Should Russia seek apology for soviet war-crimes in germany

[HK]

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).

Very debatable.

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 just checked, in 2004 Estonia state budget and there is no foreign aid, not even loans, we get our money from taxes. I think it was in 1997 when Estonian gvrment took foreign loan for last time (but I have to check the year). Private investments are of course important, mostly from Sweden and Finland (not Germany). It is normal economic process, what works everywhere. And btw most of these industries are reorganized and working finely.

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).

Estonian Statistic Office yearbook 2004 says that agriculture makes 2.6% of Gross Domestic Product and transit+related industries about 10-12% of GDP. I do not know about other Baltic states, but in Estonias case your info is wrong.

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.

Declaration of Sovreignty from 16.11.1988 didn’t deal with independence at all. It was just dispute with USSR´s Supreme Soviet and it continued in 1989 USSR´ s Supreme Soviet Congress, then already in a larger context. In 1988-1989 on governement and supreme soviet levels there was no talk about idependent states, though some political movements already started to mention it.

The occupation of the Bolshevik Estonia in 1918 by the German Army. The German occupational command organized the Provisional gvt.

There was no Bolshevik Estonia, bolsheviks actually never controlled Estonia. There was very few russian military at all in Estonia at this time and later they supported whites. And Estonian government was not organized by germans.

If it was because of the Soviet army troops then why do you call Estonia independent in 1992?

Troops itself doesn’t matter, you are not saying that Korea is occupied only because there are US militarybases.

Was the exile govt of Estonia recognized by any gvt in the world?
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.

Estonian republic was recognized de jure all the time by major powers, for example in USA in State secretary buildings Estonian blue-black-white flag was always present amongst all others, not far away from USSRS flag btw. Exile gvrment was of course symbolic body, what did not execute power, but it was recognized in Estonia and by Supreme Soviet. Estonian Congress on other hand had very important political and public influence. The work between Congress and Supreme Soviet was coordinated all the time, it was easy cause lot of people were members of both of them. When declaration of Independence was issued, then Congress gave the mandate for Supreme Soviet to do so and avoid any legislative disputes.

Before February 24, 1918 Estonia was independent? Nope. It was a
part of Russia.. What govt was in power in Russia? Bolshevik gvt.

Yes, before 24.02.1918 Estonia was the part of Russia, but not Bolshevik, it was Russian Empire. Bolsheviks were unrecognized rebels, so legally is correct to say that Estonia break out from Russian Empire. And as stated before bolsheviks did not have de facto control over Estonia anyway.

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.

Yes they understood. So to speak, their attitude was, that we should use that timeframe in history to start with our own state. Constitutional process (if that is the correct term) started already in 1917, when local Landcouncil( where estonians had majority) stated that they have legislative power over that territory.

So when the group of
Estonians proclaimed the independence did they mean to stop the German
occupation with the holy word? Or did they know that Estonia would be
occupied by Germans? Did the Estonian armed forces fought against Germand
or did they support the occupation?
So you mean the gvt was totally formed on February 24, 1918 or that its
presence was just announced? You mean that the same pesonalities (without
any additions and alterations) survived till November 1918? So what did
they do all that time? I mean the gvt? So the gvt was appointed in February
24, 1918 and then it ..... what? migrated? fought against the occupation?
called the people not to follow the orders of Germany? Till the very November
1918? And then.

You know very well how new states are formed, at first by word, then by force, until others recognize it. It is not much different in Estonia than it was in Russia. At first was word (Declaration of Independence 24.02.1918), then force (Independence War 1918-1920), then recogniztion by others (for instance with Russia Tartu Peace Treaty in 02.02.1920).
From German point of view those men who announced declaration in 24.02.1918 were rebels and from Estonian point of view they were occupiers. And Estonia fought both with reds and with germans. Though not with German state, but with those germans and military who remained here after 1918 autumn – their agenda was to form some kind of a local Baltic state over territory of Estonia and Latvia. I do not remember without books how they named that state. Anyway, Victory Day of Estonian Republic is 23.06 and it doesn’t commemorate the victory over reds, but victory over Landeswehr (that’s how these germans named their army). So, the situation was more complicated.


But, to bring it back to the topic:” Should Russia seek…” Then my position is neutral, it is okey if they do, but nothing changes if they don’t. It is totally up to them.

[Kunikov]

My sources are the two books by ANtony Beevor, namely the brilliantly written STalingrad and Berlin: The Downfall

No they aren't, quote them.

In Berlin the Downfall: It was stated by the author that most of the Red Army soldiers or what you called "frontoviki" hated the political commissars..

Page? Quote? Why exactly do you lie?

Zhukov also hated Konev because Konev entered the Red Army as a political commissar and not a regular private like Zhukov...

Once more, quote your source.

[Karman]

Very debatable.

I simply failed to express myself. You said that before the Declaration of Independence Estonia was annexed by the Soviet Union. But the Soviet Union de jure was the union of free and independent states whch joined but formally maintained free and independent. So I mean that all Russians who came to Estonia after 1940 cannot be called occupants.
You say that it was annexed in 1940. I agree but I insist that after entering the Union Agreement with the Soviet Union and after taking the Constitution of Estonian Soviet Republic it became free and independent.
I did not say the Declaration of Sovereignity had any thing to do with the “independence” i.e. with the reinstitution of the pre-soviet gvt. But how you can explain that the occupational institution accepts such a Declaration in an occupied country. I mean that it was not occupied. Estonia was independent already so all measures to turn a good part of her citizens to apatrides were illegal.
You say that the presence of Soviet army troops in Estonia did not mean the continuous occupation (they stayed there until 1994) so what is important then? Do not forget that the presence of the Red army in Estonia in 1940 was legal and subject to Soviet-Estonian agreements. Actually the Soviet army was there before.
So what is your definition of continuous occupation?
You say that there was no Bolshevik Estonia. How comes if the Executive Committee of of Soviets of Estonia together with Provisional Revolutionary Committee proclaimed the establishment of Soviet Power in Estonia in 1917 I guess?
You can say that it was illegitimate. But the question is how legitimate was the Landcouncil? It was as illegitimate as the Bolshevik power of Viktor Kinguisepp.
The fact that the Estonian republic was recognized de jure by major powers does not mean anything in terms of its legitimacy. Vise versa the fact that the Estonian national flag has been always presented in the State Secretary office proves my point that major powers recognized the legitimacy of Soviet Estonia though they did not like the color of their gvt. Do not forget that in 1975 in Helsinki all major powers recognized the indissolubility of world frontiers. That meant though conditional but recognition of legitimacy of the Soviet Union and its Republics.
On the other hand what was the legislative basis of establishment of Estonian Congress on the territory of the “occupied” Estonia?
You say that Estonia was the part of Russian Empire before February 24, 1918 and thereafter it became independent. In these terms Estonia has never been independent at all. The story with the abdication of the last Russian Tsar Nikolai is the legal dead end. The abdication matter was not worked out in the Code of General Laws of Russian Empire of 1906 which is called the first constitution of Russian Empire. So we just forget about that and move forward. Nikolai could not abdicate on behalf of his son Alexei. Forget about that. Mikhail abdicated in favor of the Constituent Assembly. That is the only one institution that could be legitimate on the territory of the Russian Empire. As there is no legal successor of the Russian Empire all the establishments on Her territory are illegitimate from this point of view in the event that this legal successor ever appeared. So Bolsheviks were as illegitimate as the Provisional gvt, as well as Russian Federation and Estonian Republic.

From your explanations I did not understand why you find the Estonian gvt of 1918 to be legal but the Estonian gvt of 1940 to be illegal if both times the establishment of those gvts was connected with foreign occupation (even if it happened the other day). You say that they meant to lay the basis and then when the occupation is over ….. Do you know what the Soviet Estonian leaders had in mind? What they meant?

I cannot accept your reference to the Soviet-Estonian war of 1918-1920 as the war for Estonian independence. A couple of day after Estonia officially ceased to be occupied by Germany the establishment of the Soviet Estonian Republic was announced. You can say that it was a “puppet Bolshevik creature". But this is not true. Estonians, Russians, Germans and then British supported the Estonian Republic on one hand and Estonians, Russians were for the other side.

[Karman]

When they proclaimed independence they also meant independence not some German puppet state. Simple. It was considered that the power vacuum (no Bolsheviks and no Germans) is the best time to do it. That the German occupation would come was clear. The armed forces did not fight against the Germans since it was clear for everybody that it's futile.

Yes it was formed, the ministers were appointed.

The government was not recognized by the Germans. The head of the government (Päts) was put into prison camp. In reality the government did not work during the occupation. Vast majority of the Estonian nationalist politicians did not cooperate with the Germans. There were negotiations but German plans were not acceptable. In November 1918 after the German revolution the Estonian politicians made proposal to the Germans that the government would start work again. The Germans agreed, since for them it seemed the least bad option amongst the all available bad options. The November government had some alterations but the government is de jure considered the same one which was formed on 24th February.

The Germans did this dirty work for themselves not for government Päts. In Tallinn (this is how the Estonian capital is called) revolted Bolsheviks but this was a small attempt. There was also food mutiny (protests against the lack of food) in Tallinn and the German command was nervous. Estonian politicians said that if the Provisional government is allowed in power again then the situation may become more peaceful. The German command agreed.

As always, you need correction. The power in Estonia was officially passed to the government on 19th November with the treaty of Riga. The government started in November indeed to act under the occupation but it was not organized by Germans. But actually the government started to act on 24th February.

Very interesting. Thank you
So they proclaimed the independence and appointed the gvt which automatically became legal. They defifnitely were not a puppet-state. Though the gvt did not operate and they ordered the armed troops not to fight with Germans because fighting did not make any sense.
Also revolts of population, sorry, continious revolts of a fistful of soviet spies were successfully suppressed by Germans and Russians (the Whites). They were not collaborationists though had continuous negotiations with Germans and asked Germans share the power with them. Finally they got the power in the Republic because Germans decided to give the power to them. You say that Germans found them to be a lesser evel than bolsheviks. So they were a lesser evel for Germans? I see. And what about Estonians? What did they think of that German decision? I believe that they totally supported it. Are there any records? Except a fistful of bolsheviks.
Then subject to some external influence the German occupants left the independent country and friendly foreign armed forces came. They were friendly and defifnitly were not occupants (although I strictly doubt that the British navy and marines ever asked for the Estonian permission to land in Estonia). Than the friendly foreign armed forces helped the legal public gvt to suppress some more revolts of a fistful of bolshevik spies.

So you gave us the true story of how a country becomes independent. I see.
I simply fail to understabnd what is the difference of that story and the story of 1940?

What is the definition of "good guys" and "bad guys"?

For me it is interesting that a person, who hasn't got actually much clue about what he is talking, can be so ... self-confident.

[HK]

I did not say the Declaration of Sovereignity had any thing to do with the “independence” i.e. with the reinstitution of the pre-soviet gvt. But how toy can explain that the occupational institution accepts such a Declaration in an occupied country. I mean that it was not occupied.

USSR Supreme Soviet did not accept this, they declared it is illegal.
But I do not want to continue with this discussion about occupation and restitution and succession. It only leaves us into endless disputes, where different sided are intrepreting things differently. What matters is that Estonian Republic executes its power under these principles and these principles are recognized by others aswell. During 1940-1991 all major powers US, GreatBritain, France etc acted in the way:" De jure Estonian republic still exists, de facto it is not able to execute its power on its territory." I do know only one foreign state (Sweden) who reckognized occupation and claimed that USSR has de jure right to govern that state.
As practical point of view in 1991 when independence was restituted Estonia took over its rights and duties, what he wasnt able to carry during occupation time: membership of international bodies, international treaties, its property was returned or compensated (for example embassy buildings, deposits and gold in british banks). And it worked other way aswell - Estonia returned or compensated the property and deposits of foreign citizens, including russian citizens. It was very hard burden after soviet economy collapsed, but thats was the price to pay.
But as I said I do not want to continue anyway. The matter of citizenship was only one side of this issue and if Estonia would have wanted, it could have give citizenship to all its inhabitants automatically and same time keep that restitution-succession concept. These things are not necessarily related.

Mikhail abdicated in favor of the Constituent Assembly. That is the only one
institution that could be legitimate on the territory of the Russian Empire.
As there is no legal successor of the Russian Empire all the establishments
on Her territory are illegitimate from this point of view. So Bolsheviks were
as illegitimate as the Provisional gvt

I am not very aware of legal issues about ending of Russian Empire. But this Landcouncil what I named in my previous post was local goverment organ created by Russia. In 12.04.1917 Russian goverment assigned a law about Estonian local goverment. According to this law 5.06.1917 Landcouncil was elected. That Landcouncil discussed foreign politics first time in 07.08.1917 when german forces have taken Riga. In 31.12.1917 that landcouncil decided that Independence of Estonia should be declared ASAP. In 19.02.1918 Landcouncil formed Estonian Salvation Committe and in 24.02.1918 this Committe declared idependence of Estonia.
So actually this process started under Russian laws. But I agree that for all other parties it was illegal, actually everybody, reds,whites etc were illegal. The question how the legitimacy of the Russian Empire was carried was open.
But in reality things go in this way, first word, then force, then recogniztion. So everything what happened became legal afterwards, from Russias point of view with Peace treaty 02.02.1920 when both parties accepted each other.

I cannot accept your reference to the Soviet-Estonian war of 1918-1920 as
the war for Estonian independence. A couple of day after Estonia officially
ceased to be occupied by Germany the establishment of the Soviet Estonian
Republic was announced. You can say that it was a “puppet Bolshevik creature).
But this is not true. Estonians, Russians, Germans and then British supported
the Estonian Republic on one hand and Estonians, Russians on the other hand.

That picture is not correct. If you look at battelfield of this war (territory of Estonia, NothernLatvia and NWRussia, then Estonians, Russians, Germans, Latvians and Finns were on one side and Russians, Germans, Latvians on another side. There were only about couple of thousand estonians in red army, so you cannot picture this war as estonian civil war, as for example in Finldand between finnish whites and reds.


But again, it seems that discussion goes verymuch offtopic.

[David Thompson]

Two posts from Karman which contained personal and national insults were deleted by this moderator, along with a reply post from HK which was no longer necessary once the provocations were deleted.

Karman -- I have already warned you about insulting posts. I don't intend to warn you again. One of two things is going to happen. Either you will learn how to participate in civilized discussions or you will be banned. Henceforth I will delete, without warning, any of your posts here which fail to comply with the section rules posted at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

Be civil or be gone.

[Karman]

Two posts from Karman which contained personal and national insults were deleted by this moderator, along with a reply post from HK which was no longer necessary once the provocations were deleted.

Karman -- I have already warned you about insulting posts. I don't intend to warn you again. One of two things is going to happen. Either you will learn how to participate in civilized discussions or you will be banned. Henceforth I will delete, without warning, any of your posts here which fail to comply with the section rules posted at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

Be civil or be gone.

Roma lacuta - causa finita.

[Reigo]

Karman:

So they proclaimed the independence and appointed the gvt which automatically became legal. They defifnitely were not a puppet-state. Though the gvt did not operate and they ordered the armed troops not to fight with Germans because fighting did not make any sense.

Congratulations, you hit the head of the nail.

Also revolts of population, sorry, continious revolts of a fistful of soviet spies were successfully suppressed by Germans and Russians (the Whites).

Interesting, who were these mysterious Russian White heroes, who saved the inferior almost-Bolsehvik Chuds from Bolsehvism?

They were not collaborationists though had continuous negotiations with Germans and asked Germans share the power with them.

"Continuous" negotiations? What Russian newspaper discovered this?
They were not collaborationists since for them the interests of Estonians were on the first place. Therefore they did not cooperate with the Germans.

Finally they got the power in the Republic because Germans decided to give the power to them. You say that Germans found them to be a lesser evel than bolsheviks. So they were a lesser evel for Germans?

They indeed considered Estonian nationalists better than Bolsheviks, but the attitude of different German commanders and officials varied. This resulted that instead of giving the Estonian army weapons, it was usually decided to destroy or break them (the weapons which the Germans had taken as booty in February 1918 and the weapons which were takne away from the Estonian nationalist troops after that). However there were also German military (especially in Northern-Estonia) who decided to give some support.

I see. And what about Estonians? What did they think of that German decision? I believe that they totally supported it. Are there any records? Except a fistful of bolsheviks

There were different Estonians. Pro-Bolshevik, nationalists and those who couldn't make up their mind.

Then subject to some external influence the German occupants left the independent country and friendly foreign armed forces came. They were friendly and defifnitly were not occupants (although I strictly doubt that the British navy and marines ever asked for the Estonian permission to land in Estonia).

Well they didn't have to ask because they were waited and invited.

Than the friendly foreign armed forces helped the legal public gvt to suppress some more revolts of a fistful of bolshevik spies.

The British armed forces did not participate in such business.

So you gave us the true story of how a country becomes independent. I see.
I simply fail to understabnd what is the difference of that story and the story of 1940?

The difference is simple. The Estonian nationalist forces in 1918-20 acted according to the interests of the Estonian nation and her independent state. If Estonia would have fallen to the Bolsheviks then the ugly future of the country can be only imagined.
The Bolshevik forces in 1940 did not act according to Estonain national interests but according to aggressive Soviet plans. True, there were some idealistic Bolshevik Estonians, but they were mere puppets.

[Karman]

"Continuous" negotiations? What Russian newspaper discovered this?
They were not collaborationists since for them the interests of Estonians were on the first place. Therefore they did not cooperate with the Germans.

They indeed considered Estonian nationalists better than Bolsheviks, but the attitude of different German commanders and officials varied. This resulted that instead of giving the Estonian army weapons, it was usually decided to destroy or break them. However there were also German military (especially in Northern-Estonia) who decided to give some support.

There were different Estonians. Pro-Bolshevik, nationalists and those who couldn't make up their mind.

Then subject to some external influence the German occupants left the independent country and friendly foreign armed forces came. They were friendly and defifnitly were not occupants (although I strictly doubt that the British navy and marines ever asked for the Estonian permission to land in Estonia).

Well they didn't have to ask because they were waited and invited.

The British armed forces did not participate in such business.

The difference is simple. The Estonian nationalist forces in 1918-20 acted according to the interests of the Estonian nation and her independent state. If Estonia would have fallen to the Bolsheviks then the ugly future of the country can be only imagined.
The Bolshevik forces in 1940 did not act according to Estonain national interests but according to aggressive Soviet plans. True, there were some idealistic Bolshevik Estonians, but they were mere puppets.

Very interesting. To summarize: the intentions of Estonian nationalist forces were to fight for the interests of Estonian people and the intentions of Estonian bolsheviks were to fight for the interests of aggressive Soviets plans.

And you sure can prove it.

According to I. Pykhalov the French investigation reported in 1939 that the Estonian leadership and especially General Landoyner were financed by Germany. In the same 1939 the Estonian armed forces after the request of German Ambassador tried to arrest Polish submarine in Estonia. Did not they mean to support aggressive German plans?

Do you mean that the military coup performed by Piats and Landoyner on March 12, 1934 was for the benefit of Estonian people? Do you mean that the political regime establised after the coup met the interests and intentions of Estonian people? And this is that what was reinstituted after 1991?

BTW. I am sure you know that there were Russian White troops that were subjected to Estonian gvt during the Soviet-Estonian war. The British marines helped to suppress the revolt in Tallinn.

For you to know that "Chud" is a mythological people of giants in the Norther-Russian folklore and have nothing to do with Estonians. Though I like that you introduced them in your text.

You also said that British troops were invited to Estonia. When? By whom?

[Reigo]

Very interesting. To summarize: the intentions of Estonian nationalist forces were to fight for the interests of Estonian people and the intentions of Estonian bolsheviks were to fight for the interests of aggressive Soviets plans.

Basically yes. The Estonian Bolsheviks of course included people who thought that they are doing the good thing, but today we can say that their (and their masters' - that is Moscow's) victory in 1918-20 would have resulted for Estonia great misery. The Estonian Republic 1918-1940 was the best option for Estonians amongst the all available options. Yes the Estonian government depended very much on Entente's support during the War of Liberation, but it was still an independent country. Besides Entente wasn't a threat to the Estonian state.

According to I. Pykhalov the French investigation reported in 1939 that the Estonian leadership and especially General Landoyner were financed by German.

a) I. Pykhalov? Well, now at least I know your pathetic neostalinist sources.
b) it was not French investigation but French intelligence
c) the French intelligence was wrong

In the same 1939 the Estonian armed forces after the request of German Ambassador tried to arrest Polish submarine in Estonia.

I doubt that it was done by the request of ambassador. Though I am not an expert on this topic it smells like one of your newspaper stories again. About Orzel one can read more here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... l&start=15

Do you mean that the military coup performed by Piats and Landoyner on March 12, 1934 was for the benefit of Estonian people? Do you mean that the political regime establised after the coup met the interests and intentions of Estonian people?

It met the interests and intentions of Estonian people a lot more than the Soviet occupation. IMO amongst all the dictatorships it was the mildest in Europe (and in World?). Though I am not an expert on dictatorships.

And this is that what was reinstituted after 1991?

Take a wild guess.

BTW. I am sure you know that there were Russian White troops that were subjected to Estonian gvt during the Soviet-Estonian war. The British marines helped to suppress the revolt in Tallinn.

You just can't stop amazing me with your... err... self-confidence. Yes there were Russian White troops subjected, but they did not help to suppress revolts like you claimed. And the British marines did not help to suppress such things either.

For you to know that "Chud" is a mythological people of giants in the Norther-Russian folklore and have nothing to do with Estonians. Though I like that you introduced them in your text.

Well, it seems I messed it up, the correct term should be something like "cukhontsy" (a word used as pejorative by Russian chauvinists).

You also said that British troops were invited to Estonia. When? By whom?

When? Can't remember. By whom? Take another wild guess!

-----
I intend not to continue the discussion with you no matter which amazing "facts" and "discoveries" you might bring up next. IMO it is clear that your knowledge on the topic (Estonian history and the problems of citizenship) is extremely limited and even more twisted.
Also a suggestion: if you really want to debate about these matters in such self-confident manner like you do, then learn the Estonian language and start to read history books in this language. Otherwise, sorry, you seem like a simpleton.

[HK]

Karman, here are couple of separate issues.

1. At first, War of Independence 1918-1920. Soviet historybooks described it as civil war between estonian bolsheviks and estonian bourgeoisie. But thats not accurate cause picture was much more complicated. There were lot of different sides, who had different agendas. For example russian whites fought against bolsheviks, but didnot recognize estonians either. Judenitch for example, no matter that he had to give his troops under Estonian Supreme Command, called Estonian goverment rebels and bunch of criminals. Of course his agend was Russian Empire, not estonian republic. Because of that Estonian goverment did not allow him to come Estonia (he resided in Helsinki and Stockholm) and several of white officers were sent out of the country. If you are reading white memoirs you find that estonians are several time accused of betrayal.
And then there were germans(both locals and from Germany), who did not like bolsheviks(though cooperated with them sometime), but didnt like estonians either and wanted to make their own state here. This caused an episode of Independence war, what in Estonia is called a Landeswehr campaign, where Estonian military had to fought with germans in Northern Latvia until 7.july 1919 when Estonian army reached to Riga and peace was formed.
And then there were latvians who fought with estonians against latvians and germans and another time against russian and latvian bolsheviks. And then there were finns, who supported estonians. And then there were brits who manevured between all sides.

So the issue was much more complicated. But it was not civil war as Soviet books describe it. Estonian side was the only side who had the support from the people who actually lived on that land. These people who formed the goverment, army, local goverments, constitutional assembly, legislative bodies and all other organs what state has. They were opinion leaders, politicians, scientists, doctors, officers, entrepreneurs, writers, artists, journalists, basically nations elite,so to speak. Estonian bolsheviks had nothing to match. They had 2-3 experienced politicians-revolutionaries. There were couple of thousand estonians in red army and 90 000 estonians in Estonian army. Though estonian army had to fight NWRussia in summer and autumn of 1919, they did not want to support whites. Their agenda was independant state, not the fight against bolsheviks, later whites accused us betrayl because of that.


2.
Secondly, things what happened 1939-40 is different issue. Arrest of polish submarine Orzel has been discussed in this forum in another thread. And Päts and laidoner have been accused of lot of things. Estonian historian Magnus Ilmjärv accuses him of taking Soviets money for instance. So there have been many accusations from different sides and different things. Newspaper Pravda 28.05.1940 accuses estonians of being to hostile against germans, that they despise everything what comes from Berlin, that they defy nationalsocialist ideology, that they damage harmonic relationship of USSR and Germany.

Sometimes it seems that estonians are guilty no matter what we do.

[Karman]

I am really impressed with your claims and their and more with the fact that you apply all possible power to leave them unsubstantiated. I also like when you claim that this is not true because Russians said it.

So you say that Pykhalov is bad. Then you added that French intellegence was wrong (you did not say that this report did not exist), So Pykhalov was not wrong even if he is a neo-stalinist. But you said that the report was wrong. I can understand that you may think that your word is enough. But could you probide the info proving that the Report of French intellegence was wrong.

You said that Entante did not threaten Estonian statehood. But the Soviet Union did. This is what I cannot understan You mean that the Soviet Union banned the Estonian state? You definitely confuse the state with the regime.

I am surprised that you call all the information that does not suit your vision of the world a "Russian propaganda". So you do not know anything about the submarine because you are not an expert but you know that it is Russian propaganda because you are right. Excellent logic.

I repeated several times that I take the information from Russian sources (unlike some people I cannot extemporize). The Russian speaking sources say that The whites and British marines participated in the suppression of revolts on the territory of Estonia. You simply claim that it is a lie. Can you back up your claim?

Why you are so sure that your single word is reliable?

Another thing that really impressed me does not deal with you only but with the whole society. So you called me "chauvinist" simply because I insist that there was no legal basis for your gvt to disable the Russians who lived in Estonia under Soviets. You failed to back up your position and that is why I am a chauvinist. Did I ever say that I challenge the fact of Estonian inrependence?

For you to know: "chuikhonetz" is a literary word contained in the Dal Dictionary. It was used for Finnish people who lived in St-Petersburg region. So you know that I ever used it? Why do you think it?

Be sure that the day I suspect that somebody calls me a "katzap" I will call the doctor to cure the inferiority complex.

[HK]

Do you mean that the military coup performed by Piats and Landoyner on March 12, 1934 was for the benefit of Estonian people? Do you mean that the political regime establised after the coup met the interests and intentions of Estonian people?

The thing what you are calling military coup was initially supported by all Estonian political parties from socialist to christian-democrats. It was a response against populist "Vaps" movement (sometimes it is compared with Lapua movement in Finland). Of course these measures what Päts and Laidoner took and what initially had to be temporary turned out to be not so temporary as parties expected. But at the end of 1930-s political situation was getting back to normal.

It met the interests and intentions of Estonian people a lot more than the Soviet occupation. IMO amongst all the dictatorships it was the mildest in Europe (and in World?). Though I am not an expert on dictatorships.

It was not dictatorship. Autocracy yes, but not dictaorship.

[Baltas]

Dispute about Baltic States independence is out off topic,but if you really want to know properly there good book.
'The Baltic Revolution : Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence" by Anatol Lieven.http://www.amazon.com
I don't believe the Russian speaking sources.When was USSR all information was censored now when came to power Putin the same. For you need evidence .
So go to "Winter war " forum and look how so called Russian speaking sources describe Mannerheim Line and check up with Finns sources you will see very nice Russian propaganda.
If somebody don't believe ask our Finns friends from this forum.
Who live Moscow let's take ticket and they will see if really want truth .
[/quote][/u][/i]

[Baltas]

Forget to say this book"'The Baltic Revolution : Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence"was awarded by newspaper "The New York Times" like the best book of the year and got prize of George’o Orwello.