Could the Baltic States have resisted to the Soviet Union?

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
Alex Yeliseenko
Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: 25 Jan 2006 15:40
Location: RUSSIA

Post by Alex Yeliseenko » 29 Oct 2006 12:48

Reigo wrote:
In Estonia - in the end of 1945
If you mean that in Estonia the resistance ended in the end of 1945, then you are wrong. For example the largest military resistance organisation in Estonia, "Relvastatud Võitluse Liit" (The Alliance of Armed Fight) acted 1945-1949. After the mass deportation of 1949 the resistance started to decrease. Last more large armed clashes were in 1953.

I used the information from book M.U.Krysin. " Baltic between Stalin and Hitler " ("Прибалтика между Сталиным и Гитлером"). ISBN 5-9533-0154-5. Moscow. Veche. 2004. Page 255.

Reigo
Member
Posts: 671
Joined: 04 Jun 2002 10:20
Location: Estonia

Post by Reigo » 29 Oct 2006 12:56

I have read this book. The author is very biased and I personally consider it propaganda-literature.

User avatar
Alex Yeliseenko
Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: 25 Jan 2006 15:40
Location: RUSSIA

Post by Alex Yeliseenko » 29 Oct 2006 13:10

Reigo wrote:I have read this book. The author is very biased and I personally consider it propaganda-literature.
With such logic it is possible to consider as propaganda-literature any book published in the Baltics.

Reigo
Member
Posts: 671
Joined: 04 Jun 2002 10:20
Location: Estonia

Post by Reigo » 29 Oct 2006 13:24

With such logic it is possible to consider as propaganda-literature any book published in the Baltics.
This claim is illogical because a) I claimed that this specific book is propaganda and I didn't claim that all books published in Russia are propaganda
b) I have read the book under question but you haven't read all the books published in the Baltics.
c) Besides I am a historian specialized in the Estonian history and therefore I am able to evaluate the claims in Krysin's book rather easily. On the other hand your only knowledge about Estonian history for example is what Krysins and other such propagandists tell you. This is another reason why you are not able to evaluate whether every book published in Baltics is propaganda or not.

In conclusion I think you should better stick with the AFVs and not to pretend to be some kind of lighthouse in the matters of Baltic history.

User avatar
Alex Yeliseenko
Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: 25 Jan 2006 15:40
Location: RUSSIA

Post by Alex Yeliseenko » 29 Oct 2006 14:09

Reigo wrote:
With such logic it is possible to consider as propaganda-literature any book published in the Baltics.
This claim is illogical because a) I claimed that this specific book is propganda and I didn't claim that all books published in Russia are propganda
b) I have read the book under question but you haven't read all the books published in the Baltics.
c) Besides I am a historian specialized in the Estonian history and therefore I am able to evaluate the claims in Krysin's book rather easily. On the other hand your only knowledge about Estonian history for example is what Krysins and other such propagandists tell you. This is another reason why you are not able to evaluate whether every book published in Baltics is propganda or not.

In conclusion I think you should better stick with the AFVs and not to pretend to be some kind of lighthouse in the matters of Baltic history.

I did not read all the books published in Baltic. You did not read all the books published in Russia.

If the book is not pleasant to you, it does not mean, that it propagation.

If you the historian, you should use the term "propaganda" less. In Russia there is no propaganda in the historical literature. I know it well. My friends publish tens books on military history.

I can be participate in affairs of the Baltic history while in my passport there is an inscription "Narva".




-

Reigo
Member
Posts: 671
Joined: 04 Jun 2002 10:20
Location: Estonia

Post by Reigo » 29 Oct 2006 14:56

I did not read all the books published in Baltic. You did not read all the books published in Russia.
I am glad you understand it.
If the book is not pleasant to you, it does not mean, that it propagation.
You are correct. But my evaluation is not based simply on "liking".
If you the historian, you should use the term "propaganda" less.


I use the term whenever I find it suitable.
In Russia there is no propaganda in the historical literature. I know it well. My friends publish tens books on military history.
If one considers "historical literature" to be something which is based on the methodology of history writing and which author has tried to be objective, then I guess it is correct that in Russia (or in any other place) "historical literature" does not contain propaganda. But in this case Krysin's book is not "historical literature". But if one considers "historical literature" to be something which is simply dealing with the matters of history, then to be sure that it may not contain propaganda, is of course rather dumb. No matter if it is published even in Russia and that your friends publish tens of books on military history.
I can be participate in affairs of the Baltic history while in my passport there is an inscription "Narva".
Well then you are a perfect example that the inscription "Narva" in somebodys passport and the knowledge about the Baltic history are not in a definite connection.

User avatar
Alex Yeliseenko
Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: 25 Jan 2006 15:40
Location: RUSSIA

Post by Alex Yeliseenko » 29 Oct 2006 15:11

- In Russia there are different points of view on a situation in the Baltic countries in 1940-1950-х years. Whether there is it in the Baltics? If historians operate within the limits of official ideology, it forces to think of their dependence on authority.

Reigo
Member
Posts: 671
Joined: 04 Jun 2002 10:20
Location: Estonia

Post by Reigo » 29 Oct 2006 15:48

- In Russia there are different points of view on a situation in the Baltic countries in 1940-1950-х years. Whether there is it in the Baltics?
In Estonia you can have in this question any viewpoint and you can express it (freedom of speech). Newspapers sometimes even like to publish provocative articles (I remeber lately a historian called Teet Veispak argued in an article that it is ok to call the Soviet capture of Tallinn in 1944 as "liberation"). Of course higher officials (they are usually politicians) have their viewpoint and they also may express it. Similarily there are in Russia officials' viewpoints on history (for example Putin's). This however doesn't mean that one can't express a viewpoint which is not similar with the officials' viewpoint. At least in Estonia it is so.
If historians operate within the limits of official ideology, it forces to think of their dependence on authority.
Well, this is not the case in Estonia. There is no official control on historians' work and this has been pointed out by many historians who are pleased with such situation. Historians are completely free to act within the limits of their intellectual capabilities. Of course in Estonia too there are authors who by some reason are not objective or make dumb mistakes. So Estonian "Krysins" exist too.

I of course understand what upsets you most and I must admit that it is indeed true that there is not much support for the stalinist-russian-chauvinist viewpoint amongst Estonian historians. But this is natural, since when compared to the representatives of stalinist viewpoint, the Estonian historians usually have a lot more knowledge concerning Estonian history. Besides they aren't stalinists.

User avatar
Alex Yeliseenko
Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: 25 Jan 2006 15:40
Location: RUSSIA

Post by Alex Yeliseenko » 29 Oct 2006 16:17

Independent sight at history - a basis of progress in studying of " white spots ". The ideology should leave on the second plan.

Book Krysin is not reflection of an official position of the Russian authorities. Also as well as my clauses in the Russian books. In Russia there are tens points of view on history of the Baltic region. I agree from one of them. It is my point of view. I impose it to nobody.

I am glad, that in Estonia there are historians who look at history not only through a prism of official propaganda.

User avatar
historynut
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 08 Dec 2005 20:59
Location: Sweden

Post by historynut » 30 Oct 2006 12:46

Alex Yeliseenko

While Narva is a part of Estonia I would still say that visiting Narva is more like seeing Russian in Estonia. The rest of the country is quite different from Narva, excluding a part of nort eastern Estonia.

Reigo
I have only read a few Estonian texts, but in the ones i have read I see clear anti Russian/ anti Soviet propaganda in all of them.
In fact Every historical text that mentions the post war period is clearly anti Russian.

User avatar
Alex Yeliseenko
Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: 25 Jan 2006 15:40
Location: RUSSIA

Post by Alex Yeliseenko » 30 Oct 2006 14:18

historynut wrote:Alex Yeliseenko

While Narva is a part of Estonia I would still say that visiting Narva is more like seeing Russian in Estonia. The rest of the country is quite different from Narva, excluding a part of nort eastern Estonia.

Reigo
I have only read a few Estonian texts, but in the ones i have read I see clear anti Russian/ anti Soviet propaganda in all of them.
In fact Every historical text that mentions the post war period is clearly anti Russian.

I was not on the Native land very much for a long time. I remember Narva working city. And certainly Russian (on the population) city, the basic population - those who speaks it in Russian. We in Siberia have Estonian villages. There the most good Estonian language. I know, for example, mayor of one of territories. It speaks on good Estonian. To it nobody prevents it to do.

Yes, the Estonian texts contain ideology. But as has told Reigo - in Estonia there are historians which try to write history fairly. It is good.

Regards.

Alex.

User avatar
Martime
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 31 Dec 2005 16:12
Location: mostly Latvia

Post by Martime » 30 Oct 2006 23:15

historynut
it would be nice of u to name those texts. and i would say there is no need to deal with any anti ru/su "propaganda" for historians in Baltics - its enough just to hear that my grandparents say about things they have seen and experienced:)

Regards.
Martins

Reigo
Member
Posts: 671
Joined: 04 Jun 2002 10:20
Location: Estonia

Post by Reigo » 31 Oct 2006 14:33

historynut:
Reigo
I have only read a few Estonian texts, but in the ones i have read I see clear anti Russian/ anti Soviet propaganda in all of them.
Maybe. But maybe you consider propaganda something you just don't like. :P
In fact Every historical text that mentions the post war period is clearly anti Russian.
I don't believe it.

User avatar
Alex Yeliseenko
Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: 25 Jan 2006 15:40
Location: RUSSIA

Post by Alex Yeliseenko » 04 Nov 2006 08:29

I wish to receive the answer from our Baltic friends: It too Russian propanda?

http://europeliberty.com/userdata/Estonia.pdf

Reigo
Member
Posts: 671
Joined: 04 Jun 2002 10:20
Location: Estonia

Post by Reigo » 04 Nov 2006 14:09

I wish to receive the answer from our Baltic friends: It too Russian propanda?

http://europeliberty.com/userdata/Estonia.pdf
Yes it too, because the publication itself is a part of propaganda war, which everyone can read from the introduction on the very first page.

It is not a serious attempt to research historical events, but instead a collection of documents which are picked to prove some point. By this there is a complete lack of source criticism: there is no attempt to research if the information in the documents is true or not. So the whole nature of this publication is propagandistic no matter that the information in it surely contains also much truth.

A serious attempt to reserach these events is something like this:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=97535

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”