The Soviet Occupation of Estonia 1944-1991

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
Alex Yeliseenko
Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: 25 Jan 2006, 16:40
Location: RUSSIA

#16

Post by Alex Yeliseenko » 27 Apr 2007, 08:08

Estonians had much more than the rights, than other citizens of the USSR. The level of reprisals there was much below what in Kazakhstan or Siberia. It is possible to tell safely, that Estonia was favourite republic of the Kremlin. With very high standard of living for the USSR.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

#17

Post by Juha Tompuri » 27 Apr 2007, 08:33

Yuri wrote:
Peeter wrote:Estonians were NOT citizens of SU, but citizens of Estonian Republic, occupied by Soviet Union. And this makes forced mobilization illegal.
Under the Constitution of the USSR of 1936 the citizens of all union republics simultaneously were citizens of the USSR. Hence, citizens of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic were citizens of Soviet Union and were subject to an appeal on military service.
Watson wrote:That is a matter of opinion. Estonia was one of fifteen Soviet Socialist Republics within the USSR.

The question of the legacy of the Soviet rule at Estonia is better to be discussed at the existing threads:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=

Regards, Juha


Anne G,
Member
Posts: 710
Joined: 02 Jan 2007, 16:02
Location: Espoo, Finland

#18

Post by Anne G, » 27 Apr 2007, 12:35

Alex Yeliseenko wrote: Estonians had much more than the rights, than other citizens of the USSR. The level of reprisals there was much below what in Kazakhstan or Siberia. It is possible to tell safely, that Estonia was favourite republic of the Kremlin. With very high standard of living for the USSR.
These are funny arguments. If the Russians "choose" a repressive system for themselves (= by choosing sides in the Civil war), that was their own business but it gave them no right to force it to other peoples. F.ex. the Estonians would have had better civil rights (that was true even during the authoritarian dictatorship of Päts in the 30ies) and much higher standard of living *outside* the USSR.

Anne G,
Member
Posts: 710
Joined: 02 Jan 2007, 16:02
Location: Espoo, Finland

#19

Post by Anne G, » 27 Apr 2007, 12:38

Alex Yeliseenko wrote: Estonians very quickly became the Soviet citizens. Resistance in Estonia was the weakest among the countries of Baltic. Much more poorly than in Lithuania, Latvia and in the West of Ukraine.
Could the reason be that so many Estonians fled abroad?

Generally, I think it's foolish to demand from the oppressed resistance in a hopeless situation. For a small people like the Estonians the most important thing was to survive and keep their own language and traditions for the future where the window of opportunity might open. As it did.

User avatar
Alex Yeliseenko
Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: 25 Jan 2006, 16:40
Location: RUSSIA

#20

Post by Alex Yeliseenko » 27 Apr 2007, 13:40

Anne G, wrote:
Alex Yeliseenko wrote: Estonians had much more than the rights, than other citizens of the USSR. The level of reprisals there was much below what in Kazakhstan or Siberia. It is possible to tell safely, that Estonia was favourite republic of the Kremlin. With very high standard of living for the USSR.
These are funny arguments. If the Russians "choose" a repressive system for themselves (= by choosing sides in the Civil war), that was their own business but it gave them no right to force it to other peoples. F.ex. the Estonians would have had better civil rights (that was true even during the authoritarian dictatorship of Päts in the 30ies) and much higher standard of living *outside* the USSR.


Your arguments nothing is better. I dare to remind, that in authority of the USSR were not only Russian. And the country referred to not Russia. Rather high standard of living in Estland was and in days of Russian empire. In 1920-1930-е years Estonia was the poor country, with weak economy. The civil rights? In camps for "idlers"? Probably you read Estonian agitprop.

User avatar
Alex Yeliseenko
Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: 25 Jan 2006, 16:40
Location: RUSSIA

#21

Post by Alex Yeliseenko » 27 Apr 2007, 13:50

Anne G, wrote:
Alex Yeliseenko wrote: Estonians very quickly became the Soviet citizens. Resistance in Estonia was the weakest among the countries of Baltic. Much more poorly than in Lithuania, Latvia and in the West of Ukraine.
Could the reason be that so many Estonians fled abroad?

Generally, I think it's foolish to demand from the oppressed resistance in a hopeless situation. For a small people like the Estonians the most important thing was to survive and keep their own language and traditions for the future where the window of opportunity might open. As it did.

Not less ran from countries Lithuanians and Latvians. But resistance in Latvia and Lithuania was much more.

There can be a problem in mentality? For example, Lithuania in Middle Ages was the great nation from the sea up to the sea. Estland had no state till 20 centuries.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

#22

Post by Marcus » 27 Apr 2007, 15:47

A post by Musashi was moved to the "Monument for "Liberators" in Tallinn,Estonia" thread.

/Marcus

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

#23

Post by Art » 27 Apr 2007, 17:19

Peeter wrote: Estonians were NOT citizens of SU, but citizens of Estonian Republic, occupied by Soviet Union. And this makes forced mobilization illegal.
A question: was the status of Estonia as an occupied territory ever recognized by international law? The legality of mobilization on the territory of Estonia depends in great extent on the answer to this question.
Then a several remarks from my side:
1. I looked through the conclusions of the report of Estonian Iternational Commission I haven't seen any objection made against mobilization conducted under german occupation. I don't see the reasons to treat this mobilization in a better way than the Soviet one.
2. The authors of the report stated that Soviet mobilization among other actions contradicted Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome statute. As I can see fron the text of the statute the only paragraph relevant in this case is a)V:
"Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power"
However, as far as I can understand the term "hostile power" couldn't be applied to the USSR in regard to Estonia. Correct me if I'm wrong
3. In fact the authors of the report accused Soviet authorities in forcible transfer of pouplation rather then in forcible mobilization. This is clearly seen from the title of the relevant paragraph of the report "THE FORCED TRANSFER OF ESTONIAN MEN TO
THE SOVIET UNION IN JULY AND AUGUST OF 1941". Then the authors state that mobilization was merely a "guise" for deportation of Estonian population. The same statement is reiterated in more explicit form in the "White book". However the authors don't provide serious proofs for this statement. I don't think that the transfer of the armymen under orders of their superiours could be classified as "deportation", so I remain with opinion that this accusition is groundless.
Last edited by Art on 27 Apr 2007, 17:29, edited 1 time in total.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

#24

Post by Art » 27 Apr 2007, 17:28

Alex Yeliseenko wrote:The level of reprisals there was much below what in Kazakhstan or Siberia.
Khm, that is an obviously incorrect statement. Could you remember any large-scale deportation conducted in Siberia in 1941?

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1969
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 12:24
Location: Russia

#25

Post by Yuri » 27 Apr 2007, 20:53

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Yuri wrote:
Peeter wrote:Estonians were NOT citizens of SU, but citizens of Estonian Republic, occupied by Soviet Union. And this makes forced mobilization illegal.
Under the Constitution of the USSR of 1936 the citizens of all union republics simultaneously were citizens of the USSR. Hence, citizens of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic were citizens of Soviet Union and were subject to an appeal on military service.
Watson wrote:That is a matter of opinion. Estonia was one of fifteen Soviet Socialist Republics within the USSR.

The question of the legacy of the Soviet rule at Estonia is better to be discussed at the existing threads:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0
It is not necessary to palm off on me this branch.
On this branch I already have told once: Performance in which Russian act in a role of whipping boys, you will play without my participation. Please, play such performances yourselves with itself.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#26

Post by David Thompson » 27 Apr 2007, 20:57

Yuri -- Address the argument, and restrict yourself to that. Our readers are interested in discussing sourced facts here, not opinions, opinionated characterizations, or evasions. If you don't want to say anything, don't.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

#27

Post by Juha Tompuri » 27 Apr 2007, 23:24

Art wrote: A question: was the status of Estonia as an occupied territory ever recognized by international law?
Well...as we Finns do not always say things direct as they are, but try to put them to a more polite form:
Finland never de jure recognized the Estonian joining to USSR, and 1991, when Estonia separated from USSR, Finland did not re-recognize the Estonian independence, as at Finnish point of view, Estonia never legally joined USSR, and the earlier recognition from 1920 (IIRC) was (still) in force.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1969
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 12:24
Location: Russia

#28

Post by Yuri » 28 Apr 2007, 00:31

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Art wrote: A question: was the status of Estonia as an occupied territory ever recognized by international law?
Well...as we Finns do not always say things direct as they are, but try to put them to a more polite form:
Finland never de jure recognized the Estonian joining to USSR, and 1991, when Estonia separated from USSR, Finland did not re-recognize the Estonian independence, as at Finnish point of view, Estonia never legally joined USSR, and the earlier recognition from 1920 (IIRC) was (still) in force.

Regards, Juha
In September, 1944 Finland has signed the act about capitulation before the Government of Soviet Union.
Under the Constitution of the USSR the Government of Soviet Union operates on international scene on behalf of all the union republics. Hence, in September, 1944 Finland has signed the act about capitulation before all republics included in the USSR. Hence, Finland has signed the act about capitulation, including, before the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic.
When and where the special mark has been made, what Finland in September, 1944 before Estonian SSR capitulation did not subscribe?
In 1975 all states of Europe (and as the USA and Canada) have signed the Helsinki agreement. When and where Finland informed what it does not distribute the obligations on this of the agreement to territory Estonian SSR?

But it not the main thing.
The main thing in the friend.
Finland recognized or did not recognize the fact of ocurrence of Estonia in structure of the USSR, it does not play any role in the actual side of an affair.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#29

Post by David Thompson » 28 Apr 2007, 04:58

Just a general observation -- When there are two different points of view on an issue, the claim by one side that their opponents are influenced by propaganda isn't a very effective argument to those who haven't yet made up their minds. That's because there's an equal likelihood that the people making that claim are themselves deluded by their own propaganda. Labelling your arguments as truth and the other side's arguments as propaganda is itself propaganda.

Either an argument is true, and supported by historical circumstances, or it is not. For that reason, it's a better practice to deal with the merits or demerits of an argument directly, rather than try to smear opponents with ad hominem slurs -- like being under the influence of "propaganda" -- that don't address the points under discussion.

This "propaganda" viewpoint is usually advanced by those who have nothing better to offer up to the reasoning power of their audience than a cheap smear -- in other words, the proponents are just rural bumpkins, who are underestimating their audience. Needless to say, educated and intelligent neutral observers will naturally think the ad hominem bumpkins have no real arguments to offer to support their point of view, and that those people are consequently mistaken, deluded or just parroting their own agitprop.

The argumentum ad hominem tactic in logical discussions has been described and discredited for over 2000 years, and because the logical fallacy been so widely taught in public schools all over the world, it's unlikely to be persuasive with any of our readers other than the newest, youngest, least educated and most ignorant:

Argumentum ad hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

#30

Post by Juha Tompuri » 28 Apr 2007, 06:59

Yuri wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Art wrote: A question: was the status of Estonia as an occupied territory ever recognized by international law?
Well...as we Finns do not always say things direct as they are, but try to put them to a more polite form:
Finland never de jure recognized the Estonian joining to USSR, and 1991, when Estonia separated from USSR, Finland did not re-recognize the Estonian independence, as at Finnish point of view, Estonia never legally joined USSR, and the earlier recognition from 1920 (IIRC) was (still) in force.

Regards, Juha
In September, 1944 Finland has signed the act about capitulation before the Government of Soviet Union.

I wonder what act/treaty of capitulation you mean?
Perhaps this one, which was being prepared for Finland, if Soviet attempts towards Finland would have materialized.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &highlight
Also discussed here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &highlight


Yuri wrote:In 1975 all states of Europe (and as the USA and Canada) have signed the Helsinki agreement. When and where Finland informed what it does not distribute the obligations on this of the agreement to territory Estonian SSR?
JT earlier wrote:1991, when Estonia separated from USSR, Finland did not re-recognize the Estonian independence, as at Finnish point of view, Estonia never legally joined USSR, and the earlier recognition from 1920 (IIRC) was (still) in force.
and the place was Helsinki

Regards; Juha

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”