Estonia's Decision to Remove Soviet WWII Monument Sparks Protest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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?

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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:

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

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

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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:

Quote:

---

@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

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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, 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?

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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".

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

And??????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

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

---

Which russian spokesman?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

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