

[Randarkmaan]

The way it happened was a complete disaster...
And to Panzerjager: you are just confused... And the german uniforms looked stupid.

Anyways I would just like to say that millions of Red Army soldiers fought and died in WWII, a good deal of them were not Russian, it is not their fault that their bravery was used to enslave countries rather than liberate them. They deserve to be remembered, perhaps for that reason.

[ajaxfetish]

... And the german uniforms looked stupid.
Ooh . . . careful!

Them's is fightin' words with PJ around. :hmg:

Ajax

edit: I vote they donate the statue to 'Stalin World' in Lithuania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_World

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And to Panzerjager: you are just confused... And the german uniforms looked stupid.


I believe most people find the German uniforms of WW2 to be their favorites.


Anyways I would just like to say that millions of Red Army soldiers fought and died in WWII, a good deal of them were not Russian, it is not their fault that their bravery was used to enslave countries rather than liberate them. They deserve to be remembered, perhaps for that reason.

What reason is that? Russia was no better than Germany in WW2 if not worse. If the germans had erected a statue to their war dead in France would you complain if the French took it down?

[KafirChobee]

Can't really see why they want to do this.... The Red Army was made up of Estonians as well... Kinda looks like they want to spit at their own citizen who fought and died in ww2...

You jest? Estonia attempted to remain neutral as I recall - but, were invaded by the Nazis. A friend of mines Mom is Estonian (was), her father was a German General that was "purged" for his involvement in the first assassination attempt on Hitler. The Nazis then went after his family - the King of Sweden rescued her step-Mom and step-sister (she was at school) - they git them to Switzerland. She on the other hand was captured and sent to a concentration work camp. After the war, the Soviets invaded Estonia (which had proclaimed their independence) and sent her and a majority of the populace to work camps. The Soviets then replaced the populace with their loyalists. That is who the 300,000 russian speaking populace is - the decendents of the Soviet invaders.

I had a friend in the army that was Lithuanian - he said the Lithuanians in that country today (1968) are Russians - the Lithuanians were enmass walked off to Soviet work (concentration) camps. That was the Stalin plan throughout Eastern and Western Europe, to replace the indigenous populaces with Russians. Look what happened in Poland and Hungry when the populations revolted.

The Koreans tore down every Jap pagoda, war memorial, and building that reminded them of their occupation. Why not in Estonia? Or, anywhere.

[Randarkmaan]

What reason is that? Russia was no better than Germany in WW2 if not worse. If the germans had erected a statue to their war dead in France would you complain if the French took it down? I'm not saying that they were better or worse, though honestly I would say the Germans were worse, though I would have preferred neither, who would want to have their country occupied anyway? What I was trying to say was that we can remember if, if we want, how many brave peoples' lives have been wasted.


That is who the 300,000 russian speaking populace is - the decendents of the Soviet invaders. So what? They live there now. It's just as with the Israelis; most of them now are not the occupiers who drove the Palestinians away, but people born in the country.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What I was trying to say was that we can remember if, if we want, how many brave peoples' lives have been wasted.


Being brave for a bad reason dosent make you a hero. The point is this is a statue dedicated to occupiers. How can you blame the Estonians for wanting it gone? Im sure there are lots of statues to brave english soldiers erected in Scotland and Ireland :laugh4: How about a nice staue of Longshanks in the middle of Glassgow?

[Randarkmaan]

Being brave for a bad reason dosent make you a hero. No, but it doesen't mean they should be forgotten.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No, but it doesen't mean they should be forgotten

Let the Russians remember them in Russia then. Why should the people of Estonia want to honor an invader?

[Randarkmaan]

Good point, but not all Soviet soldiers were Russian, and there are some Russians in Estonia. But lets leave it at that, they've taken away the statue now and the Russians are pissed. Good for them that they are in NATO, but then again they are dependent on Russian gas.

Anyway as in many situations like this, I would suggest a compromise, but I do not know what kind of compromise.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

.... maybe return the statue so that the Russians may honor their fallen heros from the "Great Patriotic War."

The preferences of 300k ethnic Russians will not outvote those of the 1M ethnic Estonians. Estonia could have been more "politic" as to process, however.

I walked in front of the Dublin P.O. and saw no monument to the British soldiers who took it from the rebels in 1916. The Irish, apparently, do not feel the need for one.

There is a monument marking the burial spot of T.J. Jackson's arm which the government of the USA has not felt the need to remove.

Guess it's up to the locals.

[Tribesman]

Im sure there are lots of statues to brave english soldiers erected in Scotland and Ireland :dizzy2:
As it happens there are.....so your point was ???????

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As it happens there are.....so your point was ???????

The ones who invaded these countries? Would Britain sanction them if they removed them? Or are you all British citizens and subject to their rule? Who exactly are the Britains nowdays anyway. Its all so confusing. As has been said earlier. Its up to the locals , and in this case they clearly didnt want the statue there any longer. They dont want to honor them and its their country. It shows who was the real god guys in WW2. Even the French havent thrown out our memorials and still honor the allied soldiers who died LIBERATING their nation. They can be thankful they werent "liberated" by the Russsians.

[KukriKhan]

So put a stamp on the statue, and mark it "Return to Czender"? Postal Services can facilitate much diplomacy.

@Tribesman: in Ireland there still exist statues to British soldiers? Wow. Where? What is the theory for maintaining them - homage to bravery, no matter the source?

[KafirChobee]

Comparing the marker where Stonewall's arm was buried to this? Sorry, I miss the point. Heck, every town in the South has some kind of memorial for their fallen in the CW - and I haven't heard of any of them tearing up Union graves there. It is not the same as Estonia's removing a Soviet statue honoring those that brutalized them.

[Tribesman]

@Tribesman: in Ireland there still exist statues to British soldiers? Wow. Where?
All over , parks , streets , town squares , cemeteries , barracks ,train stations , schools , sportsgrounds......it can be contentious, like when they blew up Nelson in o'connel street , or when Paisley got upset because he found out the V.C. statue was of the wrong flavour .
And who could forget Eniskillen :no:


It shows who was the real god guys in WW2. Even the French havent thrown out our memorials and still honor the allied soldiers who died LIBERATING their nation.
Have the French thrown out the German memorials ?(Ireland has one of those aswell and we were not even in that war:laugh4: ) . It shows who the good guys are , and it doesn't look like it is the Estonians .

[Duke of Gloucester]

You jest? Estonia attempted to remain neutral as I recall - but, were invaded by the Nazis

Recollection at fault here. Estonia was invaded by the USSR in 1940. It was then occupied by the Germans as part of Barbarossa. Some Estonians were drafted in to the Red Army, but before that others were deported and Russians moved to Estonia. The contribution by the Red Army to the defeat of Hitler should not be forgotten. It often is in the West. However there are better places for memorials than Estonia.


All over , parks , streets , town squares , cemeteries , barracks ,train stations , schools , sportsgrounds......it can be contentious, like when they blew up Nelson in o'connel street , or when Paisley got upset because he found out the V.C. statue was of the wrong flavour .
And who could forget Eniskillen

Are you sure, Tribesman. Aren't those memorials to Irish soldiers who died fighting as part of the British armed forces? Obviously Nelson wasn't Irish, but as you say, he has been toppled. In any case, there won't be any memorials to Cromwell's soldiers, King Billy's armies or the Black and Tans. Not south of the border anyway.


Have the French thrown out the German memorials ?(Ireland has one of those aswell and we were not even in that war ) . It shows who the good guys are , and it doesn't look like it is the Estonians .

Where is it? Is there one to English soldiers who died in that war. THEN you might be able to claim moral superiority over the Estonians.

[PanzerJaeger]

And to Panzerjager: you are just confused... And the german uniforms looked stupid.


Now who looks stupid? You can say alot about Germans, but you can't say they didnt fight in style. :yes:


wiki:


Estonia was formally annexed by the Soviet Union in August 1940 as the Estonian SSR. Many of the country's political and intellectual leaders were killed or deported to remote areas of the USSR by the Soviet authorities during 1940 to 1941. The repressions also included actions taken against thousands of ordinary people. When the German Operation Barbarossa started against the Soviet Union, thousands of young Estonian men were forcibly drafted into the Red Army. Hundreds of political prisoners, whom the retreating Soviets had no time to move, were killed. The country was occupied by Germany from 1941 to 1944 and many Estonians joined the German Armed Forces. Soviet forces reconquered Estonia after fierce battles in the northeast of the country on the Narva river and on the Tannenberg Line (Sinimäed). In the face of imminent re-occupation by the Red Army, tens of thousands of people chose to either retreat together with the Germans or flee the country to Finland or Sweden . In 1949, in response to slow progress in forming collective farms, as prescribed by the Soviet ideology, tens of thousands of people were forcibly deported in a few days either to labor camps or Siberia where half of them perished; the other half were not allowed to return until the early 1960s (several years after Stalin's death). That and previous repressions in 1940-1941 sparked a guerrilla war against the Soviet authorities in Estonia which was waged into the early 1950s by the so called "forest brothers" (metsavennad) consisting mostly of Estonian veterans of both the German and Finnish armies as well as some civilians.

Id say there is a much better argument for a statue of a German soldier than the communist scum.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The contribution by the Red Army to the defeat of Hitler should not be forgotten.

To me this is like partaising Saddam for keeping Iran in check. The Russians were as bad if not worse than the Germans. They fought a war of occupation and called it a war of liberation. They didnt liberate anyone . In fact quite the opposite. I really dont think they deserve any praise other than for being brave men who went to their deaths for a bad cause. They were duped.

[Ser Clegane]

They didnt liberate anyone ... being brave men who went to their deaths for a bad cause
Considering the post you are replying to I assume that you are not only referring to Estonia anymore but make a general statement here (please feel free to correct me if that assumption is incorrect :bow:).
That said, I would think that I do not think that Russia itself would have been better off under the Germans - so they certainly did fight a war of liberation and fought for died for a good cause, i.e. defending their own country from a brutal invader.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

so they certainly did fight a war of liberation and fought for died for a good cause, i.e. defending their own country from a brutal invader.

Ill give you they defended their own country but they went way beyond that. In fact at the start of the war they were allied with the Germans. Who did they liberate? Not even themselves. Certainly not the Estonians. In fact they helped enslave their nation and many others. That is unless you think the USSR was a good thing.

[InsaneApache]

Unfortunatley they declined to leave the 'liberated' counties when the war ended. Oh! silly me, I forgot, they were 'asked' to stay around for fifty years. :dizzy2:

[Ser Clegane]

That is unless you think the USSR was a good thing.
Actually I do indeed think that the Russians were better off living in the USSR than they would have been under German occupation. Do you disagree? If so, why?

[Ser Clegane]

BTW, this comparison

To me this is like partaising Saddam for keeping Iran in check. is actually not that good, as to my knowledge Saddam attacked Iran - a country that did not invade multiple neighboring countries and/or started a global conflict.

[Spetulhu]

In fact at the start of the war they were allied with the Germans. Who did they liberate?

The people of Poland, twice. The heroic Red Army liberated half the country so the Wehrmacht couldn't get it, and the British and French declared war only on Germany. Clearly some liberated countries and some occupied them.

[Randarkmaan]

Many nationalists, fascists and anti-communists (many were also conscripted against their will by the Germans in the later years of the war) fought with the Germans against the Soviets (at least they believed they did). Likevise many communists fought with the Soviets against the Germans (or at least they belived they did). In reality these people were just fighting for one cruel totalitarian regime against another cruel totalititarian regime.
Anyway, when looking at the big picture, the world should praise itself lucky that the Soviet Union fought against the Germans rather than alongside them.


Now who looks stupid? You can say alot about Germans, but you can't say they didnt fight in style. Personally when it comes to combat uniforms I think the "potato-sack" and sometimes "rag-tag" appearance of the American battle dress in WWII is the one that reminds most of soldiers, the Germans look like they're dressed for a formal occasion.

Anyway one interesting thing that I just remembered is that most of the political enemies that Stalin got rid of were communists. The vast majority of those he caused the death of were poor farmers who died in the famine (the largest human-engineered famine ever). This was not in response to anything anyone said, I think.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Actually I do indeed think that the Russians were better off living in the USSR than they would have been under German occupation. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Maybe the Russians but they didnt make up all of the USSR did they? How about East Germany? Who would they have been better off under?


is actually not that good, as to my knowledge Saddam attacked Iran - a country that did not invade multiple neighboring countries and/or started a global conflict.

Look at Iran now with Saddam gone. Iran is probably the biggest trouble maker in the world. Im saying it was bad guy vs bad guy. Its the way the US conducts things. Its a really good comparison. Its why we put up with Saddam for so long. The best startegy even in MTW is to get your enemies to fight eachother. WW2 is probably one of the best examples ever. The only reason to back Russia over Germany was strategic. We didnt want either of them to win.


The people of Poland, twice. The heroic Red Army liberated half the country so the Wehrmacht couldn't get it,

Wow thats the first time Ive ever heard this spin on the topic.:inquisitive:


and the British and French declared war only on Germany.

Because of treaty obligations.


Clearly some liberated countries and some occupied them.

Once more name one country liberated by the Russians other than Russia? And I dont call that liberation. Just the opposite.

[Ser Clegane]

Maybe the Russians but they didnt make up all of the USSR did they?
Not all but the majority - as for the other Soviet Republics, it probably depends - if you happened to fall under Nazi Germany's idea of what constitutes an "Untermensch" you were probably better off being oppressed by "commie scum" (as PJ chose to put it)

How about East Germany? Who would they have been better off under?
If you played "model Nazi" you probably would have been better off, if you decided to stay low-key and did not care too much about having (or - got forbid - even voicing) your own political views it probably would have been similar either way, if you did not fit into the pattern (communist, Jew, gay, etc. etc.) I'll dare say you were much better off the way things went historically.
So, altogether, I would say that the East Germans were better off as a satellite state of the Soviets than they would have been as part of a Nazi regime (of course West Germany got the jackpot compared to either of these two options, but that's another question, isn't it?)

[KrooK]

As a person whose country was "liberated" by russian soldiers I think I should speak something.

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were never attacked by Germans as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. They were attacked as territories controlled by Russians.
Into 1939 (officially into 1940) Russians annexed these countries and established military bases. When Germans attacked USSR , they were practically liberators for peoples of Baltic states.
Later (1944-1945) Russians recaptured Baltic states. I'm using word capture because liberation is bad words - liberator is someone who is welcome as liberator - Russians certainly weren't.

If Russians did capture Baltic states into 1940, they wouldn't have to recapture it into 1944/45. So all the Russians that died there were no liberators but soldiers of regime who died for regime. They were ordered to annex other country and they did during annexion. SO they can't be glorified by annexed people.

Situation is similar to Finnish war with Russians (Finns were asked to be 2nd Balts but "disagreed"). I don't think Finns should establish monument to glorify russian soldiers who died "liberating Eastern Karelia" into 1944.

And someone told that into 1939 Russia saved half of Poland from German occupation. WITHOUT HAPPILY RUSSIAN SUPPORT AND COOPERATION GERMANS WOULD NEVER ATTACK POLAND ALONE.
"Liberation" of Poland into 1943-1945 was just another part of war beetwen 2 regimes - communism and nazism. War into Poland did not finished into 1945 - one occupant were replaced by another. Its true that Russians were rahter killing only people who did not agree on being their slaves and Germans were killing everyone but Russians were nothing more than another occupator. Best proof is that Russia stole half of Poland and officially gave it "independent" Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania. We can discuss about Ukraine and Lithuania but with full respect for Belarussians - there were hardly any Belarussians into territories gave them.

To sum up - Russians soldiers died "liberating" Europe into ww2 were not heroes for me. They were just servants of regime similar to nazism. I don't think they should be glorified anywhere exept Russia (because its true that into some part of Russia they were being liberators). They died fighting for evil so don't expect that they go to heaven.:thumbsdown:
Now their monument is being destroyed - its good IMO. It shows that Estonia is not Russian province anymore.

[The Wizard]

I'd say it's darn well perfectly allowable for a nation to remove a monument to its brutal and wholly unlawful occupiers. All Ivan is doing is whining about how he's lost his preeminent position in Eastern Europe. I say good riddance and that justice has finally been done.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Not all but the majority - as for the other Soviet Republics, it probably depends - if you happened to fall under Nazi Germany's idea of what constitutes an "Untermensch" you were probably better off being oppressed by "commie scum" (as PJ chose to put it)


The majority of republics in the USSR were certainly not the russians however were they? And does Russia out number all the republics that were in the USSR combined? How many joined freely ? This whole idea of the Russia being glorius and heroic is beyond me. I mean I can find many things to praise about the German fighting man as well if not more. But their cause just like the Russians was evil. They wanted to conquer just like the Germans did. And dont for a second thing that most german soldiers didnt think they were fighting to protect their nation as well. Soldiers for the most part are soldiers. They do what their told. Now dont you think all these nations would have been better off oppressed by the western allies?


If you played "model Nazi" you probably would have been better off, if you decided to stay low-key and did not care too much about having (or - got forbid - even voicing) your own political views it probably would have been similar either way, if you did not fit into the pattern (communist, Jew, gay, etc. etc.) I'll dare say you were much better off the way things went historically.


Oh please. If you were German you certainly were better off under German rule. This is true for the vast majority ,I cant believe your arguing this. These two peoples dispised eachother at this point. I wouldnt want to be a German living under Russian rule. Just look at West Germany compared to East Germany .

[Ser Clegane]

Oh please. If you were German you certainly were better off under German rule. This is true for the vast majority ,I cant believe your arguing this. These two peoples dispised eachother at this point. I wouldnt want to be a German living under Russian rule. Just look at West Germany compared to East Germany .
So you are saying that East Germans would have been better off under a continued Nazi regime then they would have been under the actual Socialist regime in the GDR?
I'd like to point out that these are the two options we are discussing - not West Germany vs. East Germany (I think I made my view on that question pretty clear in the part of my post that you did not quote).

Do you think that the average German under the Nazi regime was more or less free than those in the GDR? (and I do not quite recall German citizens being gassed based on their religion or race in the GDR).

Looking at current East German election results it would also seem that the East Germans prefer the GDR over Nazi Germany.


The majority of republics in the USSR were certainly not the russians however were they?
I would say half of them actually were


And dont for a second thing that most german soldiers didnt think they were fighting to protect their nation as well.
I guess that's why we still have memorials for those who have fallen ~;)

Of course a difference is that they actually didn't fight to protect their country (that my grandfather died on the Eastern front perhaps believing that he sacrificed his life for the good of his country does not change the fact that he died for the dreams of megalomaniacs and that his family was expelled from their land for this "dream")

[Husar]

The only statues I really care about are those that depict Bismarck, all the others are not really important.~D
Honoring soldiers for this, honoring soldiers for that, remembering is fine, but apparently the majority of Estonians doesn't want to be remembered of russian soldiers, so what? Noone says the Russians are not allowed to remember them, they can put up statues on their bookshelves at home if they want. Now if estonians will destroy these, THEN we have an issue.:sweatdrop:

By the way, of course Eastern Germany would have been better off under Bismarck. And borders of countries change, a lot, so who gave half of this or that to this or that country doesn't really matter, Poland got parts of Germany after Germany took them from others many centuries ago etc.
Borders change, deal with it.~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So you are saying that East Germans would have been better off under a continued Nazi regime then they would have been under the actual Socialist regime in the GDR?


Without a doubt if the Germans had won the war.


Do you think that the average German under the Nazi regime was more or less free than those in the GDR? (and I do not quite recall German citizens being gassed based on their religion or race in the GDR).



Much more free. How many German POWs returned from Russia? They killed them before anexing their nation. But I guess better dead than under Nazi rule. True liberation.


Looking at current East German election results it would also seem that the East Germans prefer the GDR over Nazi Germany.


Or the USSR.


I would say half of them actually were



Name them


Of course a difference is that they actually didn't fight to protect their country

They did so as much as any Russian soldier did.


that he sacrificed his life for the good of his country does not change the fact that he died for the dreams of megalomaniacs

Now where does the Russian soldier differ here?

[Ser Clegane]

Without a doubt if the Germans had won the war.
I guess 10 years after the war when all the Germans that did not fit the ideal of how a German should be or think would have been exterminated you might have been right.


Much more free. How many German POWs returned from Russia? They killed them before anexing their nation. But I guess better dead than under Nazi rule. True liberation. Do you want to get into a comparison of the treatment of PoWs on both sides? Please explain to which extent Germans in Nazi Germany have been more free than those living in the GDR.


Or the USSR.As more people are voting for the party that was in charge during GDR than for the neonazi party and a lot of people actually seem miss the old GDR times I guess you might be wrong here.


Name them
I will name the ca. 100 million Russians after you named all the non-Russians :inquisitive:


Now where does the Russian soldier differ here?
Uhm ... if I remember they actually defended their country against a German invasion army (I might be wrong though)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I guess 10 years after the war when all the Germans that did not fit the ideal of how a German should be or think would have been exterminated you might have been right.


I dont think the average German under Hitler had much to worry about as compared to Russians under Stalin. They were far better off economically. Hitler certainly didnt want to piss off the masses.


Do you want to get into a comparison of the treatment of PoWs on both sides? Please explain to which extent Germans in Nazi Germany have been more free than those living in the GDR.



Please show me how they were better off. They wouldnt have been a statlite nation. Do you really think the Russians treated them better than Hitler would have. Do you think most Germans were oppressed worse under him than they were under Stalin?



As more people are voting for the party that was in charge during GDR than for the neonazi party and a lot of people actually seem miss the old GDR times I guess you might be wrong here.


Yes Im sure most Germans just cant wait to be associated with Nazis again lol. So you still have two misquided parties there big deal. Im sure they wyuld rather go back to the good old days when Stalin first took control of their nation. Im sure they were dancing in the streets and thanking him for liberating them.:laugh4:


will name the ca. 100 million Russians after you named all the non-Russians

You said the majority of republics that made up the USSR were Russians. I asked you to name them. It shouldnt be hard.


Uhm ... if I remember they actually defended their country against a German invasion army (I might be wrong though)

That you are. Both sides were getting ready to attack eachother. Hitler just beat Stalin to the punch. And as has been already brought up what about Russias invasiions of the Baltic states and Poland. This was before the war with Germany. A fact many people overlook. This was not in defense of their nation but outright aggression just like the Germans. There is little to choose between the two. Its hard to even argue Russia was the lesser evil and that why we went with them. They were two of the worst regimes ever to grace this planet.

[Kralizec]

The more I read about this issue, the closer I come to thinking it would be a good idea for Estonia to remove the statue just to piss off Putin and his supporters. I think the Soviet grunts who were forced to die for an evil regime deserve better, but Russia should stick its ugly nose in its own business.

And as bad as the DDR was for the east-Germans, a prolonged Nazi occupation would have been a lot worse for Russia or indeed any Slavic country.

[Tribesman]

Oh well . I had a lengthy respose written out , but between visitors and hoards of kids it has gone ...so ..
Gawain.......:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: oh stop .....:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Duke......examine the situation , think , then reply .:yes: Its a complicated situation but easily accesible , to say the least , with the last part of your post you are ...wrong ....completely wrong.

oh .....might as well add the plug even though the post is lost ......one of my neighbours next book is going to be....war memorials of Ireland....by Willie (thats an orange name~;) ) Henry .

[Ser Clegane]

I dont think the average German under Hitler had much to worry about as compared to Russians under Stalin.
The "average" German (i.e. if he did not decide to speak up against the regime) did not have much to worry about in the GDR either.
BTW, is it OK if "non-average" citizens (whatever you mean by "average") like Jewish citizens, gays, disabled people are sytematically killed as long as the "average" citizen is better of economically?



You said the majority of republics that made up the USSR were Russians. I asked you to name them. It shouldnt be hard.
My mistake - as we were originally talking about people not the number of republics and Russians accounted probably for at least half of the population.
But if we talk about Republics - do you think that most of them would have been better off under Nazi rule than as part of the USSR?
I guess that's again a point were we have to agree to disagree.


That you are. Both sides were getting ready to attack eachother. Hitler just beat Stalin to the punch.
So because the USSR might have attacked Germany I am wrong in saying that the Russians defended their country against an invader that clearly fought a war of aggression for land and resources?
A very odd view on history you have here, Gawain...


And as has been already brought up what about Russias invasiions of the Baltic states and Poland. This was before the war with Germany. A fact many people overlook. This was not in defense of their nation but outright aggression just like the Germans.
However, you and I were talking about the war between Russia and Germans weren't we?
Let me ask again:
Were Russian soldiers defending their country against an invader when fighting against the Germans or not?
When Germans burnt Russian towns and killed scores of civilians, were they defending their country - yes or no?

[Sarmatian]

Please show me how they were better off. They wouldnt have been a statlite nation. Do you really think the Russians treated them better than Hitler would have. Do you think most Germans were oppressed worse under him than they were under Stalin?

Well it depends. If you were a german jew...

Really, you have to understand the difference between "russians" and "ussr". It is not the same thing. Russians were the most numerous ethnic group in the ussr. Russians were oppressed just about as any other ethnic group in ussr. Of course its twice as bad when you are oppressed by a foreign regimes but don't think for one moment that russians have basked in luxury and freedom while the rest of the soviet union worked for them. They were sent to siberia alongside germans, poles, lithuanians and so on...

Nazi Germany tried to create a world where aryan race rules, and everybody else is either dead or a slave. Don't for one second think that you could compare ussr and nazi germany. In ussr people were oppressed. In nazi germany people were exterminated. It is possible to shut up but it is impossible to change your genes.



Once more name one country liberated by the Russians other than Russia.

Yugoslavia.

[Tribesman]

Yugoslavia.

Awwww come on Samatian , thats not fair , you neglected the Bulgarians and Albanians .
Though of course all Albanians are just drug smuggling criminals ...just ask Gawain ....he knows because his uncle helped liberate yugoslavia and he told him so.:yes:
But anyway his uncle is now Greek , so don't forget the Greek/Macedonian element , or the Hungarian , and as he was American don;t neglect the American , British/Commonwealth , French and Italian contributions to the liberation.

Sooooooooo...apart from fighting against a racist genocidal regime..what has the USSR ever done for anyone ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The "average" German (i.e. if he did not decide to speak up against the regime) did not have much to worry about in the GDR either.


They were never persecuted just for being German under Hitler. Are you trying to claim that there were no reprisals when Russia took over?


the GDR either.
BTW, is it OK if "non-average" citizens (whatever you mean by "average") like Jewish citizens, gays, disabled people are sytematically killed as long as the "average" citizen is better of economically?


No , but the point is certainly most Germans were better off under tha Nazis. That is until the war came along.


But if we talk about Republics - do you think that most of them would have been better off under Nazi rule than as part of the USSR?


No and thats the whole point. You seem to be thinking i think the Nazis are moraly superior to the Russians. They both suck. They certainly are better off under their own rule. Russia certainly did not liberate them.


So because the USSR might have attacked Germany I am wrong in saying that the Russians defended their country against an invader that clearly fought a war of aggression for land and resources?


Theres no might about it. Its like when the Israelis attacked in 67. Your also ignoring their invasions prior to the war with Germany. In fact they had a pact to split up Poland with Germany.


Were Russian soldiers defending their country against an invader when fighting against the Germans or not?


I said when they were on Russian soil Yes. The rest of the time no. They were just as bad as the Germans and I still cant see how anyone can argue elswise. So when we and the Russians got to Germanys borders they were defending their nation no?


When Germans burnt Russian towns and killed scores of civilians, were they defending their country - yes or no?
Today 19:02


When Russians burnt German towns and killed scores of civilians were they defending their country - yes or no?


Nazi Germany tried to create a world where aryan race rules, and everybody else is either dead or a slave. Don't for one second think that you could compare ussr and nazi germany. In ussr people were oppressed. In nazi germany people were exterminated. It is possible to shut up but it is impossible to change your genes

More people were "exterminated" by Stalin than Hitler. Maybe you should study your history a little. Stalin was a paraniod freak. If he even though you oppossed him it was your end. Thats why they hated eachother so much. Its the extreme left meeting the extreme right and finding that in the end extremism leads both sides to the same place.


Yugoslavia.

I doubt the people there would agree with you.

[KafirChobee]

Isn't this entire bawling by the Russians over a statue a simple political diversion for Putin? It is one of those totally meaningless affairs that a politician uses to divert attention from the realities at home. There is something else at work here, and this is a weak excuse for what ever Putin is up to.

I mean didn't some Russians just celebrate Hitler's B-day? So, how meaningful is the 'patriots war' today for the youth of Russia? Or, Russians for that matter - I mean it was a massacre for them pertpetrated by their own leaders and generals. A neccessity, sure - well fought? No.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Sooooooooo...apart from fighting against a racist genocidal regime..what has the USSR ever done for anyone ?

Must you constantly trash the US ? :laugh4:

The point is they were fighting a regime that was no better if not worse.

[cegorach]

Sooooooooo...apart from fighting against a racist genocidal regime..what has the USSR ever done for anyone ?


It was one too ??:juggle2:



Fenring

And as bad as the DDR was for the east-Germans, a prolonged Nazi occupation would have been a lot worse for Russia or indeed any Slavic country.


Actually considering the death toll


estimates for Poland

- human cost of Soviet occupation September-October 1939 - June 1941 between 500 000 and 1 500 000 citizens (about 200 000 Jews).

It doesn't most likely include non-Poles from that ethnically mixed part of Poland. In addition the area had lower population than territories occupied by Germany to 1941.

- human cost of German occupation 1939 -1945 - 6 000 000.

Between 1939 and 1941 both states happily concluded the same action - the elimination of the national elite ( action AB by Germans and Katyn crime by Soviets) coordinated during the meetings between Gestapo and NKVD in Zakopane.

At that time Hitler and Stalin shared the idea of Polish-free Europe and proceeded accordingly.

Of course after one shark bitten another in 1941 it had to change.



So here we are Hitler vs. Stalin - pick your choice because noone will help you, it is no fairy tale, no white knights in shining armour coming to the rescue and the good guys will lose anyway in the end.


Have a nice time.:shame:



If you want to vote - here you can

http://www.eesti.portal.ee/index.php?lkET=193&lkET=1

[Tribesman]

I doubt the people there would agree with you.

That has to be the ultimate Gawains worldian answer:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So Gawin , you put forward a question , you got an answer that is factualy correct , but you don't like the fact so in comes....Gawains world Gawains world:thrasher: :thrasher: :thrasher: :thrasher:
It is getting to be a bit of a pattern isn't it , you make a definate statement , the statement falls apart but you try and stick with it .
BTW any further thoughts on your statements about Irish or Scottish monuments ...or French ones:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


It was one too ??
OK maybe you are unfamiliar with Python....So....
In what way ?
apply it to what you quoted , not what you bolded .
There is a case of sorts to be made there , can you make it ?

[Blodrast]

Tribesy, I'm trying to understand, are you trying to say that the Soviets' regime was ok, or better than I'm-not-sure-what ?

[cegorach]

Tribesman


'Life of Brian''s 'what the bloody Romans did for us' sketch is completelly not in place unless you assume that Nazi Germany's motorways and health care are also worth such great esteem. Or perhaps Pol Pot', Mao, Kim Ir Sen and other brave social engineers too ?:idea2:

[Duke of Gloucester]

Oh well . I had a lengthy respose written out , but between visitors and hoards of kids it has gone ...so ..
Gawain.......:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: oh stop .....:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Duke......examine the situation , think , then reply .:yes: Its a complicated situation but easily accesible , to say the least , with the last part of your post you are ...wrong ....completely wrong.

oh .....might as well add the plug even though the post is lost ......one of my neighbours next book is going to be....war memorials of Ireland....by Willie (thats an orange name~;) ) Henry .

I could well be wrong because I am not Irish. However I did actually look for information so it is not that accessible. Found this interesting website:

http://www.irishwarmemorials.ie/

and looked at a few but saw no reference to English dead. I am afraid until you tell me where these memorials are I am going to continue to believe there are none.* If there is one to Black and Tans I am going to eat my keyboard. Won't be buying your friend's book - doesn't sound that interesting.

(As an aside Tribesy your posting style does invite ad hominem replies but I will try really hard not to. I will limit myself to the sarcastic comment that investigation, reflection and thought are really useful ideas and I will try to use them in future. I will also avoid the temptation to reply in a superior way because that could annoy others)

*following further examination and thought this is still my position. I have examined Irish attitudes to British armed forces Irish views on their own dead who fought in WW1 which is ambivalent to say the least. I cannot believe community in the Irish republic has chosen to honour English dead in any war.


To me this is like partaising Saddam for keeping Iran in check. The Russians were as bad if not worse than the Germans. They fought a war of occupation and called it a war of liberation. They didnt liberate anyone . In fact quite the opposite. I really dont think they deserve any praise other than for being brave men who went to their deaths for a bad cause. They were duped.

Not the same at all. Remembering one thing is not the same as forgetting everything else. Neither is remembering a contribution to a war you won by one of your allies the same as giving approval to their actions before, during or since that conflict. The USSR did occupy Estonia. It was a Totalitarian regime. Morally there is not much to choose between the Nazis and the Soviets, but on a practical sense as far as Britain was concerned, Nazi Germany was a much bigger threat. If as a Britain or an American you feel a sense of pride in your nation's contribution to defeating the Nazis, you need to remember which nation did the most fighting, had the most war dead and really broke Germany's military might. In the interests of truth, not in the interests of doling out praise.

Was the average East German better off under Hitler or the Stasi? I would rather be a victim of oppression than share in collective responsibility for its application.

[Kagemusha]

As far as im concerned Estonia is an independent country and they can choose what monuments they can preserve and what not. To me this is just another political trick from Kreml to mess with another former Soviet Republic,by using the Russian minority in order to interfere with internal affairs of a souvereign nation.:wall:

[Sarmatian]

More people were "exterminated" by Stalin than Hitler. Maybe you should study your history a little. Stalin was a paraniod freak. If he even though you oppossed him it was your end. Thats why they hated eachother so much. Its the extreme left meeting the extreme right and finding that in the end extremism leads both sides to the same place.

No. Estimates of 50+ millions are proven to be false. Maybe you should realize that historins and researchers who made those claims didn't really have access to soviet archives so they weren't much more than guesses. Unsealed soviet archives show a different picture.



I doubt the people there would agree with you.

Take a good look at my location, take a deep breath and think again...

[CrossLOPER]

Take a good look at my location, take a deep breath and think again...
Then your opinion is completely meaningless because you are clearly a mindless nationalist. :wink:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Take a good look at my location, take a deep breath and think again...


So you long to be returned to the loving arms of mother russia then ?

[Redleg]

No. Estimates of 50+ millions are proven to be false. Maybe you should realize that historins and researchers who made those claims didn't really have access to soviet archives so they weren't much more than guesses. Unsealed soviet archives show a different picture.

.

So are you attempting to claim that the Soviet Union did not kill the numerous millions that many historians have documented. I agree 50 million plus is probably an incorrect number, however many researchers have been able to account for at least 10 million deaths directly associated with Stalin's regime. Remember he was responsible for forcing some collectives into being that resulted in the deaths of millions from famine, then there were the forced labor camps, purges, and other political killings done by the secert police.

If Estonia wants to remove a foreign monument from their nation that is within the scope of that nation. All I would expect is that Estonia offer to transport the monument to the Russian Republic for thier historical safekeeping.

[Husar]

Once I rule the world, I will have my monuments built with an explosive core and a fuse so that they can be destroyed easier if my son cannot come up to my standards and people dislike him.:2thumbsup:

Concerning the Hitler vs Stalin debate, it's quite nice that Stalin killed a few million Russians, but Hitler planned to kill ALL Russians. He never got that far as we all know, but I don't think Stalin had plans to exterminate the slavic culture/race because that kind of included himself I guess.
Hitler also wanted to rename Berlin to Germania once it had been capital of the world. So clearly he was out to kill a lot more.
Stalin killed mostly for political reasons, he wanted opponents to be gone, so anyone who bowed was fine. Hitler wanted ethnic cleansing, he wanted the planet to be occupied by aarians only.

Maybe they both killed about the same number of people in the end, but their plans were a bit different.
The Russians who fought all the way to Berlin defended their country in the sense that defeating Hitler was the only way to end the war.
If you say they fought for an evil regime, you assume they should have not followed their orders if that was against their own will, however if an American soldier refuses to go to Iraq because he does not support the war, he is somehow at fault because he does not follow his orders?:dizzy2:
Double standard?
I'm not saying all russian soldiers were just good dudes who fought for mother russia, raping girls certainly has nothing to do with that, but dismissing them all as evil grunts of an evil regime doesn't seem right to me either.
Rommel and some other german officers were no Nazis either, yet they mostly did their job(invading Africa etc.).

[KrooK]

Sarmatian - sorry but looks like you have (common for Serbs) pro-Russian point of view. I have no doubts that you would change your mind if Serbia was Russia's neighbour (of course in condition that Serbia wouldn't have been anexed and call "Serbian Federal Republic" :) )

[Sarmatian]

Then your opinion is completely meaningless because you are clearly a mindless nationalist. :wink:

This is the best argument you can find?


So you long to be returned to the loving arms of mother russia then ?

Well, to "return" somewhere implies that you have already "been" there. Since me, and my country of course, have never been in the loving arms of mother russia in any way, shape or form it would be difficult, if not outright impossible to return there. So, you asked someone to name one country which ussr liberated. I named one. They've driven out the nazis and left. For that I am thankful. Because, believe me, we where running out of places to build monuments for all the people killed by the nazis...


So are you attempting to claim that the Soviet Union did not kill the numerous millions that many historians have documented. I agree 50 million plus is probably an incorrect number, however many researchers have been able to account for at least 10 million deaths directly associated with Stalin's regime. Remember he was responsible for forcing some collectives into being that resulted in the deaths of millions from famine, then there were the forced labor camps, purges, and other political killings done by the secert police.

If Estonia wants to remove a foreign monument from their nation that is within the scope of that nation. All I would expect is that Estonia offer to transport the monument to the Russian Republic for thier historical safekeeping.

I've been involved in several discussion on the number of killed people in this forum. And yet I've never seen someone who knows enough about it to break down those numbers. Just how many people died in the concentration camps, how many of them were prisoners of war, how many died during deportations and so on. But that doesn't stop people from writing about 50+ millions dead, like they are talking about bank accounts. Those were claims from the cold war, and are very biased. And plus, just how much access had a western reseracher had to soviet union during the cold war? Data from soviet archives just don't support those kind of numbers.

Famine wasn't an organized killing of people. It was a policy supposed to provide more food. It failed miserably in that regard, but that is another point. But again, number of deaths appear to be exagerated. If there had been 5 to 12 million death as has been estimated, there should have been a large drop in ussr population at that time, while it was the exact opposite, there was a rise in population at that time (I could be mistaken on this, I tried to check couldn't find ussr censuses on the net).

To get back on topic. Estonia is an independant country and that means it is within it's rights to remove the monument. But also, 1/4 of it's population are russians. I am assuming most of them are citizens of estonia. In a democratic country, minorities are taken into account when decisions are made. I just don't get why the monument is such big a deal. There is a huge monument dedicated to soviet soldiers in Vienna. No one over there is trying to remove it. There is a boulevard of some american president in Belgrade. No one tried to change it's name because america bombed serbia in 1999. In my opinion, this just looks like another nationalistic stupidity with no gain whatsoever for either russia or estonia. It just means that there will be a deterioration in relationship between estonia and russia.

[CrossLOPER]

This is the best argument you can find?

...Argument? Argument against what? No one here said anything about arguing...:sweatdrop:

I was just using a little in-joke poking fun at the culmination of multiple exchanges that occurred last year, back when I thought my word or opinion on the subject meant anything here. ~:wacko:

[Sarmatian]

...Argument? Argument against what? No one here said anything about arguing...:sweatdrop:

I was just using a little in-joke poking fun at the culmination of multiple exchanges that occurred last year, back when I thought my word or opinion on the subject meant anything here. ~:wacko:

Sorry, I must have been out that week. My bad.

[Redleg]

I've been involved in several discussion on the number of killed people in this forum. And yet I've never seen someone who knows enough about it to break down those numbers. Just how many people died in the concentration camps, how many of them were prisoners of war, how many died during deportations and so on. But that doesn't stop people from writing about 50+ millions dead, like they are talking about bank accounts. Those were claims from the cold war, and are very biased. And plus, just how much access had a western reseracher had to soviet union during the cold war? Data from soviet archives just don't support those kind of numbers.


Oh I have been more then involved in discussions on this subject alone. I don't buy the 50+ million arguement myself - its my belief that its too high. But I don't buy your attempt at dismissing it either.



Famine wasn't an organized killing of people. It was a policy supposed to provide more food. It failed miserably in that regard, but that is another point. But again, number of deaths appear to be exagerated. If there had been 5 to 12 million death as has been estimated, there should have been a large drop in ussr population at that time, while it was the exact opposite, there was a rise in population at that time (I could be mistaken on this, I tried to check couldn't find ussr censuses on the net).


Your mistaken. The famine was more then just a failure in policy.


]Rather than rectify those problems, the Bolsheviks exacerbated the problem by ordering the seizing of grain from peasants. This soon gave way to dekulakizaton -- the liquidating of "rich" peasants -- and collectivization of agriculture. Combined with agricultural quotas that left peasants with almost nothing to eat, the results were predictably tragic. So predictable in fact that historians such as Robert Conquest believe Stalin intentionally inflicted the 1932-3 famine as part of a general assault on the Ukraine.

Just in case your unware of who Robert Conquest is type in a google search of the man, he is one of the more acknowledge writers concerning this time period. One can question his motives but one should be very careful of questioning the research the man used, given that a lot was based upon accessing records in the old Soviet Union.

So while the data available is actually limited, much do to the desire of the old soviet union to keep things secert. Some data is coming out of the old kremlin to allow historians to attempt to gain an understanding of what happen during the purges and policies carried out under Stalin. While I do agree with you the numbers spouted by many of over 50 million are based upon proganda and lies from the 1930's from both the Germans and even the anti-communists of the time. The Cold War futher inflated the numbers. But it seems to me that your attempting to defend the policies of a mass murder that was Stalin. No matter how you attempt to slice it, Stalin was responsible for the purging of the Soviet Military, the deaths by famine of many people in the Soviet Union, the political prisons and gulugs where many died under the miresble conditions of forced labor.




To get back on topic. Estonia is an independant country and that means it is within it's rights to remove the monument. But also, 1/4 of it's population are russians. I am assuming most of them are citizens of estonia. In a democratic country, minorities are taken into account when decisions are made. I just don't get why the monument is such big a deal. There is a huge monument dedicated to soviet soldiers in Vienna. No one over there is trying to remove it. There is a boulevard of some american president in Belgrade. No one tried to change it's name because america bombed serbia in 1999. In my opinion, this just looks like another nationalistic stupidity with no gain whatsoever for either russia or estonia. It just means that there will be a deterioration in relationship between estonia and russia.

Its probably the tactic that both countries are wanting to happen.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, to "return" somewhere implies that you have already "been" there. Since me, and my country of course, have never been in the loving arms of mother russia in any way, shape or form it would be difficult, if not outright impossible to return there. So, you asked someone to name one country which ussr liberated. I named one. They've driven out the nazis and left. For that I am thankful. Because, believe me, we where running out of places to build monuments for all the people killed by the nazis...


Isnt that because were talking of Yugoslavia here. The other big communist nation. Yeah they were very free after WW2 under Tito. Thats why they didnt stay there. There already was a communist regime in power. So now we have a third bad guy enter the lists.

The point however is that the Russian leaders did not fight only to defend their nation. They started the aggression as much as the Germans did. I willl never see either of these as the good guys no matter how hard you try to portray them as one. Both murdered millions in cold blood plus they are responsible for untold war dead and injured. We are all better off with neither of them ,nor their types of governments in power.

[PanzerJaeger]

Sooooooooo...apart from fighting against a racist genocidal regime..what has the USSR ever done for anyone ?

Wah? I must have missed your sarcasm. I wouldnt have expected that from you!

[cegorach]

He never got that far as we all know, but I don't think Stalin had plans to exterminate the slavic culture/race because that kind of included himself I guess.

And what the hell is slavic culture ? Nice thinking, but liquidation of elites and subdual of the rest turning them into mindless serfs was in general the target both were aiming to...
As I said before it was COORDINATED between Gestapo and NKVD on meetings kept even in 1941.



Hitler also wanted to rename Berlin to Germania once it had been capital of the world. So clearly he was out to kill a lot more.

So was Stalin. The number of soviet republic was infinite and the SU has the globe in its coat of arms.



Stalin killed mostly for political reasons, he wanted opponents to be gone, so anyone who bowed was fine. Hitler wanted ethnic cleansing, he wanted the planet to be occupied by aarians only.

Ehem - the opponents' list included for example Polish stamp collectors - because they had 'international contacts' and members of illegal organisations (illegal in Soviet Union) which equalled ALL non-Soviet organisations such as boy scouts, student organisations etc. Not to mention political parties, trade unions, priests of all religions etc.
Pretty long list in my opinion...


Maybe they both killed about the same number of people in the end, but their plans were a bit different.

Except they all wanted to 'unite' the world under one banner with liquidation of 'undesired'.

Thanks but a choice between Black Death and Scarlet Fever is no choice at all.:wall:



Sarmatian


Famine wasn't an organized killing of people. It was a policy supposed to provide more food. It failed miserably in that regard, but that is another point. But again, number of deaths appear to be exagerated. If there had been 5 to 12 million death as has been estimated, there should have been a large drop in ussr population at that time, while it was the exact opposite, there was a rise in population at that time (I could be mistaken on this, I tried to check couldn't find ussr censuses on the net).

If it means that military protected convoys take the food from the farmers leaving them with nothing except grass, frogs and ... their own children (cannibalism did happen) and blocking all exits it IS not only organised killing, but genocide.





To get back on topic. Estonia is an independant country and that means it is within it's rights to remove the monument. But also, 1/4 of it's population are russians. I am assuming most of them are citizens of estonia. In a democratic country, minorities are taken into account when decisions are made. I just don't get why the monument is such big a deal. There is a huge monument dedicated to soviet soldiers in Vienna. No one over there is trying to remove it. There is a boulevard of some american president in Belgrade. No one tried to change it's name because america bombed serbia in 1999. In my opinion, this just looks like another nationalistic stupidity with no gain whatsoever for either russia or estonia. It just means that there will be a deterioration in relationship between estonia and russia.


Well... If someone erects a statue in the middle of your capital which becomes a SYMBOL of the occupation it is important to remove.

It is more tricky here with soldiers' ashes and so on, but the thing is the monument is RELOCATED to a military graveyard - is it not the right place for the dead to rest ?

An example from our history before 1918 Russian Empire erected over 100 orthodox churches in Warsaw despite the fact that virtually all orthodox ( Poland was multiconfessional country for long centuries, but policy of russyfication created divisions which in some regions equalled orthodox religion with Russian nationality, loyal;ty towards tzar - even open betrayal) people in Warsaw at that time were Russian soldiers, clerks and colonists.
One of those was a monstrously monumental cathedral-like building (don't remember its name though) which became a clear mark that Warsaw is once and for all Russian city.
They all left in 1915 with the retreating Russian army so when Poland re-gained independence after 123 years of occupation it was perfectly understandable to remove the churches converting them with removal of the works of art and liturgical items to orthodox churches elsewhere. Some of them were demolished ( not blown up, but removed with care) including the one in the very center of the city.

Was it an act of barbarism or nationalistic crap ? Or perhaps ERECTING such structure was ?



EDIT - I have found the image of the church in Warsaw - Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nevsky_Cathedral%2C_Warsaw)

[Ironside]

As far as im concerned Estonia is an independent country and they can choose what monuments they can preserve and what not. To me this is just another political trick from Kreml to mess with another former Soviet Republic,by using the Russian minority in order to interfere with internal affairs of a souvereign nation.:wall:

I think that the Russian upsetness might be more than simply Kreml showing it's muscles, but also an attack on the Russian self-image.

As the official Russian history has gone back into forgetting the first years of aggression and only focusing on "The great freedom war", being reminded that it's a big fat lie can be somewhat annoying.

As for Estonia, having a monument over the occupiers of thier country feels a bit wrong. But the separation between the Russian minority and the rest of the Estonian people needs to be handled somehow. It's certainly not good for the country.
And as you mentioned it does leave a backdoor open for Kreml, who seems to be using thier own version of the Monroe Doctrine for the former Soviet.

[Husar]

back when I thought my word or opinion on the subject meant anything here. ~:wacko:
I'm interested in your input.


And what the hell is slavic culture ? Nice thinking, but liquidation of elites and subdual of the rest turning them into mindless serfs was in general the target both were aiming to...
As I said before it was COORDINATED between Gestapo and NKVD on meetings kept even in 1941.
I'm sorry, but unlike my grandfathers(or maybe just like them), I have no idea about races and culture, I just didn't want to put race alone since that might then sound racist, especially if it's wrong etc.


Ehem - the opponents' list included for example Polish stamp collectors - because they had 'international contacts' and members of illegal organisations (illegal in Soviet Union) which equalled ALL non-Soviet organisations such as boy scouts, student organisations etc. Not to mention political parties, trade unions, priests of all religions etc.
Pretty long list in my opinion...
I can learn something in every discussion. Didn't know that actually, we don't learn a lot about Stalin here.


Except they all wanted to 'unite' the world under one banner with liquidation of 'undesired'.

Thanks but a choice between Black Death and Scarlet Fever is no choice at all.
I knew about about Russian interests in the balkan etc, but that they wanted to conquer the world is new to me as well. Makes me wonder whether Stalin had plans as big as Hitler, or whether he just decided ad hoc what to do next all the time.

[Sarmatian]

Oh I have been more then involved in discussions on this subject alone. I don't buy the 50+ million arguement myself - its my belief that its too high. But I don't buy your attempt at dismissing it either.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm just questioning how high it was.



Your mistaken. The famine was more then just a failure in policy.

It was something inherently evil among Stalin regime that they decided to kill millions of people even though no one benefited from it? I don't buy it. Stalin was ruthless but to people who were in the way of his power.




So while the data available is actually limited, much do to the desire of the old soviet union to keep things secert. Some data is coming out of the old kremlin to allow historians to attempt to gain an understanding of what happen during the purges and policies carried out under Stalin. While I do agree with you the numbers spouted by many of over 50 million are based upon proganda and lies from the 1930's from both the Germans and even the anti-communists of the time. The Cold War futher inflated the numbers. But it seems to me that your attempting to defend the policies of a mass murder that was Stalin. No matter how you attempt to slice it, Stalin was responsible for the purging of the Soviet Military, the deaths by famine of many people in the Soviet Union, the political prisons and gulugs where many died under the miresble conditions of forced labor.

I have not challenged that. I just pointed out that 99% were nothing more than guesses, more often than not biased and created to be used in propaganda.



Its probably the tactic that both countries are wanting to happen.

Could be, but than it's sad...


Isnt that because were talking of Yugoslavia here. The other big communist nation. Yeah they were very free after WW2 under Tito. Thats why they didnt stay there. There already was a communist regime in power. So now we have a third bad guy enter the lists.


First of all, yugoslavia wasn't big, communist nation. Communist party was formed during ww2 but let's not go OT. Yugoslavia was free under communist just about as much as before them. But during communism Yugoslavia was turned from a backward agricultural country to industrial nation whose GDP per capita was bigger than a lot of western european countries. New universities were build, hospitals, schools, museums etc... But no one wants to give credit to them because it's "sooo out" praising communist these days, even if they deserve it. When people have a high standard of living, excellent education system, excellent health care (and all of it free or almost free), when they are free to travel where they want they tend not to give a damn about who is in power.




Well... If someone erects a statue in the middle of your capital which becomes a SYMBOL of the occupation it is important to remove.

It is more tricky here with soldiers' ashes and so on, but the thing is the monument is RELOCATED to a military graveyard - is it not the right place for the dead to rest ?

An example from our history before 1918 Russian Empire erected over 100 orthodox churches in Warsaw despite the fact that virtually all orthodox ( Poland was multiconfessional country for long centuries, but policy of russyfication created divisions which in some regions equalled orthodox religion with Russian nationality, loyal;ty towards tzar - even open betrayal) people in Warsaw at that time were Russian soldiers, clerks and colonists.
One of those was a monstrously monumental cathedral-like building (don't remember its name though) which became a clear mark that Warsaw is once and for all Russian city.
They all left in 1915 with the retreating Russian army so when Poland re-gained independence after 123 years of occupation it was perfectly understandable to remove the churches converting them with removal of the works of art and liturgical items to orthodox churches elsewhere. Some of them were demolished ( not blown up, but removed with care) including the one in the very center of the city.

Was it an act of barbarism or nationalistic crap ? Or perhaps ERECTING such structure was ?

Well, Cegorach, I am sorry that you think that way. Do you know how many mosques are in serbia? Hundreds. And there weren't a single muslim before ottoman occupation. So basically your saying that it would be not only justifiable but also good if we would tear down (or remove with care) each and every one because we were under ottoman yoke for several centuries???

What would be the point of that? Just what is there to gain with such a move?

[Tribesman]

I could well be wrong because I am not Irish. However I did actually look for information so it is not that accessible. Found this interesting website:

Damn I could have sworn there was a big statue at the top of the town square , some English bloke who was shot by the Irish . It was there yesterday , but perhaps they moved it overnight .~;)
Though they did remove the Crimea memorials from the square during the recent refurbishment ....they moved them to the front of City Hall .


If there is one to Black and Tans I am going to eat my keyboard.
Would you like some sauce with that keyboard ?
It just so happens that while there is a monument on the Long Walk to someone killed by the tans , and another one just across the river for a priest they killed , there is also a monument in town to an American Nazi who was involved with the kidap and murder of the priest .
Strange world isn't it .:yes:

[Redleg]

I'm not dismissing it, I'm just questioning how high it was.



It was something inherently evil among Stalin regime that they decided to kill millions of people even though no one benefited from it? I don't buy it. Stalin was ruthless but to people who were in the way of his power.



I have not challenged that. I just pointed out that 99% were nothing more than guesses, more often than not biased and created to be used in propaganda.


Actually the number of historians using pure guesswork is much less then that. Many of the current researchers into the history of the Soviet Union and particlurily Stalin are accessing the official records and are using statistical analysis to develop what is a predictable number. Yes there is some baised inherient in the research, but even credible studies done by many Russians, indicate a significantly high number of deaths contributed to Stalin's policies and orders.

Then again I wonder if you realize that the sentences in the your second and third paragraph contradict each other in a very basic way, ruthless killing of millions was considered evil, was not Hilter condemned for the same ruthless killing of millions.


About one million people were shot during the periods 1935-38, 1942 and 1945-50 and millions of people were transported to Gulag labour camps. In Georgia about 80,000 people were shot during 1921, 1923-24, 1935-38, 1942 and 1945-50, and more than 100,000 people were transported to Gulag camps.

On March 5, 1940, Stalin himself and other Soviet leaders signed the order to execute 25,700 Polish intelligentsia including 14,700 Polish POWs. It became known as Katyn massacre. Some other infamous massacres: massacre of prisoners 30,000-40,000 people.

It is generally agreed by historians that if famines, prison and labour camp mortality, and state terrorism (deportations and political purges) are taken into account, Stalin and his colleagues were directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions. How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million. Comparison of the 1926-39 census results suggests 5-10 million deaths in excess of what would be normal in the period, mostly through famine in 1931-34. The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million while the 1939 census at 162 million. (Another census from 1937 is known as the "wrecker's census"; its figures were suppressed.) The highest death estimates are 50 million from the 1920s to 1950s, but they are probably greatly exaggerated.



Now when one looks at the population growth rate of the Soviet Union during that time period compared to the rest of the world - one can develop an estimate based upon that data.

http://www.ditext.com/conquest/16.html

[Kralizec]

Even if we accept some of the higher (but still defendable) death estimates of Stalins regime, it still stands that he ruled from 1922 - 1953.
Hitler only ruled 12 years over a country smaller than Stalin's, yet did exeedingly well for a "runner up", and he had plans for a lot more. We need only look at what the SS Einsatztruppen did with captured Russian territories (appr. 20 million dead Russian peasants) to know exactly what they'd have done to the population at large if the SU had gone down as planned in Barbarossa.

The USSR was bad, but there's no doubt in my mind that Nazi Germany was worse.

[Redleg]

The USSR was bad, but there's no doubt in my mind that Nazi Germany was worse.

Yes indeed Nazi Germany intended to destroy whole groups of people.

But one should never discount the terrible things that other tyrannts have done in attempting to defend a decision over a war monument.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If there is one to Black and Tans I am going to eat my keyboard.

Would you like some sauce with that keyboard ?
It just so happens that while there is a monument on the Long Walk to someone killed by the tans , and another one just across the river for a priest they killed

Well in Gawains world we would call these monuments to those who the Black & Tans killed not to the Black & Tans . :dizzy2:

[Meneldil]

As said here, the monument will be relocated elsewhere, and not simply removed. AFAIK, things got hot mainly because both country have quite opposite agendas. Putin and his whole "they're all against us" paranoia is surely an issue here, just as the way former communist countries try to piss off russia as often as possible now that they are members of the EU and NATO.

As for the whole "USSR was worse than Nazi Germany" thingy, I thought this has been debated one billion of time either here or in the Monastery. Isn't it about time we settle this finally ?

[Duke of Gloucester]

Damn I could have sworn there was a big statue at the top of the town square , some English bloke who was shot by the Irish . It was there yesterday , but perhaps they moved it overnight .~;)
Though they did remove the Crimea memorials from the square during the recent refurbishment ....they moved them to the front of City Hall .


Would you like some sauce with that keyboard ?
It just so happens that while there is a monument on the Long Walk to someone killed by the tans , and another one just across the river for a priest they killed , there is also a monument in town to an American Nazi who was involved with the kidap and murder of the priest .
Strange world isn't it .:yes:

Congratulations for knowing more about your home town than I do. Now if you just tell me where it is I will know who the bloke is and where his memorial is and I can stop persisting in my stubborn refusal to believe that the Irish commemorate English war dead. (There is no reason why they should and plenty why they might not like to.) No keyboard consumption until you tell me about a memorial to Black and Tans themselves, not their victims.

[KrooK]

Sarmatian you asked why Stalin killed so many people.
I think I can reply you.
Communist declared enemy everyone who was not "sovietskij cielowiek" - soviet human. If they couldn't change person, family or nation into soviet human/humans, they preferred destroy it than let it stay alive. Why? Because it would be example that someone don't have to be communist to live quite happily.
Examples;
1) Ukraine - Stalin wanted finish with Ukrainian peasants, who remained catholics and who didn't want turn their farms into soviet national farms.
2) Czeczenia/ Crimea - Stalin wanted punish whole nations, who supported Germans or could support Germans.
3) Great cleaning into mid 30-ties of XX century. Community became cleaned from everyone who used brain instead of executing party's order. Best example was into soviet army.
Don't forget about something else - Dzugaszwili was simply mad man.

And in the end I want ask you?
What do you think is the difference beetwen Auschwitz and Workuta?
Have you heard about these gold mines? For me they were just like concentration camps.

BTW do you know why Poles destroyed that orthodox church?
Because it was build as something that show Poles who rule in Poland.
And only Poles can rule in Poland:)

[Tribesman]

Well in Gawains world we would call these monuments to those who the Black & Tans killed not to the Black & Tans .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: poor Gawain can't read:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Congratulations


No keyboard consumption until you tell me about a memorial to Black and Tans themselves, not their victims.
Errrrrrr.....I did .

[InsaneApache]

On 14 November, the Tans abducted and murdered a Roman Catholic priest, Fr Michael Griffin, in Galway. His body was found in a bog in Barna a week later. Finally, the Black and Tans sacked Cork city, on the night of 11 December 1920, the centre of which was burned out — destroying more than 300 buildings. They also shot dead two IRA suspects in the city that night.

My guess. :sweatdrop:

[Duke of Gloucester]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: poor Gawain can't read:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Congratulations


Errrrrrr.....I did .

Help me out here Tribesey:


It just so happens that while there is a monument on the Long Walk to someone killed by the tans , and another one just across the river for a priest they killed , there is also a monument in town to an American Nazi who was involved with the kidap and murder of the priest .

Where does this mention a memorial to the Black and Tans? Two victims and some American is what I read.

[Randarkmaan]

1) Ukraine - Stalin wanted finish with Ukrainian peasants, who remained catholics and who didn't want turn their farms into soviet national farms.

Well, it wasn't really because they resisted the collectivization, but sort of. The Bolcheviks wanted to industrialise the Soviet Union, but to do so they needed money so they thought they could sell grain to the industrial nations, so they went and took the grain from farmers, many resisted and burned their crops instead. The Bolcheviks were furious and brutally punished the farmers and turned their farms into collective state property, but many still resisted and they proceeded to kill their animals and destroy their crops to keep the Bolcheviks from taking it from them. Then they did not have any food and the Bolcheviks gave them the clear message that they were dreaming if they thought the Bolcheviks had to provide them with food (somethign quite opposite to communist theory), then a famine broke out, worst affected was Ukraine and Red Army and Chekist death squads rouned up and either killed or deported the farmers. That's why it was the greatest human-engineered famine ever.

[Duke of Gloucester]

My guess. :sweatdrop:

Probably right, IA. Galway does have a Long Walk too. Whilst I can find a reference to the Crimean memorial (which, not surprisingly is to the fallen from Galway rather any English dead) I can't find anything about the other two memorials that Tribesy mentions.

[Tribesman]

Help me out here Tribesey:

Come on it ain't that hard . There aren't that many American Nazis who were involved with Fr.Griffins murder who have a memorial in town .
BTW have you worked out who the Englishman who was killed by the Irish is yet , there is only one statue of a person remaining in the square .~;)

let me remind you of a few comments that set it off on this sideline

Im sure there are lots of statues to brave english soldiers erected in Scotland and Ireland


Who exactly are the Britains nowdays anyway. Its all so confusing.

Duke......examine the situation , think , then reply . Its a complicated situation but easily accesible

Now I could have just gone on this line.....
The ones who invaded these countries?
And directed Gawain to the Aughrim memorial , or the Boyne , Knockdoe or any number of others, or maybe to the lodges

Oh......

Whilst I can find a reference to the Crimean memorial (which, not surprisingly is to the fallen from Galway rather any English dead)
Nope , it is to those fallen who were in the regiment , it makes no distinction as to where they came from . The Rangers recruited from many different places .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Soviet acquisition of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania was not done with the concurrence of a majority of their populations.

http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html?kateg=43&menyy_id=99&alam=61&tekst_id=258

http://www.randburg.com/li/general/general_10.html

Though this caused many in these countries to view positively the German's ousting of the USSR in 1941, German occupation proved only slightly less unpopular (Though this varied a bit from area to area).

http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html?menyy_id=99&kateg=43&alam=61&leht=3

http://www.feldgrau.com/lith.html

The re-occupation of these coutries by the USSR was tolerated by the England and the USA. It should be noted however, that neither country was in a position to do much to prevent the re-occupation anyway. The Locals were involved in guerilla operations against the Soviets for years.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/11/23/baltics.shtml


Overall, I would expect Estonians to claim that BOTH occupiers were hated and I have little doubt they would have removed a statue to the Wermacht just as readily as one to the red army.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Nope , it is to those fallen who were in the regiment , it makes no distinction as to where they came from . The Rangers recruited from many different places .

Many different parts of Connaught that is (according to Wikipedia at least).


BTW have you worked out who the Englishman who was killed by the Irish is yet , there is only one statue of a person remaining in the square

You are going to have to tell me or wait till I visit Galway for that.

Basically Tribesman, our argument is about whether there are memorials in the Republic of Ireland to dead English soldiers or to the dead Black and Tans. General memorials to the dead of battles such as Aughrim or the Boyne don't cut it because they commemorate many different nationalities (French, Dutch, Scottish etc.) A memorial to an American Nazi doesn't help either because he is not English. If he was one of the Black and Tan auxiliaries technically that does not count either because he would be only one Tan. My original statement had Black and Tans plural. Now you could easily end the argument by naming such a memorial (and no, you haven't done so yet) or by admitting that you don't know of one. Otherwise we are not getting very far.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

poor Gawain can't read Congratulations poor Gawain can't read Congratulations


More like poor Tribesy cant even understand what hes posting.


Come on it ain't that hard . There aren't that many American Nazis who were involved with Fr.Griffins murder who have a memorial in town .


Come on stop the nonsense and 100 questions. Tell us of a memorial to the Black and Tans in Ireland not their victims. Why cant you ever give a straight answer?

[Kagemusha]

I think that the Russian upsetness might be more than simply Kreml showing it's muscles, but also an attack on the Russian self-image.

As the official Russian history has gone back into forgetting the first years of aggression and only focusing on "The great freedom war", being reminded that it's a big fat lie can be somewhat annoying.

As for Estonia, having a monument over the occupiers of thier country feels a bit wrong. But the separation between the Russian minority and the rest of the Estonian people needs to be handled somehow. It's certainly not good for the country.
And as you mentioned it does leave a backdoor open for Kreml, who seems to be using thier own version of the Monroe Doctrine for the former Soviet.

I think you are right on your opinion. There are many deeper reasons behind the riots.Thank God it seems they are now over. There is lot of tension boiling under the surface in Estonia and it is also partially to blame for Estonian government. These kind of issues just give reasons for the tensions to raise up on the surface.
If you look at the situation in the Estonia,particularly the Russian minority. They are not the best of living in Estonia. The reasons are multiple and same kind of reasons can be found in many former Soviet Republics. The majority of the Russian minority doesnt speak Estonian and even hardly think of themselves as Estonians. Many are without jobs and crime rates are high. On the other hand the Estonian government is doing little to nothing to help that situation.
If we go back in history,i think it is futile as you sayed also to claim that Red Army was anykind of liberator to Estonia. Their destiny was just the same as many other Baltic and eastern European countries. First their lands were divided between Soviets and Nazi´s on Ribbentrop pact and afterwards,when the two turned against each other,their role was only to become a battleground and suffer from that. Like Cegoragh sayed its hard to choose between Satan and the Devil.
I can completely understand if Estonians dont want to have a statue reminding them about that and anyway statues for fallen soldiers should be in cemetarys anyway. For example here in Finland in each public cemetary there is part for those who died in Winter and Continuation War, but you dont see any statues about WWII anywhere else in here. I can understand that changing the location of the statue can hurt the national feelings of the Russians in Estonia,but in that case they should really ask themselves is their nation Estonia or Russia. It is not like Estonians demolished the statue or anything like that.

[Tribesman]

Many different parts of Connaught that is (according to Wikipedia at least).
Connaught must be a very very big province then , stretching all over Ireland , the UK and across the world .
So Duke , what part of connaught were the 1,177 men from who enlisted in India?


A memorial to an American Nazi doesn't help either because he is not English.
Its funny that , he was executed as a traitor to Britain , how can he be a traitor to Britain if he was American ?

[The Wizard]

As far as im concerned Estonia is an independent country and they can choose what monuments they can preserve and what not. To me this is just another political trick from Kreml to mess with another former Soviet Republic,by using the Russian minority in order to interfere with internal affairs of a souvereign nation.:wall:

Smells like some good old-fashioned colonialism to me. Gotta love Ivan :smash:

[Redleg]

Hmm I wonder if Tribesman is refering to Sean Russell, but that would be the first time I ever heard him called an American Nazi. He did however meet with a bunch of them back in the 1930's. The statue honoring him was behead not to long ago.

[Tribesman]

Nah not that bollox Russell , thisone is amore famous/infamous bollox .
But as coincidence would have it there was a statue beheaded in the square a short while ago .
But that was the statue of a writer and it wasn't a political act it was a stag party wanting a momento of their visit

[Duke of Gloucester]

Connaught must be a very very big province then , stretching all over Ireland , the UK and across the world .
So Duke , what part of connaught were the 1,177 men from who enlisted in India?


I don't think anything like that number enlisted in India, but the regiment was merged with one recruited in in Glasgow, English to a man. They then all hopped in a time machine in order to fight in the Crimea so that some of them would be killed and commemorated on a war memorial in Galway. Then in 1920 all these English Glaswegians mutinied following atrocities by the Black and Tans in the English part of Glasgow (or Kent as it is more usually known). Either that or it was an Irish regiment full of Irish soldiers who felt a connection to Connaught by birth or descent.


Its funny that , he was executed as a traitor to Britain , how can he be a traitor to Britain if he was American ?

It was probably unfair for the British to execute for treason since he was born in America of Irish parentage. Perhaps they should have tried him for war crimes and then shot him instead or handed him over to the Americans for shooting. Maybe they should have sent him back to Galway to be feted for his anti-English work or shot for his Unionist activity. The fact that a man who supported a vile and genocidal regime, a man who no one could admire or mourn is commemorated in Galway, where if they had any sense they would pretend he had no connection with the city whatsoever simply because he was an enemy of the British supports my notion that these memorials to English war dead do not exist.

[Husar]

Its funny that , he was executed as a traitor to Britain , how can he be a traitor to Britain if he was American ?
You do remember that you were the one who called him(whoever that is, I have no idea at all) an American Nazi...:dizzy2:
You're really speaking in riddles in this thread and whenever someone asks, you answer in riddles, for someone who doesn't know a single thing about the irish-british war/problem/conflict/whatever it was, it can be quite hard to understand anything here.
And it looks like even people who know more about it than I do have a few problems to decipher your riddles.:sweatdrop:

[Tribesman]

I don't think anything like that number enlisted in India,
Its quite a precise number I gave don't you think ,do you think it is made up or might it just be that it is the numbers they recruited in India during the Post Crimea period up until 1870 .

was merged with one recruited in in Glasgow, English to a man. :laugh4: :laugh4: :2thumbsup:

[cegorach]

Well, Cegorach, I am sorry that you think that way. Do you know how many mosques are in serbia? Hundreds. And there weren't a single muslim before ottoman occupation. So basically your saying that it would be not only justifiable but also good if we would tear down (or remove with care) each and every one because we were under ottoman yoke for several centuries???

What would be the point of that? Just what is there to gain with such a move?


That has nothing to do with this actually.

There are monuments to celebrate DOMINATION, subdual, occupation erected by the occupant - you don't need to search for long to find that among some empires it was rather common to do so.


In other words - 'see guys we are here and we are building this damn large monument of a man you hate to further humilate you and you cannot do anything against it'.

Have a look areounfd the all former Soviet-dominated countries you will find that EVERYWHERE there were such structures built so leaving them would be suprisingly generous, in fact inhumanly generous because the thirst for JUSTICE is a part of human nature.

Noone likes to saty humilated after he/her got rid of the oppressor.


Since the symbols of occupation can be really diverse it is not uncommon that buildings as churches or mauseleums are removed too.

The fact that in THIS case Russia protest against moving the statue and the ashes to the graveyard from the city center proves only one thing - they believe it is the rightful place for the statue to remain in the CITY CENTER - in other words - Soviet monument, the symbol of occupation should stay where it is because ... it should stay where it is - no other arguments can be found unless they assume that Estonia has no right to make their own decisions which is de facto an act of more than patronising the young republic.:thumbsdown:



Meneldil



AFAIK, things got hot mainly because both country have quite opposite agendas. Putin and his whole "they're all against us" paranoia is surely an issue here, just as the way former communist countries try to piss off russia as often as possible now that they are members of the EU and NATO.


That is rather wrong assumption. Estonia should make the move earlier and it would be quickly forgotten, though it didn't because it tried to find some common ground with Russia.

Recently however Russia lives in a state of rising nationalistic pride trying to find her new identity.

Unfortunatelly the new identity is a mixture of Soviet nostalgia and pride and tzarist nationalism and arrogance. There is also a hint of amnesia supported by the authorities which tries to rebuild the pride of the nation and counter numerous extremist nationalistic or even neo-nazi groups from the political extreme right.


THE AMNESIA is the main problem and the way it is handled. Because

1) It was decided that all crimes of the old regime are in past and should not be discussed.
But it increases the importance of Weimar-like theories about 'betrayal', conspiracies or other 'reasons' behinfd the fall of the Soviet Union.

Face it - they cannot stand the truth that the SU was totalitarian state with numerous flaws and had to fall and that was GOOD - the last conclusion is almost unheard of i Russia - where the fall of the SU was 'the greatest catstrophe' of the former century...

2) Because Russia tries to officially support this approach when dealing with all other states which obviously causes conflicts.

How would anyone feel if Germany tried to say that occupation of Europe during the 2nd WW was to its own GOOD.:shame:



Conclusion.


We have Soviet nostalgia + resurging imperial pride + amnesia + paranoia which all is supposed to be the fair judgement and anyone who deosn't agree is seen as russophobic, nationalistic and utterly evil - just like Estonia now is.:wall:

[Sarmatian]

That has nothing to do with this actually.

There are monuments to celebrate DOMINATION, subdual, occupation erected by the occupant - you don't need to search for long to find that among some empires it was rather common to do so.


In other words - 'see guys we are here and we are building this damn large monument of a man you hate to further humilate you and you cannot do anything against it'.

Have a look areounfd the all former Soviet-dominated countries you will find that EVERYWHERE there were such structures built so leaving them would be suprisingly generous, in fact inhumanly generous because the thirst for JUSTICE is a part of human nature.

Noone likes to saty humilated after he/her got rid of the oppressor.


Since the symbols of occupation can be really diverse it is not uncommon that buildings as churches or mauseleums are removed too.

The fact that in THIS case Russia protest against moving the statue and the ashes to the graveyard from the city center proves only one thing - they believe it is the rightful place for the statue to remain in the CITY CENTER - in other words - Soviet monument, the symbol of occupation should stay where it is because ... it should stay where it is - no other arguments can be found unless they assume that Estonia has no right to make their own decisions which is de facto an act of more than patronising the young republic.:thumbsdown:

Quite contrary my polish friend, it has everything to do with it.

You made an example of poles removing orthodox church because it was built by russians for russian soldiers, since there are no orthodox poles. You called that justice. You said it was normal, even good thing to do since the building would remind you of russian occupation.

I asked a simple question. What do you think would be the reaction of the world if serbia (I use my country as an example, any other country where different religions clashed could be used just as well) was to remove with care every single mosque, catholic church or synagogue in it's territory?

This could also aply on any building that has turkish elements in it, since we don't want to be reminded of ottoman occupation, because, as well as you know, it wasn't particularly pleasant.

Is that justice?

And most important thing is that that monument, afaik, is not celebrating soviet occupation, it is celebrating defeat of fascism.

[CrossLOPER]

Looking too deeply into anything is harmful. Hiding or smashing everything that has some sort of historical significance that you don't like isn't going to change the fact. Politics have much to do with this matter, but it is important not to get consumed by that factor. That's all I have to say.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As to Irish monuments to English soldiers...

The whole subject appears to have been divisive for quite some time.

Example (from website of the Royal Dublin Fusileers Assoc):

Note: longish piece, text only.

IRELAND & THE WAR: DOWNLOAD TEXT - EARLY REMEMBRANCE & REVIVAL


Remembrance on the Island of Ireland: In the new Irish Free Sate, commemoration was focused every year on the annual November Remembrance services held in Dublin and other cities and towns throughout the country. In the years after the war, certainly well up to the late thirties and early forties, thousands of people attended Remembrance day services and commemorations in Dublin. Similar services were held in Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Drogheda and in Clonmel, Co. Tipperary. In the early twenties, thousands of people would gather at College Green in Dublin where the Ginchy Cross was temporally erected each year and acted as an Irish Cenotaph. At 11a.m. a two minute silence was observed throughout the city. At the 1925 Remembrance Service, ‘The Irish Times’ claimed that 120,00 people gathered at College Green. At thesem ceremonies, counter demonstrations were organised by a small group of Sinn Fein supporters. At the same service in 1925, a smoke bomb was detonated in the crowd. In the same year, a film titled, ‘Ypres,’ was stolen from The Masterpiece Cinema in Dublin. On the Sunday before Remembrance Day, hundreds of veterans would gather at sites around the City such as Eden Quay. Led by a band, they would parade in the morning through the streets of Dublin from Eden Quay to Requiem Mass at the Pro-Cathedral and in the afternoon to a service in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. These religious services were attended by the Lord Mayor of Dublin and Foreign Ministers accredited to the Irish Free State. The yearly occurrence of disruption and violence in the centre of Dublin on remembrance weekend led to the ceremony being moved from the centre of Dublin to the Duke of Wellington’s Monument in the Phoenix Park. There, the Ginchy Cross was erected every year and thousands of veterans and family members of men who died, would march up the Quays along the river Liffey to the ceremony in the Phoenix Park. Widows wore their husbands’ medals. Children would be seen wearing their father’s medals. However, much to the disapproval and annoyance of the majority of veterans who attended, at the conclusion of this service in the Phoenix Park, the British national anthem was sung and the waving of the Union Jack was seen amongst pockets of the crowds. In other words, tragically, the act of remembrance became political. It was hard for some people, particularly republicans, to distinguish between ex-Servicemen commemorating their dead comrades and an Imperialist faction exploiting the dead by turning the occasion into a political statement. In September 1926, General Sir William Hickie, (President of the British Legion in the Irish Free State) complained at a ceremony in Dublin of those who were trying to turn the 11th of November into a 12th of July. From 1923 up to 1933, a representative from Saorstat Eireann attended the remembrance services at the Phoenix Park in Dublin and the Cenotaph in London. In November 1926, Mr Kevin O’Higgins, The Free State Minister for Home Affairs (later called Justice), laid a wreath at the Cenotaph in London. The following year on the 10th of July, O’Higgins was assassinated coming from Mass. In November 1938, a wreath of Orange Flowers and White Lillies was laid at the Cenotaph in London by Mr. J. Dulanty who represented the Irish Government led by Eamon De Valera. A note attached to the wreath stated, ‘From Ireland in memory of the Brave.’

Nationalist Veterans set up their own old comrades association called the Irish Nationalist Veterans Association. On Saturday the 19th of July 1919, a ‘Peace Day’ parade was held in Dublin. It was a massive military parade through the heart of the city of Dublin. The salute was taken by Lord French outside the old House of Parliament in College Green. Approximately 3,000 Nationalist Veterans in Dublin alone boycotted the event because, ‘between the Government and the Irishmen who fought through the war there is an unfulfilled promise and broken faith’. This association did not last very long and was wound up in the late 1920’s. A much larger gathering of Great War veterans formed themselves into The Comrades of the Great War which later became the Legion of Ex-Servicemen. They tried to distance themselves from the British Legion but eventually affiliated fully in the mid 1920’s. Poor housing, lack of employment amongst the veterans and in some cases discrimination in state employment led to the formation of old comrades associations. Veterans of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers formed the Royal Dublin Fusiliers Old Comrades Association in the late twenties.

By October 1919, thirty five thousand ex-service men were receiving the out of work donation in Ireland, an unemployment ratio of 46 per cent compared with only 10 per cent in Britain. In mid-January 1921, approximately 24,000 veterans were listed on the ‘live register’ in Ireland. In Cork more than 4,500 ex serviceman were unemployed, representing about half of all the recorded war time enlistment. Many were institutionalised and returned to the comradeship of the army. The Outside provided little comfort for men who had been to hell and back. The War of Independence in Ireland, 1919 - 1921, did not dissuade over twenty thousand Irish men from enlisting in Irish Depots for the re-organised regular British Army whose Irish proportion was as large in 1921 as in 1913. Many Dublin Fusiliers fought with Michael Collins and were instrumental in setting up The Irish Free State Army. A typical example of one such man was Denis Shortall. According to the Irish Military Archives, Private Denis Shortall, 10006, of the 1st battalion, Royal Dublin Fusiliers, enlisted in the Irish Army on July the 7th in 1922. His trade/occupation upon entry was listed as ‘Railwayman’. He served at the Prison in Waterford and with the special reserve C Coy 14th Infantry Battalion. He retired from the Irish Army on the 2nd of December 1923 and went to live in England.

In Dublin, a committee comprising of friends of Tom Kettle raised money to have a bust of him sculptured. It was completed in 1921 and the committee planned to place it in St. Stephen’s Green in Dublin. Its placement was held up by the disturbed political situation in Ireland and a lengthy strike at the quarry where the stone came from in Stradbally, Co. Laois. In March 1927, a date was set for the bust to be officially unveiled but the Commissioners of Public Works intervened and objected to the use of the words ‘Killed in France’ being used on the inscription. They also objected to the words in the last three lines of Kettle’s famous sonnet: ‘Died not for flag nor King, nor Emperor/But for a dream born in a herdsman’s shed/And for the secret scripture of the poor.’ However in the end, the Commissioners withdrew their objection to the later quotation, but, ‘Killed in France’ was replaced by ‘Killed at Ginchy 9th September 1916.’

In terms of the Irish men who followed John Redmond and joined the 16th (Irish) Division, the ideals that thousands of these men went to Flanders with, were, like the men who died, buried in the earth. What remained was disillusionment. The Nationalist M.P. Stephyn Gwynn wrote:
And when the time came to rejoice over the war’s ending, was there anything more tragic than the position of men who had gone out by the thousands for the sake of Ireland to confront the greatest military power ever known in history, who had fought the war and won the war, and who now looked at each other with doubtful eyes ?

There were doubtful eyes in the ranks of the Ulster men as well. In 1986, George MacBride lived in an old UVF branch hospital in Craigavon, a former YCV (Young Citizen Volunteer) and a Shankill Road man by birth. George fought at the Somme, Cambrai, Messines, Ypres and St. Quentin. He spent the last few months of the war as a POW working in a quarry in the Black Forest. When he returned to Belfast he found a city where thousands of men were unemployed - ‘a town filled with pawn shops, pubs, politicians and preachers’. He joined the Labour Party and met Elizabeth Carney, whom had been James Connolly’s secretary and had taken part in the Easter Rising. In 1926, they married.

Hugh Stewart of the South Antrim UVF and part of the 11th Royal Irish Rifles and part of the 36th (Ulster) Division went back to France in 1966. On the way home from France his friend said to him on the plane ‘I wouldn’t care if this plane went down now.’ ‘And do you know I felt the same!’ replied Hugh. ‘I didn’t mind now if I died. We’d seen the hallowed ground where there were so many of our friends still lying. They were nineteen and we had grown old. Age had taken its toll on us but they remained nineteen for ever.’

In Northern Ireland the commemoration of war became intensely politicised very soon after the war ended. The war and particularly the Battle of the Somme, were looked upon by some of the people of Northern Ireland as their blood sacrifice, their price for the cementing of the Union with Great Britain. Commemoration among Ulsters veterans reflected the land in which they lived, divided. On Tuesday the 29th of July 1919 at Celtic Park in Belfast, a fete was organised by the ladies of the Queen Mary Guild from the Falls and Smithfield Wards of Belfast to honour the Belfast-men who served in the 16th (Irish) Division. Approximately 4,000 people turned up for the event. After a day of entertainment and sports, a march past of 2,000 men who served in the Irish Division took place. The crowd was addressed by the Nationalist M.P., Mr. Joe Devlin, General William Hickie and Captain William A. Redmond. The flag of the Irish National Volunteers was displayed on the stand. ‘The Freemans’s Journal,’ recorded the sentiments expressed by General Hickie in his address to the crowd when he stated,
That here in the heart of Ulster he would like to send a message to the 36th (Ulster) Division. In France and Flanders that Division held out the hand of friendship and it was fitting that the 16th Division should have shared their hardships and trials, as they were very proud to do (Cheers). Now they were all trying to settle down once again to civil life and peace. The difficulties were many but they were not insurmountable. There were bound to be sacrifices and injustices.

About a week or so later, on Saturday the 9th of August, another Peace Day for the men and women of Ulster who served in the Great War’ was held outside Belfast City Hall. The reception was attended by Field Marshall French and Sir Henry Wilson. It was the opening event in a peace celebration program which lasted for five days. On the Official Order of March, almost all the battalions that marched passed the review stand were battalions of the 36th (Ulster) Division. There was however, a composite battalion of the Connaught Rangers, Leinsters, Munsters, Dublins and 18th Royal Irish listed on the order of march. At the unveiling of the Coleraine (Co. Derry) War memorial on the 11th of November 1922, Sir James Craig told the gathered crowd that ‘those who passed away have left behind a great message to all of them to stand firm and to give away none of Ulster’s soil.’

The symbols associated with commemoration of the war such as the Poppy and memorials themselves became symbols of political division. Wearing a poppy became a political and cultural statement. It became a symbol of political hatred culminating in the murder of people at the Remembrance Day services in Enniskillen in 1987. The Poppy grows in the open fields of France and Flanders. It is not selective where and over whose dead body it grows. German and Turkish bullets never distinguished between Protestant or Catholic, Unionist or Nationalist. It is a shame that the suffering and sacrifice of thousands of Irish men women and children should be used as a political instrument to offend each other. The Irish men who died in Flanders and Gallipoli did not die for that. As the years passed and the veterans died away, regrettably the reality was that the Unionist and Nationalist casualties of the Great War became more divided in death than they had been in life. In the early twenties at the Remembrance Service at College Green in Dublin after the service, poppy snatching was common along the streets. Fights would break out between Sinn Fein supporters and veterans going to or coming from remembrance ceremonies. According to the Irish Times on the 10th of November 1923, ‘The Free State received a consignment of 150,000 (poppies) and it is safe to predict that all will be sold early in the day.' The next day the Irish Times printed, ’No fewer than 150,000 of the poppies were sent out from headquarters and so far as can be ascertained, all were sold. Last year the number was 5,000. In Dublin 75,000 were on sale on Saturday and the remainder went to Cork and other towns.’ In Belfast the same paper reported in November 1925, that 100,000 (poppies) had been sent from the British Legion Headquarters and was virtually sold out. However in recent times, some people both north and south have made brave efforts to stress the common sacrifice and suffering made by all the people who live on the island of Ireland. Each year, The Somme Association from Northern Ireland, visit Thiepval on the 1st day of July, there they lay a wreath to remember the Ulstermen who died at the Battle of the Somme. It has also been their custom to lay a wreath at the 16th (Irish) Division Cross at Guillemont.

The Irishmen who survived the slaughter of Gallipoli and the Somme came home to an Ireland that was utterly changed, a terrible beauty had been born in their absence. Attitudes to some of these men were, at the least, indifferent and, at most, downright hostile to a point where some were murdered. At least 200 ex-soldiers were murdered by the IRA between 1919 - 1922. Yet as the majority of the veterans had seen enough bloodshed and sorrow in one life time, they did not want to get caught up with more. Many returned to the promise a decent place to live and a return to their original job before the war.

In July 1922, the Dublin Fusiliers were disbanded along with other Irish Regiments whose recruiting area was the Republic of Ireland. Some of those who died were lucky to have a grave, many, like Bob Stanton and Andrew Kinsella were never recovered, their remains were to become part of the sand in Gallipoli or the mud of Flanders, to be written out of Irish history and forgotten. Irish soldiers are buried in cemeteries large and small spread throughout France, Belgium and where they fell in Gallipoli. In these cemeteries, which are impeccably maintained by the British Commonwealth War Graves Commission, there are visitor books for one to sign. Regrettably, in many of these books there are few names from Dublin, Cork or other places in the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps this reflects our indifference to these men, or, might it simply be that we are unaware of them?

Revival
When the bell struck 11am on the 11th of November 1998, it marked an anniversary of the ending one of the saddest periods in human history, it was the eightieth anniversary of the ending of the Great War. For many years after November 1918, the 11th of November was remembered by a smaller and smaller number of people who were mindful of the tragedy that had affected them and their comrades. The event that changed their lives became as the Irish historian Prof. F.X. Martin called it, ‘the great oblivion, an example of national amnesia’.

It was not until the early eighties that serious academic research was conducted by a small number of Irish historians. People such as Dr. Pat Callan who presented the story of Irish recruitment, Martin Staunton who told the story of the Munster Fusiliers, Dr David Fitzpatrick, Jane Leonard and a group of historians from Trinity College Dublin who researched the political and social history of Ireland during the war years. Dr. Terry Denman (an Englishman) who told us the forgotten history of the 16th (Irish) Division. Philip Orr told us about the men of Ulster in the 36th (Ulster) Division. Other pioneering historians such as Dr. Tom Dooley, Dr. Keith Jeffries, Dr. Timothy Bowman. Tom Johnstone, Richard Doherty, Myles Dungan, Nicholas Perry, Frank Forde, Dr. Pat McCarthy and John Sheen’s work on the Tyneside Irish, have all played their part in redressing the national amnesia that Prof. Martin told us about in 1967. To his credit, ‘The Irish Times’ journalist, Kevin Myers has been telling this forgotten story in his writings at every opportunity.

Of the 210,000 Irishmen and women who took part in the Great War, approx. 35,500 were killed. 4,777 were Dublin Fusiliers. In order to research and present the history of the Irish participation in the Great War, several associations were established in the Republic of Ireland. The first to be established in Limerick was the Royal Munster Fusiliers Association, the second established in Dublin was the Royal Dublin Fusiliers Association. In Bandon, Co. Cork, a group of locals erected a memorial outside the County Council Headquarters to the men of Bandon who died in the Great War. In Dungarvan, Co. Waterford a similar group was set up to research the people of Dungarvan and surrounding towns. The Royal Dublin Fusiliers Association was established on the 23rd of March 1996 by a small group of dedicated individuals who tried to address the imbalance and indifference shown in Irish society towards the thousands of Irishmen and women who died and indeed survived the Great War of 1914 to 1918. The association presented to the public a series of lectures and an exhibition of personal belongings and stories of the Irishmen and women who took part in the Great War. The exhibition was presented in several centres around Ireland. The association created contacts with similar associations and groups in Northern Ireland. In September 1997 approx. 70 people, mainly from Dublin and whose relatives were Dublin Fusiliers, visited the Somme Heritage Centre in Newtownards, Co. Down. In 1998, as a commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the ending of the Great War, the association presented another series of public lectures on Ireland and the Great War and an exhibition in Dublin titled ‘Let Ireland Remember.’ The exhibition was opened by President Mary MacAleese in September 1998.

The sinking of the RMS Leinster in October 1918 was, and still is, the worst maritime disaster in the Irish Sea. The ship was full of soldiers returning to the Front. Like all the Irish dead associated with this war, the loss of life on the Leinster became part of the national amnesia. However, on the 28th of January 1996, the then Minister for the Marine, Mr. Eamon Gilmore T.D., presided at a ceremony in which the anchor from the Leinster was ‘unveiled’ in memory of the five hundred and one souls who died. The anchor had been recovered from the wreck of the Leinster by a team of divers from the Marine Institute in Dublin and can be seen on the promenade in Dun Laoghaire.

In July 1919, the Irish National War Memorial Trust was established in Dublin with the aim of providing a permanent memorial to Ireland’s war dead. It wasn’t until 1938 that the work was finally completed and the Memorial Gardens at Islandbridge in Dublin was opened. In the thirties, forties and fifties, it was the centre of remembrance in Dublin. As the years moved on and the veterans died off, so too did the Memorial Gardens at Islandbridge. It became like the men it was built to remember, forgotten. However in the mid-1980s restoration work began by the Office of Public Works in Dublin and on the 10th of September 1988, fifty years after they were initially laid out, the Gardens were formally dedicated by representatives of the four main churches in Ireland and opened to the public. Today, it is a beautiful park full of scented rose gardens and green grass. It is maintained by Duchas, The Heritage Service. It is still a place of remembrance. During the long summer evenings, Dublin families walk through the gardens and admire the roses and peacefulness of the Park. It is, as Patrick Kavanagh wrote in his poem ‘Raglan Road’, a place ‘where old ghosts meet.’

In November 1998, exactly eighty years after the guns fell silent in Flanders, Irishmen from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland attended an opening ceremony of a Peace Park at Messines, Belgium. The Park was opened by President Mary MacAleese in the presence of H.R.H. Queen Elizabeth II and H.M. King Albert of the Belgians. The Park will be a centre for promotion of peace and reconciliation in Ireland and the world. The very site of the Peace Park itself is symbolic. It was the labour of love and brain child of two Irishmen, who by accident, were born into different Irish traditions, but as human beings believed that the building of this Peace Park would be their contribution to reconciliation. In December 1916, Willie Redmond wrote to his friend, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: “There are a great many Irishmen today who feel that out of this war we should try to build up a new Ireland. The trouble is, men are so timid about meeting each other half way. It would be a fine memorial to the men who have died so splendidly, if we could, over their graves build a bridge between north and south.” The foundations of this bridge were laid in Messines, in November 1988.

Over the last several years, the President of Ireland has attended the November Remembrance Service at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin. She also attends The National Day of Commemoration at The Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, Dublin, held in July each year.

Perhaps the last word on the fate of these unfortunate men may be left to Stephyn Gwynn who wrote a lament for the Irishmen who died in the Great War.

It may be O Comrade that Ireland
Casting a backward glance on the road
she has travelled
Will turn and yearn in her heart for
the valour she once rejected….
Will cry to her own sick heart
My faithful, my children,
My lovers who never hurt me
You also are Ireland.

[Tribesman]

You're really speaking in riddles in this thread and whenever someone asks, you answer in riddles
Hey , its how I write sometimes:shrug:


for someone who doesn't know a single thing about the irish-british war/problem/conflict/whatever it was, it can be quite hard to understand anything here.

It is quite a hard topic to understand .


And it looks like even people who know more about it than I do have a few problems to decipher your riddles.
Well since it has mainly involved responding to an initial statement that didn't make any sense factually , followed by some queries doubting what I wrote to challenge the nonsensical post , its fine to go about it in a roundabout way opening more avenues to explore .

But now a proper answer might be in order.

Though Duke did very well it is now keyboard eating time .:whip:
Right then Duke , by Black and Tans do you mean specifically the Reserve or are you using the generic to include the Auxilliary ?
I doesn't really matter which anyway .
Dublin Castle is where you want to look for the memorial:yes:
There is a tower there that contains the Garda museum , the Garda is delineated from the RIC DMP and IRP , it is dedicated to preserving the history of itself and its predecesors .
Both the Auxillary and Reserve were part of the RIC , members of those two branches of the RIC are commemorated in the Roll of houour memorial covering that period , they are easy to distinguish from the regular constabulary(at least at lower ranks) due to their rank titles being different .
It was originally kept in the Pheonix Park police barracks until it was moved to the Museum . A copy is also on display at the Templemore Garda College Library .
Two more exist that I know of , but since they are not in the Republic they are beyond the scope of your question .

hmmmmmmm...... tasty keyboard:oops:


As to Irish monuments to English soldiers...

The whole subject appears to have been divisive for quite some time.

Though strangely not as divisive as Republican memorials , as demonstrated by the series of rememberance ceremonies on Easter Sunday at the statue of the englishman in the town square . It is both funny and sad to see the different groups lining up to do their own little ceremony .
As it happens the historian I mentioned decided on the topic(his next book was supposed to be on the Navy not memorials ) because of the stupid civil war bollox that still goes on today between Irish political parties .

[cegorach]

Quite contrary my polish friend, it has everything to do with it.

You made an example of poles removing orthodox church because it was built by russians for russian soldiers, since there are no orthodox poles. You called that justice. You said it was normal, even good thing to do since the building would remind you of russian occupation.

Perhaps you have't read the article I presented. It was something completelly different -

1. The cathedral was erected in place of a monument to celebrate collaborators shot in 1831.

2. It was build for the money given collected in the Russian Empire to intill the orthodox domination during the RUSSYFICATION when catholicism was oppressed and Poles couldn't use Polish in ope in 100 % polish city.

3) 'Tsar Alexander III gave his approval to fund the cathedral on the date of anniversary of partitions of Poland in 1893 which was celebrated as "joining of the West Russian state".'

4) A significant part of the funds needed to build the cathedral were raised by personal donations from almost every corner of the Russian Empire. In an appeal to Moscow's residents, Gourko's chancellery wrote:

"By its very presence… the Russian Church declares to the world… that in the western terrains along the Vistula, mighty Orthodox rule has taken root… The appearance of a new… church in Warsaw as a boundary and pillar of Orthodox Russia will animate the hopes of the Orthodox Slavs for unification under the Orthodox cross.

5) The rest of the funds came from mandatory donations required from all municipalities within Gourko's jurisdiction and special tax increases within the city of Warsaw.



It was a monument of domination created to humilate a city which led numerous revolts before and it was done OPENLY without any care about anyoone'e feelings - the fact that it was a church is was minor detail and in fact only because it was a church ithere was any controversy if it should be removed.

Sorry, but if Hitler built a gigantic statue which would happen to be a place of worship noone would say a word against demolishing it.

If you can't see hidden meaning of a building like this the statue in Tallin will remain meaningless to you.:wall:




And most important thing is that that monument, afaik, is not celebrating soviet occupation, it is celebrating defeat of fascism.

Yeah right. If it was only erected for that purpose noone would hava any problems with that.:smash:

[Duke of Gloucester]

It has been such fun, from the Fermat like beginning to the final revelation - an historical striptease. I will eat my keyboard once I have actually seen the memorial for myself - next visit to Dublin that museum is definitely on the list. (Usually when I say Black and Tans I mean the RIC reserve, but for the purposes of this argument either would do). And yes you can hold Ireland as (slightly) superior to Estonia. Your memorial is hidden away in a museum and the Tan names are interspersed with other officers. I could escape on the technicality that the memorial is not specifically to the Black and Tans (which is what I was thinking of when I laid down the challenge originally) but fair's fair. To place their names on a any Roll of Honour argues a level of forgiveness that surprises me.:bow:

Now tell us who the statue is. My best guest is William Joyce but no sane town would have a statue of that ....

[Tribesman]

Now tell us who the statue is. My best guest is William Joyce but no sane town would have a statue of that ....

Which statue ? The Englishmen who was shot by the Irish? the one where the various parties line up one after another for their little "we are the Republicans" ......"No we are the Republicans" speeches at Easter ?
That would be the Liam Mellows monument in Eyre Square.

William Joyce would be the American Nazi who worked with the Tans as an informer against the republican , before he worked with MI5 against the communists , before he went all Haw-Haw with Goebells . His daughter campaigned to get the body released and his re-burial and memorial stone is just down the road in Bohermore .

BTW the Crimea monument that was moved to city hall was to those who served in the regiment , the memorial to those who died in that war is in the Collegiate Church, though other memorials are also in the Church and the Regimental museum in Renmore Barracks

[Sarmatian]

Perhaps you have't read the article I presented. It was something completelly different -

1. The cathedral was erected in place of a monument to celebrate collaborators shot in 1831.

2. It was build for the money given collected in the Russian Empire to intill the orthodox domination during the RUSSYFICATION when catholicism was oppressed and Poles couldn't use Polish in ope in 100 % polish city.

3) 'Tsar Alexander III gave his approval to fund the cathedral on the date of anniversary of partitions of Poland in 1893 which was celebrated as "joining of the West Russian state".'

4) A significant part of the funds needed to build the cathedral were raised by personal donations from almost every corner of the Russian Empire. In an appeal to Moscow's residents, Gourko's chancellery wrote:

"By its very presence… the Russian Church declares to the world… that in the western terrains along the Vistula, mighty Orthodox rule has taken root… The appearance of a new… church in Warsaw as a boundary and pillar of Orthodox Russia will animate the hopes of the Orthodox Slavs for unification under the Orthodox cross.

5) The rest of the funds came from mandatory donations required from all municipalities within Gourko's jurisdiction and special tax increases within the city of Warsaw.



It was a monument of domination created to humilate a city which led numerous revolts before and it was done OPENLY without any care about anyoone'e feelings - the fact that it was a church is was minor detail and in fact only because it was a church ithere was any controversy if it should be removed.

Sorry, but if Hitler built a gigantic statue which would happen to be a place of worship noone would say a word against demolishing it.

If you can't see hidden meaning of a building like this the statue in Tallin will remain meaningless to you.:wall:

I have read it, that's why I asked you the question. Without exception all five points and the paragraph after are valid for every mosque built in serbia during ottoman rule. Question is simple, yes or no answer will suffice.



Yeah right. If it was only erected for that purpose noone would hava any problems with that.:smash:

Well, I am not as good as you at finding hidden meanings. Problem with hidden meanings is that everyone can come up with his own.

It doesn't matter anyway. It's not the end of the world, but it probably could have and should have been done a bit more tactful...

[KrooK]

Poles destroyed that church. And it was good job.

Why?

Orthodox church into Russia was part of rusyfication and was like that monument into Tallin - "we are ruling here and you can only cry". Sorry but no one will be building anything into Warsaw with this attitude.

It has been replaced by Tomb of Unnamed Soldier - place of respect for soldiers died for Poland. Leaving that church there would be disrespect for these soldiers (most of them died fighting with Russians).

So all in all that church must have been destroyed. Anyway Germans would do that into 1939 or 1944 - so there is no big problem :D

Anyway I think we soon get rid of rest of communist monuments in Poland.
And it will be even better job.

[Spetulhu]

Poles destroyed that church. And it was good job.

It's not finished yet. They left the catholic churches. :oops:

[Adrian II]

Monument should stay, screw post-war resistance heroes. It's for dead soldiers not for politicians.Spoken like a man.

Oh :daisy:, it's Fragony..

Well okay, I suppose once a year you and I can agree on something. But no more, otherwise I will have to activate my Bolchevik cell in Amersfoort and have them cut your welfare.
:stare:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Spoken like a man.

Oh :daisy:, it's Fragony..

Well okay, I suppose once a year you and I can agree on something. But no more, otherwise I will have to activate my Bolchevik cell in Amersfoort and have them cut your welfare.
:stare:

Relax, go down to your favorite corner "watering hole" with a few fellow travelers and sing "The Internationale" for old times sake! T'is May Day only for a few short hours more.

:wiseguy:

[cegorach]

I have read it, that's why I asked you the question. Without exception all five points and the paragraph after are valid for every mosque built in serbia during ottoman rule. Question is simple, yes or no answer will suffice.


It is not unless you prove that:

-mosques were built during the planned islamisation (or rather turkisation of the local population.
-were built to humilate the locals,
- were build during the second half of the XIXth century - I am talking about modern nationality where ideas of national oppression were becoming state ideologies,
- at least one was build in a city center of a Serbian town to commemorate an Ottoman victory over the Serbs,
- the local population was charged with the costs of such structure,
- Ottomans tried to eradicate the local population or turn them into Turks ( not muslims, but Turks speaking Turkish and without any knowledge about Serbian history, culture etc.).

If you prove ALL this you will had some rights to make such statements - if not you don't speak such words.



Well, I am not as good as you at finding hidden meanings. Problem with hidden meanings is that everyone can come up with his own.

So you do assume there are none ? That is always pretty easy to assume that world is black and white without any factors blurring such wondeful images as 'liberation' of the Baltic states.:juggle2:


It doesn't matter anyway. It's not the end of the world, but it probably could have and should have been done a bit more tactful...


I am afraid there is no possible way it could be done without massive hysteria in Russia. 'The liberation' cannot be questioned and everyone who doesn't agree is nazi and should be eliminated.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Question:

Are not all "conquests" accompanied by some degree of cultural assimilation (takeover) on the part of the conqueror?

After all, some of their laws, religion, technology etc. must arrive with the occupiers and the local population cannot be completely isolated from same. This is true even where the occupier had a track record of "respecting" the indigenous culture.

So, do you object to cultural "conversion" in any form or only when it becomes the specific and declared policy of the conqueror?

[Husar]

I think cultural conversion is fine because it means the locals accept the foreign culture and make it their own, in this case there was no real conversion and the russians put that statue up too fast, or retreated too fast, whatever you prefer. Most romanized lands were under roman rule for quite some time, usually centuries, so estonia was not really russianized yet, thus they still reject the russian culture, obviously.:2thumbsup:

[Samurai Waki]

I don't think I'd really be all that willing to readily accept a culture on par with most Trailer Parks.

[Sarmatian]

It is not unless you prove that:

-mosques were built during the planned islamisation (or rather turkisation of the local population.
-were built to humilate the locals,
- were build during the second half of the XIXth century - I am talking about modern nationality where ideas of national oppression were becoming state ideologies,
- at least one was build in a city center of a Serbian town to commemorate an Ottoman victory over the Serbs,
- the local population was charged with the costs of such structure,
- Ottomans tried to eradicate the local population or turn them into Turks ( not muslims, but Turks speaking Turkish and without any knowledge about Serbian history, culture etc.).

If you prove ALL this you will had some rights to make such statements - if not you don't speak such words.

Well, now that you mention it, it could be that mosques were built because serbs thought that christianity was totally out in those centuries and invited the ottomans to built as many mosques as possible. Or it could be that the ottomans knew that serbia would be a secular state half a millenium later so mosques wouldn't be a problem. C'mon cegorach, don't be naive. You don't build mosques in christian countries to add to tourism revenue of that country several centuries later.

All six of your points represents ottoman policy during occupation. Building mosques was just a part of it. I don't know any single mosque that meets those terms (I don't know much about mosques anyway) but the general idea is clear.

But there is a monument that satisfies every one of your points except that it was built in the first half of the 19th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_Tower

But we are really drifting off topic now. It is clear that we won't come to a conclusion so there is really no point in arguing any more...

[cegorach]

All six of your points represents ottoman policy during occupation. Building mosques was just a part of it. I don't know any single mosque that meets those terms (I don't know much about mosques anyway) but the general idea is clear.

But there is a monument that satisfies every one of your points except that it was built in the first half of the 19th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_Tower

But we are really drifting off topic now. It is clear that we won't come to a conclusion so there is really no point in arguing any more...




I said second half of the XIXth century for a purpose. Onnly at that time modern nationality was born so were things such as nationalist supremacy ideologies. Before local population largerly didn't matter and - often rather confused - awareness of national identity was limited to elites which often intermixed anyway.

After 1939 Germany planned to erect monuments-mausoleums of 'fallen' heroes in places of larger battles of the 2nd WW. The process already has begun only in Poland which was the longest time under the occupation. If any of those pieces was finished these all would be removed and I doubt if anyone in the world would says a word against it.

The liberation stattue in Tallin fits that description perfectly. Same ideology of supremacy, same means to implement it etc.
So I am not suprised that Estonians moved it to a different location - graveyard is more suitable place to honour the fallen soldiers.

I find it offending that the Russian authorities as usual usurp the right to judge what is right and what is wrong considering its long history of lies and history as a tool of oppression.
Anyone who doesn't agree apparently is fascist/nazi/american puppet/imperialist/vatican lapdog/polish conspirator/swiss extremist etc

It all reminds me the confused memories of a Soviet officer who facing the German attack in 1941 in Wilno/Vilnius thought 'these are the British fascist airplanes attacking us, probably to stop the deportation of those fascist Poles to Siberia'.
The more recent news all confirm that a nation-wide hysteria is spreading. Directed by the state, aiming to bully 100 times smaller Estonia and throwing the suaul slogans of fascists/nationalists/imperialists - funny when coming from such government.:smash:

[KrooK]

Yeah - let's defend Russia from Estonian invasion!!!
Let's defend Serbia from Macedonian invasion!!!

[Azi Tohak]

Anything that pisses off Vlad and Russia makes me happy. But good for Estonia. I wonder if they can get their friends to remove similar monuments to oppression in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia etc.

Azi

[Tribesman]

Anything that pisses off Vlad and Russia makes me happy. But good for Estonia. I wonder if they can get their friends to remove similar monuments to oppression in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia etc.

Would you be equally as happy if a country decided to remove memorials to your countries armed forces ?

[cegorach]

Anything that pisses off Vlad and Russia makes me happy. But good for Estonia. I wonder if they can get their friends to remove similar monuments to oppression in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia etc.

Azi


In Poland it is up to local authorities. It was in general done in the early 1990s along with all those Lenin, Stalin and other statues (especially the 'bloody' Feliks which was utterly destroyed - the monument of the founder of ChK - the ancestor of the NKVD and the KGB).


Of course it we are talking about monuments of oppression, not graves which are kept in superb condition.


@Tribesman

You obviously do not know the difference.:inquisitive:

Imagine celebration of the day your country was invaded and occupied kept every year in the very center of your capital and other places and that is your duty to be happy about it despite it is all a huge lie.

Add to this apartheit law, oppression and other entertainments provided by the totalitarian state.

In this case keeping the monument in the center of the city is rather masochistic, though only in most recent years ( from 2005) when the Russian extremists started their 'celebrations' there it REALLY became a very serous problem. Especially considering the nature of such extremism.:thumbsdown:

[Tribesman]

@Tribesman

You obviously do not know the difference
Really ? In the case in hand it was a monument to Soviet army soldiers was it not . Soviet soldiers who defeated just about the vilest regime you could think of . When I wrote that in response to Azi s post I had the US and Japanese monuments in the Phillipines in mind

Imagine celebration of the day your country was invaded and occupied kept every year in the very center of your capital and other places and that is your duty to be happy about it despite it is all a huge lie.

Well there is the problem Cegroach , no need to imagine .
I see both the celebrants and the protestors as small minded fools .
Don't you ? If not why not?
And :daisy: are you on about with duty? That seems to go beyond the bollox that is patriotism into the realm of false patriotism .
Explain yourself:inquisitive:

[Kagemusha]

Really ? In the case in hand it was a monument to Soviet army soldiers was it not . Soviet soldiers who defeated just about the vilest regime you could think of . When I wrote that in response to Azi s post I had the US and Japanese monuments in the Phillipines in mind

Well there is the problem Cegroach , no need to imagine .
I see both the celebrants and the protestors as small minded fools .
Don't you ? If not why not?
And :daisy: are you on about with duty? That seems to go beyond the bollox that is patriotism into the realm of false patriotism .
Explain yourself:inquisitive:

Tribesy.Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Do you actually know something about what happened in Estonia between 1939-1944? Did it ever occurred to you that the Estonians didnt want to be forcefully joined to Soviet Union first,neither to be occupied by Germans during Barbarossa, nor liberated by Soviet Russia in 1944. Maybe little country of Estonia never wanted to be apart any of that :daisy: that happened between the two totalitarian regimees of Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Maybe they just wanted to be independent and mind their own matters,unfortunately they didnt posses resources enough to protect their independancy,just like many other countries in Eastern Europe. Estonia is not doing anything wrong by moving the monument to an cemetary,like it is customed to have such monuments in their culture. How hard is for you to understand that Estonians had little joy of the Soviet liberation, meaning third wawe of executions and deportations after 1939 just like they enjoyed very little about the Nazi occupation or the Soviet occupation before that.

[Don Corleone]

I think Tribesman's point, correct me if I'm wrong (what am I saying, I should remember who it is I'm referring to...), is that the statue itself is a hero to the war dead that helped stopped one of the worst regimes of all time. Yes, they went on to occupy Estonia and make the Estonians lives miserable, but that's not the point of the statue itself. If it was a "Screw you, we used to own you, and in some way, we always will" monument, I could understand Estonia's position. And it's clear that's how they're choosing to view it. But at the end of the day, a lot of Russian (and other nationalities) died in Eastern Europe to push back a murderous regime. We can't just forget their contribution because the Soviets went on to commit some atrocities of their own. They're two separate considerations.

Personally, I'm quite glad that the French have never told us to dismantle Normandy cemetery (though I think Degaulle toyed with the idea when things started getting really ugly in the 60's). Despite what they may think about our nation and our current leaders, they understood that the men in that cemetery did a noble thing and that should stand on it's own. I salute the French for their maturity,and I think it would have been best if the Estonians could have shown some of that as well. I understand their position, but I think they're looking to take offense in this case.Strangely enough ~;) , I have to agree with Tribesman on this one.

[Kagemusha]

I think Tribesman's point, correct me if I'm wrong (what am I saying, I should remember who it is I'm referring to...), is that the statue itself is a hero to the war dead that helped stopped one of the worst regimes of all time. Yes, they went on to occupy Estonia and make the Estonians lives miserable, but that's not the point of the statue itself. If it was a "Screw you, we used to own you, and in some way, we always will" monument, I could understand Estonia's position. And it's clear that's how they're choosing to view it. But at the end of the day, a lot of Russian (and other nationalities) died in Eastern Europe to push back a murderous regime. We can't just forget their contribution because the Soviets went on to commit some atrocities of their own. They're two separate considerations.

Personally, I'm quite glad that the French have never told us to dismantle Normandy cemetery (though I think Degaulle toyed with the idea when things started getting really ugly in the 60's). Despite what they may think about our nation and our current leaders, they understood that the men in that cemetery did a noble thing and that should stand on it's own. I salute the French for their maturity,and I think it would have been best if the Estonians could have shown some of that as well. I understand their position, but I think they're looking to take offense in this case.Strangely, I have to agree with Tribesman on this one.

But Don the thing is that they are not dismantling the monument.They have moved it into a military cemetary,into a place where it belongs. We should ask ourselves a question,why the Russians think that the monument should be in city center of Estonias capital,not in a military cemetary,where usually such monuments are? Does the moving of monument for fallen soldiers to an military cemetary,disgrace the dead? I dont think so. So what is then the reasoning behind the Russian uproar?

[Don Corleone]

I didn't realize that. Puts a whole different spin on things. I guess I'd have to say it's the Russians (and the ethnic Russian minority in Estonia) that's looking for reasons to be offended. I thought they sent the statue back to Russia. Honestly, I don't know why the Russians would be offended that it was in a military cemetary versus the capital square.

[Tribesman]

Tribesy.Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Nope , both sides are playing patriotic bollox , neither is right , both are being disrespectful to the fallen .
Note...
Does the moving of monument for fallen soldiers to an military cemetary,disgrace the dead? I dont think so. Is the manner and rationale disgraceful ?


I think Tribesman's point, correct me if I'm wrong (what am I saying, I should remember who it is I'm referring to...), is that the statue itself is a hero to the war dead that helped stopped one of the worst regimes of all time. Yes, they went on to occupy Estonia and make the Estonians lives miserable, but that's not the point of the statue itself.
Yep , Is the statue specificly dedicated to russian soldiers or the regime in the Kremlin . Many nationalities fought fascism with the red Army , including people from the Baltic States .

[Kralizec]

Personally, I'm quite glad that the French have never told us to dismantle Normandy cemetery (though I think Degaulle toyed with the idea when things started getting really ugly in the 60's)

Never heard about that one- if someone can confirm that, De Gaule loses most of my respect for even considering that. I do remember that De Gaulle called for all American soldiers stationed there to leave French soil, upon wich cynical Americans replied "does that include those under French soil?"

As for the statue...at first I personally felt that it was unnecessary, but that it was still up to the Estonians to decide. I've changed my opinion on the former.

[Don Corleone]

Never heard about that one- if someone can confirm that, De Gaule loses most of my respect for even considering that. I do remember that De Gaulle called for all American soldiers stationed there to leave French soil, upon wich cynical Americans replied "does that include those under French soil?"

As for the statue...at first I personally felt that it was unnecessary, but that it was still up to the Estonians to decide. I've changed my opinion on the former.

You may be right Fenrig. My mother's family are all army and were stationed in Europe from WWII through the 70s, so much of what I think I know of Franco-American relations, I really need to check up on.

[Kagemusha]

Nope , both sides are playing patriotic bollox , neither is right , both are being disrespectful to the fallen .
Note...Is the manner and rationale disgraceful ?

Well i dont see that Estonia did anything disgracefull by moving the monument in to cemetary,where these kind of monuments belong.We also have quit a few monuments for fallen soldiers here in Finland, but the thing is those are all in graveyards.There are also monuments erected to the fallen soldiers funded by Finnish in the areas that were annexed by Soviet Union from Finland in WWII and many of those are shared by the soldiers of both sides,who fought then,but rest now together in peace. Under monuments honouring them all.



Yep , Is the statue specificly dedicated to russian soldiers or the regime in the Kremlin . Many nationalities fought fascism with the red Army , including people from the Baltic States .

So is your rationale that becouse the Soviets had somehow higher cause when they retook Estonia,their monument is somehow more prestigious.If that monument is about soldiers fighting Fascism,why it is in the middle of the capital of Estonia? Shouldnt it be in the central square of Berlin? And why isnt there a such statue?
If the Estonians would have demolished the statue or sent it to Russia,then i would agree with you that it would be disrespectfull towards the fallen soldiers,but moving it on to the cemetary is the correct thing to do in my wiew. If the Soviet Union would have indeed liberated Estonia, the Estonians should indeed be gratefull,but when the fact was that they just replaced an totalitarian regime with another one.I can completely understand that Estonians have mixed emotions about their "liberation".

[Tribesman]

So is your rationale that becouse the Soviets had somehow higher cause when they retook Estonia,their monument is somehow more prestigious.
Look at the last line of what you quoted there .

[Kagemusha]

Look at the last line of what you quoted there .

And do you know the Soviet drafting methods they used with these Balts? After the Baltic states were annexed completely to Soviet Union in 1940. Soviet Union drafted most of the young men from Baltic states to the red army.Do you think these soldiers had anykind of choice in that situation? Like i earlier sayed,choice between Satan and Devil.
Ofcourse amongst them were communist volunteers,who believed Soviet propaganda about the universal socialistic revolution against the fascist and the corrupted capitalist´s of the West. But the majority were forcefully drafted to an army of Totalitarian regime.which had in 1939 made an so called Ribbentrop pact with Nazi Regime to divide their lands between each other.

[Tribesman]

And do you know the Soviet drafting methods they used with these Balts?
And??????

[Kagemusha]

And??????

Mr.Tribesman so let me get your opinion straight.You think that becouse there were forcifully drafted Estonians in the Red Army that retook Estonia from Germans,the monument for Red Army should be in the central square of Tallin instead of military cemetary?Thats the bottom line?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Would be damned sad if ww3 would be sparked by moving a bronze man a few meters... :rolleyes:

[cegorach]

Well there is the problem Cegroach , no need to imagine .
I see both the celebrants and the protestors as small minded fools .
Don't you ? If not why not?
And :daisy: are you on about with duty? That seems to go beyond the bollox that is patriotism into the realm of false patriotism .
Explain yourself:inquisitive:



It was the DUTY , of any Estonian to celebrate the 'liberation', to be happy of the first 'liberation' in 1940 too.

This is a problem. IN allformer soviet satelite states it was all the same - the Red Army not only defeated Hitler, but should be worshipped as demi-gods fighting for peace all the time - anything which was NOT supporting that statement was banned from any discussion, censured and people who spoke about it were imprisoned or killed.

This is what I mean when I say it was their duty to be happy of the 'liberation'.:no:



IRONICALLY recently some Russian spokesmen tried to threaten Estonia with economical sanctions - mainly stopping oil export to Estonia.
The problem which accured shortly after that statement was that Estonia doesn't really use Russian oil having its own resources and the oil which comes to this country from Russia is only TRASPORTED elsewhere...
So the ban would hit only Russia.
No wonder they dropped these idea the next day after announcing it.:laugh4:



Recently I analised which european neighbour of Russia doesn't have any problems with this country and I found that ALL HAVE.
Also all the affairs were started by Russia - is that just clumsy or there is a purpose to create a string of enemies so the society is kept 'united' all the time ? I think it is the second thing.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, the Soviets can hardly be considered liberators by the Estonians. In the early ww2, they occupied the country after threatening with invasion if Estonia didn't give the Soviets naval bases in Estonia. When Estonia accepted, Soviet occupation begun. Although many Soviets died in fighting the Germans, the Soviet return to Estonia was not to liberate the country, but to resume the Soviet occupation of it.

I hope the Russian provoking statements are just talk, but who knows? With the infringed and now practically gone democracy in Russia, it could turn more dangerous again a few decades ahead, unless more parties can enter competition, and the basic food supply/infrastructure problems of Russia are solved. I hope Putin, currently more or less dictator, is wise enough to realize that there would be no profit from actually trying to fulfill these threats. The problem is that when you give such threats, and the opponent dares you, you're either forced to give up honor by not fulfilling the threat, or actually fulfill it. The latter case could have devastating consequences, if Russia were to attack a country it has no casus belli to attack. Chechnya is partly that, but in Chechnya there have been many factors preventing the conflict from having global consequences. I can't really judge whether the current Russian administration is one which is known for fulfilling threats. But if it is, their practise of threatening, in combination with the power Russia possesses, could get very dangerous indeed. Not that they could ever win an unprovoked offensive war, but because it would cost a damn lot of lives before it would be over, and because nukes could enter the picture. But my impression is that luckily enough there's not too much prestige and will to fulfill threats in the administration. Let us hope this remains the case, and that Russia's internal problems can be solved.

[Conradus]

Recently I analised which european neighbour of Russia doesn't have any problems with this country and I found that ALL HAVE.
Does that include Belarus? I thought they were still at good terms with the Kremlin.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Really ? In the case in hand it was a monument to Soviet army soldiers was it not . Soviet soldiers who defeated just about the vilest regime you could think of

You forgot to add one little thing. Next to their own. Again theres nothing to choose between the two. So then you favor statues or memorials to fallen soldiers in any country be left alone. You dont see how people whos nation was conquered and oppressed by these same soldiers and their leaders would be upset to be reminded of that occupation? How about a nice big staue of that soldier Sherman in the middlle of Atlanta :laugh4:

Yeah I know there are lots of monuments to federal dead in the south but their all in cemetaries or on battlefields, Besides that mostly because we won.

[Sarmatian]

recently some Russian spokesmen tried to threaten Estonia with economical sanctions - mainly stopping oil export to Estonia.

Which russian spokesman?



Recently I analised which european neighbour of Russia doesn't have any problems with this country and I found that ALL HAVE.
Also all the affairs were started by Russia - is that just clumsy or there is a purpose to create a string of enemies so the society is kept 'united' all the time ? I think it is the second thing.

Well, a common thing for almost all european neighbours of russia is that they are a part of nato. Asian neigbours of russia (and not just neighbours, almost all asian countries) have good relations with russia. You have to look at a bigger picture

[Samurai Waki]

Well, a common thing for almost all european neighbours of russia is that they are a part of nato. Asian neigbours of russia (and not just neighbours, almost all asian countries) have good relations with russia. You have to look at a bigger picture

I was under the impression that the Russians and the Chinese have had several serious differences of opinion since the 60s... So if conflict broke out in the Far West, I'm fairly positive China would go for a land grab in Siberia.

North Korea is treated like the red-headed step child by both China and Russia, and I'm fairly positive that Russia and Japan are just economically linked, but no buddying up...ever. Now, the Near East is a different matter, but since the Russo-Afghan War, the muslim world really has about as much respect for the Ruskies as they do the yanks.

[Husar]

Well, most dictators, dictator wannabes and all the others noone likes get their weapons from Russia. Maybe illegal, but they should at least be thankful.:sweatdrop:

[Sarmatian]

I was under the impression that the Russians and the Chinese have had several serious differences of opinion since the 60s... So if conflict broke out in the Far West, I'm fairly positive China would go for a land grab in Siberia.

North Korea is treated like the red-headed step child by both China and Russia, and I'm fairly positive that Russia and Japan are just economically linked, but no buddying up...ever. Now, the Near East is a different matter, but since the Russo-Afghan War, the muslim world really has about as much respect for the Ruskies as they do the yanks.


http://www.saag.org/papers17/paper1682.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/IB17Ag02.html

[CrossLOPER]

http://www.saag.org/papers17/paper1682.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/IB17Ag02.html
Wow. That's... wow.

[cegorach]

Which russian spokesman?


Of one of their oil companies. I don't remember which one. I have readabout it in two different sources and have no reason to doubt it, especially considering the level of anti-Estonian hysteria spreading in Russia.



Well, a common thing for almost all european neighbours of russia is that they are a part of nato. Asian neigbours of russia (and not just neighbours, almost all asian countries) have good relations with russia. You have to look at a bigger picture

China ( Ussuri crisis, Amur case etc), Japan, Afghanistan, Iran (at least some time ago, now have different things to do), Turkmenistan ( Russian minority is really persecuted there, though Kremlin tries not too look too closely), more ?





Conradus


Does that include Belarus? I thought they were still at good terms with the Kremlin.

Yes, especially since Mr. Lukashenko did realise the unification with Russia will not make him the president of both states. ;)

Of course the opposition has much worse opinion about the whole thing, but of course they are fascist lapdogs just like Estonians... ;)

[Husar]

So what if Russia applies to join the NATO or the EU?

[Kralizec]

So what if Russia applies to join the NATO or the EU?

Right, that's going to happen really soon ~;)

[Husar]

Well, if they can't fight the NATO, they can join it.
Maybe not under Putin, but we can only hope that this changes soon as well.:sweatdrop:

[Sarmatian]

Of one of their oil companies. I don't remember which one. I have readabout it in two different sources and have no reason to doubt it, especially considering the level of anti-Estonian hysteria spreading in Russia.


Spokesman from oil company? His opinion is important politicaly just about as yours or mine...



China ( Ussuri crisis, Amur case etc), Japan, Afghanistan, Iran (at least some time ago, now have different things to do), Turkmenistan ( Russian minority is really persecuted there, though Kremlin tries not too look too closely), more ?


China - read the first of the two links I presented in the last post.
If it's too much trouble here is a part about china:

The following developments in the last year or so, point to the above:

Russia-China strategic partnership stands greatly intensified. With the border dispute agreement in place, both nations have available military resources so relieved for other tasks.

Russia and China conducted the first ever large scale joint military exercises in East Asia to which military observers from all over the world were invited, except from the United States.

Russia and China have coordinated their efforts to make the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation into more of a regional military bloc. This has given them confidence to demand that the United States sets a timetable for withdrawal of its military presence from Central Asian Republics.

Iran - well, things change.

I agree with you on Japan and Afghanistan (I am not familiar with situation in turkmenistan). But, Japan is a strong u.s. ally which is a big obstacle.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, if they can't fight the NATO, they can join it.
Maybe not under Putin, but we can only hope that this changes soon as well.:sweatdrop:

Regardless of President Putin, it is extremely unlikely that any Russian administration will seek to join either.

The Russian people still see themselves as both a military and economic superpower - or at worst, aspire to regain that status quickly. There is quite some justification for this view.

To join NATO would mean Russian military and foreign policy would be subordinated to that of the USA - which is de facto the leader of NATO - more even than just "first among equals". This was the reason France disassociated herself from direct involvement in the alliance - how much more so for Russia.

Russia sees the EU as a business opportunity for her immense natural resources, and sees no need to hamstring her choices by being an integral part of the Union. There are no advantages for her economic policy which are not currently available to her. Again, she would not want to be influenced in foreign policy by having to work with the Commission.

Russia will always be a significant world player on her own and most Russians would like that to continue. They are a proud people - still suffering from misplaced nationalism and the injured arrogance of an ex-imperial power, but rightly proud.

[cegorach]

Spokesman from oil company? His opinion is important politicaly just about as yours or mine...

Well... considering that the companies are state controlled and are used as a political tool it does.




China - read the first of the two links I presented in the last post.
If it's too much trouble here is a part about china:

The following developments in the last year or so, point to the above:

Russia-China strategic partnership stands greatly intensified. With the border dispute agreement in place, both nations have available military resources so relieved for other tasks.

Russia and China conducted the first ever large scale joint military exercises in East Asia to which military observers from all over the world were invited, except from the United States.

Russia and China have coordinated their efforts to make the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation into more of a regional military bloc. This has given them confidence to demand that the United States sets a timetable for withdrawal of its military presence from Central Asian Republics.

You are saying... Recent years mean something, but hostilities did happen and are still there.
Especially with those 'chinese phobia' in Russia about its far east terrains which see the influx of Chinese immigrants - for now it is 5 million making them the second ethnic group in that part of Russia.


Iran - well, things change.

I agree with you on Japan and Afghanistan (I am not familiar with situation in turkmenistan). But, Japan is a strong u.s. ally which is a big obstacle.

I have got a feeling you blame the USA or the NATO for everything... Or did the invasion in the 1980s and the case of Kuril Islands is what really made the difference ?





LAST MINUTE


Russian state railway decided to cancell the connection from St.Petersburg to Tallin. The decision wasn't based on economical factors because the connection was profitable ( expenses 856 th. roubles, final profit 467 th, roubles) and ironically the connection was used by the Russian minoritiy in Estonia as the primary consumer.

In other words they hit their own countrymen.:dizzy2:



Another thing.

Former chancellor of Germany Mr. Schroeder was supposed to meet Estonian PM.
The meeting was cancelled due to Mr.Schroeder's statement that Estonia offends the memory of those who fight fascism.
Considering that he is a friend of Mr. Putin (who is even the 'godfather' of Schroesder's adopted child) and works for Gazprom I doubt anyone will call him neutral...

Anyway the meeting was to discuss the change of the Baltic Pipe project.
Because Finland and Sweden have strong concerns about its impact in the ecology of the sea (chemical weaponry dumped during the 2nd WW lies on the bottom of this sea) the Russian-german project is in trouble.

The revised project puts the piepe on the territorial waters of Estonia.

Now do you think the Estonians will agree ?:beam:


Remember that Poland and all the Baltic states are opposing the project from the beginning.:egypt:

[Conradus]

In other words they hit their own countrymen.:dizzy2:


Since when are Estonians countrymen of Russians? :scholar:

I've got the feeling I'm watching a discussion betwee two biased persons. No offence please.

As to the statue question; being Belgian I find it hard to understand these things. National pride isn't something common in our country. If it was just a statue for Russian soldiers who gave their life fighting Nazi Germany, then it was wrong to remove it, why shouldn't it stand on the major square of the city? But considering the Soviet occupation of Estonia, things are sparked.

[Ice]

So what if Russia applies to join the NATO or the EU?

If Russia joined NATO, that would be the king of irony.