Should Russia seek apology for soviet war-crimes in germany
So keep up this good workKarman wrote: Russia is moving towards the integration with civilized world so I volens-nolens have to wash hands, learn not to pick the nose and got used to operate with fork and nife.
. It will be for your and our benefit .In contrast to you, I know nothing about some period of time when we weren't SlavsKarman wrote: Are you slavic again? I thought you were sarmats?
. Anyway, I meant some irony when I used words "slavic brothers" . Maybe we are brothers, but our slavic "family" is rather pathological I see you still hope for restitution of borders, but it is in contrast to your declared "moving towards the integration with civilized world". What world do you mean?Karman wrote: Anyway we do not have common borders but in Eastern Prussia only. But never mind. Any time.
I watched Enemy at the Gates. Not such a bad film IMHO though most of Russians say it is complete crap. You may be surprised but it is not the main source for me how the commissars dealt with the Read Army soldiers. Actually here you are not correct too. The words "soldier" and "officer" were forbidden in the Red Army till 1943. So the comissars who operated till 1942 could not deal with them. The warriors of the Red Army became soldiers in 1943 only when Stalin reintroduced many symbols and ranks of the Tsarist Russia.Panzermahn wrote: No official political officers position in Red Army does not mean it does not exist. And for your info, Uncle Iosif reintroduced the dual command back to the Red Army in 1944.
Of course the Red Army does not need any German interference in solving domestic Russikaya problems, i'm implying that the Red Army could be appreciative to the Germans to help them liquidate the commissars because every rank-and-file soldiers in the Red Army hated and despised the political commissars..
By the way, you should watch Enemy of the Gates..it gives you an idea how political commissars deal with Red Army soldiers
Those wh were grateful to Germans joined Wermaght and SS. Those who though that nobody could interfere in our domestic affairs fought against Germans.
I think that you are mistaking. The principle of the sole-command was introduced in 1942 and was never broken thereafter.
Karman, you are looking whole issue very onesided. I´ll try to answer fo some points.
1.
2.
3.
Estonian-Russian treaty from 12.01.1991 ( I have only estonian copy http://kala.mfa.ee/Zope/Vlepingud/info?lep_id=1172) says that citizenship issues will be dealt according with later treaties and domestic laws (article 4). Yes, the treaty says that all people who are living on the territories have the right to apply citizenship, but this free will come into force according to laws of Estonian Republic and Russian Federation. It works in both ways. For me, for example, it means, that I, who have born on former territory of Soviet Union have the right to apply for russian citizenship, but these are Russian laws, what say what exactly I have to do and what criterias to match.
Personally I think that this issue was not very important for Russia at this time, they had many other probems to deal with and just didn’t pay attention to this. For Estonia the position was much clearer, so it was all the time monitored, that steps and legislation taken during transition time are not going to damage the concept of restitution and sucession of the state.
4.
To get citizenship of Estonia you have to: a) know state language and b) you should have lived 5 years in Estonia. I woulnt say that these are strict conditions. And for former Soviet citizens they are even milder. For example all people under 15 get citizenship automatically - this was one agreement what was achived in further negotiations between Estonia and Russia (it is an example of citizenship questions, what were mentioned in that Estonian-Russian treaty of 1991 and what where meant to be considered later.)
5.
You are mentioning all the time Supreme Soviet (Council) of Estonia, but you are forgetting Estonian Congress (was elected 24.02.1990), exile government of Estonia (what gave up its authority in 12.07.1992), Constitutional Assembly (what was made of members of Estonian Congress and had to work out new consitution). All these bodies were important to fulfil concept of sucession and restitution of the state. Maybe in Russia it was not noticed or it seemed unimportant, but in Estonia this position was strictly held and watched, not to violate sucession.
Supreme Council´s legitimacy was under dispute for example only for the reason, that it included compulsory seats for Soviet military districts. Another example, elections of USSR People's Deputies in 1989 were largly boycotted it the claim that we do not have the right to elect occupying body.
So Estonia called all the time this process as transition process and tried not to violate the sucession concept.
6.
Btw, the question in referendum was formulated “Do you want restitution..”. Not coincidence.
7.
Just another small steps to held the position of restitution.
Finally I just want to say, that there are no violations of rights of russians in estonia. Just come here, look how they live, talk to them, how they feel, what they think. If you look at remigration of russians from 15 former soviet states back to Russia, you will see that there are only 3 states where from there is no remigration. I wonder who these 3 are.
1.
Karman wrote: What are Russians doing in Baltic States? They were born there.
1940 from total population of Estonia 90% were estonians, in 1945 97,2% and in 1989 60%. There have always been several minorities including russians in Estonia, but it is also clear that majority of russian population in 1989 were not born in there.Qvist wrote: Yes you are learning something new about anthropology actually. There have been Russian minorities in the baltic countries since the 18th century. However, there was also mass immigration of Russians in the postwar period, at least in Estonia and Latvia.
2.
Karman wrote: besides when in 1991 the management of Baltic states called people to vote against the Soviet Union they promised that all inhabitants of those Soviet Republics would become their citizens after they got independent.
That’s no true. I havent been able to find such promises.Karman wrote: During the propaganda campaigns for the independence the leades of Public Fronts of Baltic Republics pursuing for the support of the Russian population claimed that the citizenship will be granted to all who live on the territory of those states.
3.
Estonian-Russian treaty from 12.01.1991 ( I have only estonian copy http://kala.mfa.ee/Zope/Vlepingud/info?lep_id=1172) says that citizenship issues will be dealt according with later treaties and domestic laws (article 4). Yes, the treaty says that all people who are living on the territories have the right to apply citizenship, but this free will come into force according to laws of Estonian Republic and Russian Federation. It works in both ways. For me, for example, it means, that I, who have born on former territory of Soviet Union have the right to apply for russian citizenship, but these are Russian laws, what say what exactly I have to do and what criterias to match.
Personally I think that this issue was not very important for Russia at this time, they had many other probems to deal with and just didn’t pay attention to this. For Estonia the position was much clearer, so it was all the time monitored, that steps and legislation taken during transition time are not going to damage the concept of restitution and sucession of the state.
4.
To get citizenship of Estonia you have to: a) know state language and b) you should have lived 5 years in Estonia. I woulnt say that these are strict conditions. And for former Soviet citizens they are even milder. For example all people under 15 get citizenship automatically - this was one agreement what was achived in further negotiations between Estonia and Russia (it is an example of citizenship questions, what were mentioned in that Estonian-Russian treaty of 1991 and what where meant to be considered later.)
5.
You are mentioning all the time Supreme Soviet (Council) of Estonia, but you are forgetting Estonian Congress (was elected 24.02.1990), exile government of Estonia (what gave up its authority in 12.07.1992), Constitutional Assembly (what was made of members of Estonian Congress and had to work out new consitution). All these bodies were important to fulfil concept of sucession and restitution of the state. Maybe in Russia it was not noticed or it seemed unimportant, but in Estonia this position was strictly held and watched, not to violate sucession.
Supreme Council´s legitimacy was under dispute for example only for the reason, that it included compulsory seats for Soviet military districts. Another example, elections of USSR People's Deputies in 1989 were largly boycotted it the claim that we do not have the right to elect occupying body.
So Estonia called all the time this process as transition process and tried not to violate the sucession concept.
6.
That is definetly not true. Referendum what questioned about independence was held in 13.03.1991 and there is no way to know how exactly certain persons voted. Though we know that Estonian parties and political movements rallied for “yes” answer and Russian movements for “no” answer. From indirect data it has been estimated that 15-30% of Russians voted for “yes”.Karman wrote: More than 50% Russian who lived in Estonia voted for independence.
Btw, the question in referendum was formulated “Do you want restitution..”. Not coincidence.
7.
It was citizenship law of 1938, not new one. Supreme Soviet just stated that it is still in force. Btw, when new Constitution was taken in refrendum in 1992 then in its preambula it also started, that as “Constitution of Estonia in 1938…so on”Karman wrote: Even more, the Law of Citizenship entered into force on June 16, 1992 under the decree issued by the same Supreme Soviet.
Just another small steps to held the position of restitution.
Finally I just want to say, that there are no violations of rights of russians in estonia. Just come here, look how they live, talk to them, how they feel, what they think. If you look at remigration of russians from 15 former soviet states back to Russia, you will see that there are only 3 states where from there is no remigration. I wonder who these 3 are.
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Source is?Panzermahn wrote:
No official political officers position in Red Army does not mean it does not exist. And for your info, Uncle Iosif reintroduced the dual command back to the Red Army in 1944.
Source for every 'rank-and-file' soldier in the Red Army hating Commissars is?Of course the Red Army does not need any German interference in solving domestic Russikaya problems, i'm implying that the Red Army could be appreciative to the Germans to help them liquidate the commissars because every rank-and-file soldiers in the Red Army hated and despised the political commissars..
Ah, your source is a movie, one wonders why you post here at all.By the way, you should watch Enemy of the Gates..it gives you an idea how political commissars deal with Red Army soldiers
Last edited by Kunikov on 17 Mar 2005, 17:00, edited 1 time in total.
-
Steen Ammentorp
- Member
- Posts: 3269
- Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 13:48
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
A small correction! The word officer were banned until 1935 when the officers rank structure were reintroduced into the Red Army, although the title of general wasn't reintroduced until May 1940. Instead they used the ranks of kombrig, komdiv, komkor etc. Nevertheless there were a distinction between soldiers and officers in the Red Army.Karman wrote: The words "soldier" and "officer" were forbidden in the Red Army till 1943. So the comissars who operated till 1942 could not deal with them. The warriors of the Red Army became soldiers in 1943 only when Stalin reintroduced many symbols and ranks of the Tsarist Russia.
See: The Oxford Companion to the Second World War / ed. By I.C.B. Bear & M.R.D. Foot. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1995. p.1228-1229.
Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II
Last edited by Steen Ammentorp on 17 Mar 2005, 18:57, edited 1 time in total.
I am acquainted with the changes in demographic situation in Estonia. I actually know that the politics of the govt of the Russian Federation was not to support the Russian-speaking minorities in former parts of the Soviet Union to force them to migrate to Russia to improve the local demographic situation. I know that the Russians in Baltic states in-mass supported the independence of those states from the Soviet Union subject to better economic development of those States in comparison with other parts of USSR (btw mostly thanks to those "occupants" who spoiled the demographic situation in those republics because they came to work on huge industrial projects). It was actually stated in polls performed by German scholars late in 80.
I also know that today Estonia being financially supported by mostly Finland and Germany does not need those industrial projects and thus does not need the workers. I know that 80% of local private capitals were formed on transactions with Russia. I also know that the economics of Baltic States are mainly based on transit transactions from Russia and the processing of agricultural products (basically brought from Belorussia through Lithuania).
But I am not speaking about that. You insist that Estonia in 1991 was the country occupied by the Soviet Union. That is why the Constitution of the Estonian Republic that operating on the time of the Russian-Estonian Treaty of 1991 was not valid and the only valid constitution was the one adopted in 1938 i.e. before the occupation.
What was the starting point of the establishment of the Soviet Socialist Estonia? Its occupation by the Red Army in 1940. I agree. That was not free and independent. But was it free and independent in, lets us say in 1988 when the Supreme Soviet of Estonia accepted the Declaration of Sovereignity? De jure Estonia was free and independent. She could voluntarily leave the SU. What institution issued the Declaration of Independence? - Occupational Supreme Soviet elected on the basis of free and direct voting in Soviet Estonia.
So the very same occupational institution claimed that the legislation that was in the basis of its election was null and void and also reintroduced laws that infringed the electoral and other civil rights of a good part of people who participated in the election of that “occupational institution”.
On the other hand. What was the starting point of the pre-war Estonian Republic that one that issued the constitution of 1938? The occupation of the Bolshevik Estonia in 1918 by the German Army. The German occupational command organized the Provisional gvt. But nevertheless you pretend that the Republic of Estonia was independent and free in 1938. If She was why she was not in 1988? If it was because of the Soviet army troops then why do you call Estonia independent in 1992? The Soviet Army left the Estonian territory in 1994! So following your logic we can infer that the Estonian Republic was occupied till 1994 and all laws accepted till that time were accepted under occupation. I fail to understand then why the legislation of Estonia of 1988 is illegal but the legislation of Estonia in 1992 is legal if both times the country was under occupation.
I simply do not follow your logic.
I also know that today Estonia being financially supported by mostly Finland and Germany does not need those industrial projects and thus does not need the workers. I know that 80% of local private capitals were formed on transactions with Russia. I also know that the economics of Baltic States are mainly based on transit transactions from Russia and the processing of agricultural products (basically brought from Belorussia through Lithuania).
But I am not speaking about that. You insist that Estonia in 1991 was the country occupied by the Soviet Union. That is why the Constitution of the Estonian Republic that operating on the time of the Russian-Estonian Treaty of 1991 was not valid and the only valid constitution was the one adopted in 1938 i.e. before the occupation.
What was the starting point of the establishment of the Soviet Socialist Estonia? Its occupation by the Red Army in 1940. I agree. That was not free and independent. But was it free and independent in, lets us say in 1988 when the Supreme Soviet of Estonia accepted the Declaration of Sovereignity? De jure Estonia was free and independent. She could voluntarily leave the SU. What institution issued the Declaration of Independence? - Occupational Supreme Soviet elected on the basis of free and direct voting in Soviet Estonia.
So the very same occupational institution claimed that the legislation that was in the basis of its election was null and void and also reintroduced laws that infringed the electoral and other civil rights of a good part of people who participated in the election of that “occupational institution”.
On the other hand. What was the starting point of the pre-war Estonian Republic that one that issued the constitution of 1938? The occupation of the Bolshevik Estonia in 1918 by the German Army. The German occupational command organized the Provisional gvt. But nevertheless you pretend that the Republic of Estonia was independent and free in 1938. If She was why she was not in 1988? If it was because of the Soviet army troops then why do you call Estonia independent in 1992? The Soviet Army left the Estonian territory in 1994! So following your logic we can infer that the Estonian Republic was occupied till 1994 and all laws accepted till that time were accepted under occupation. I fail to understand then why the legislation of Estonia of 1988 is illegal but the legislation of Estonia in 1992 is legal if both times the country was under occupation.
I simply do not follow your logic.
Was the exile govt of Estonia recognized by any gvt in the world?HK wrote:
You are mentioning all the time Supreme Soviet (Council) of Estonia, but you are forgetting Estonian Congress (was elected 24.02.1990), exile government of Estonia (what gave up its authority in 12.07.1992), Constitutional Assembly (what was made of members of Estonian Congress and had to work out new consitution). All these bodies were important to fulfil concept of sucession and restitution of the state. Maybe in Russia it was not noticed or it seemed unimportant, but in Estonia this position was strictly held and watched, not to violate sucession.
The Estonian Congress and Constitutional Assembly were organized and acted under the same occupational legislation but had no political (not public) importance. The Supreme Soviet was the supreme managing institution on Soviet Estonia. It issued the Declaration of Independence, it accepted the Law of Citizenship and it appointed executive power.
Karman:
Just add here, that Estonian independence was declared on 24th February 1918 that is a day or so before Estonia was occupied by the Germans. Bolsheviks had nothing to do with the independence declaration. The Provisional government was not organized by Germans no matter what your local newspaper may say about it.The occupation of the Bolshevik Estonia in 1918 by the German Army. The German occupational command organized the Provisional gvt.
Before February 24, 1918 Estonia was independent? Nope. It was a part of Russia.. What govt was in power in Russia? Bolshevik gvt. When the bolshevik gvt lost its power over Estonian territory and why? The bolshevik gvt in Estonia lost its power on that territory because the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty was signed on Februaty 18, 1918. According to that Treaty the Russian lands (including the territory of Estonia) were occupied by Germans. in this connection since February 18, 1918 there were no power in Estonia till February 24, 1918. Can I presume that when the Estonian leaders announced the independence of the country on that very day they perfectly understood that the very next day it will be occupied by Germans in accordance with Brest-Litovsk Treaty.Reigo wrote:Karman:Just add here, that Estonian independence was declared on 24th February 1918 that is a day or so before Estonia was occupied by the Germans. Bolsheviks had nothing to do with the independence declaration. The Provisional government was not organized by Germans no matter what your local newspaper may say about it.The occupation of the Bolshevik Estonia in 1918 by the German Army. The German occupational command organized the Provisional gvt.
Can I say as I said before that the starting point for Estonian independence was the German occupation if the German occupation was legitimated on February 18, 1918 and the Estonian Independence was announced on February 24, 1918? Furthermore the Estonians who announced the independance did not mean to oppose the German occupation but to welcome it.
That said, the German occupation in Estonia was over in November 1918. When the German occupational command was leaving the Estonian territory (to be more exact the territory of the Russian Empire on which the Estonian independence was proclaimed) they passed the power in the Republic to the already formed Provisional Gvt of Piats. The Provisional Gvt was formed when the German occupational regime was still in force in Estonia. Am I right? So I said that Germans as the sovereign supreme governor of that territory in accordance with the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty formed the Estonain Provisional Gvt. With their action they also authorized that gvt to operate the country.
Does it somehow correspond with what is written in your local newspapers?
Brest-Litovsk treaty was signed on 3rd March. Before you come to teach Estonians about their history, learn a bit of your own history.Before February 24, 1918 Estonia was independent? Nope. It was a part of Russia.. What govt was in power in Russia? Bolshevik gvt. When the bolshevik gvt lost its power over Estonian territory and why? The bolshevik gvt in Estonia lost its power on that territory because the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty was signed on Februaty 18, 1918. According to that Treaty the Russian lands (including the territory of Estonia) were occupied by Germans. in this connection since February 18, 1918 there were no power in Estonia till February 24, 1918. Can I presume that when the Estonian leaders announced the independence of the country on that very day they perfectly understood that the very next day it will be occupied by Germans in accordance with Brest-Litovsk Treaty.
No. The government was formed on 24th February and continued work in November when the Germans left.The Provisional Gvt was formed when the German occupational regime was still in force in Estonia. Am I right?
The arrogance of the ignorant?Does it somehow correspond with what is written in your local newspapers?
Last edited by Reigo on 17 Mar 2005, 19:22, edited 2 times in total.
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Reigo -- Drop the hostile tone and personal remarks. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962