May be.It was not dictatorship. Autocracy yes, but not dictaorship.
---
And a quick note on Chud: I checked a Russian-Estonian dictionary -- Chud is described as a member of Finnish people (fex Finns and Estonians. But indeed not pejorative).
Should Russia seek apology for soviet war-crimes in germany
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Riego -- You said:
Then you said:Interesting, who were these mysterious Russian White heroes, who saved the inferior almost-Bolsehvik Chuds from Bolsehvism?
Forum rules forbid national insults, and the characterization "inferior almost-Bolsehvik Chuds" is insulting. This is a warning. Don't post remarks of this sort here again.And a quick note on Chud: I checked a Russian-Estonian dictionary -- Chud is described as a member of Finnish people (fex Finns and Estonians. But indeed not pejorative).
This is already surrealisticForum rules forbid national insults, and the characterization of the the Chuds as "inferior almost-Bolsehvik Chuds" is insulting. This is a warning. Don't post characterizations of this sort here again.
If a historical document includes sentence with national insult, can we post it here? It is a national insult after all there...
Also may I ask, why did you wake up only now? (and don't get me wrong, of course with "wake up" I don't mean that you sleeped all the time until now). Or you also knew from the very beginning that Chuds are only these giants?
They surely aren't censored in Russia today. But there are indeed some problems with Russian history literature (and not all Russian history literature has these problems):I don't believe the Russian speaking sources.When was USSR all information was censored now when came to power Putin the same.
-the authors are writing simply for brainwashing, for example neostalinist "history"-literature. Their goal is not to make an attempt to find out how it really was, but their goal is to prove somekind conception in which they believe in (some also probably know that they are lieing).
-the authors are just low informed. For example if something is written about Estonia, they don't use Estonian sources, simply because they don't know the language. But this doesn't stop the authors to claim self-confidently everykind of things. They are driven by their personal prejudices and make up some fantasy how things should have been. They don't hesitate that maybe they know just a little bit too little about this matter to make such claims.
-there is apparently no source-criticism: if some claim somewhere fits to the fantasy, then it is claimed again without any hesitation. For example this claim with the French intelligence. A smart author would
a) apprehend that intelligence information may be very well wrong
b) try to find supporting or unsupporting evidence for this claim
c) try to find if these problems are discussed in Estonian history-literature
A propagandist however even doesn't try to deal with b) and c) and tries to give us impression that one doesn't have to take a) into account. Instead they make their pants wet because they have discovered such a good claim, which so much proves their conception. And then they, implying to their superb logic, demand that one has to prove that the intelligence information is wrong.
Reigo, please give me definite "brainwashing" Russian author and his book. And let's talk about it. Your generalization is simple insult. There are many honest and systematic authors in Russia...
P.S.: It's very hard work - to find something about Estonia in modern Russian historical literature. This subject isn't interesting for Russian public.
P.S.: It's very hard work - to find something about Estonia in modern Russian historical literature. This subject isn't interesting for Russian public.
Last edited by RoW on 20 Mar 2005, 18:43, edited 1 time in total.
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Reigo -- When I warned you against including national insults in posts, you replied:
The section rules are posted at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962 Read them and comply. That is the reality here.This is already surrealistic
I think it is simple insult, if you don't read my post. What I also said was that:Your generalization is simple insult. There are many honest and systematic authors in Russia...
I would also say that actually majority of Russian authors are honest and systematic.(and not all Russian history literature has these problems)
Some brainwashing authors: S. Kara-Murza; V. Shambarov (I just "love" his chapters concerning Baltic in his book "Belogvardeishchina".)
You probably should delete the Russian part of yuor Russian-Estonian Dictionary to get the correct information from it.Reigo wrote:May be.It was not dictatorship. Autocracy yes, but not dictaorship.
---
And a quick note on Chud: I checked a Russian-Estonian dictionary -- Chud is described as a member of Finnish people (fex Finns and Estonians. But indeed not pejorative).
According to Max Vosmer's Etymologicon of the Russian Language (Germany) the word "Chud" was used to call an ancient people who lived on the territory of Pskov, Novgorod, Arkhangelsk, Komi-Perm, Urals and up to Siberia. The scholars did not come to mutual agreement about the etymology of the word "Chud". A satisfactory origin was not found neither in Gothic, Sami or other German or Finnish language. About the people itself some German scholars insist they were Germans. Some say they were of Finnish origin. Besides, the ancient Chud had some legendary characteristics to wit: they were giants, cannibals, guarded their treasures underground or in deep holes in mountains, and once they just disappeared, moved underground. Also they had white eyes. I am sure you know that the word Chud is oftent used as the "white-eyed Chud". Actually the light eyes were a bad sign in ancient Russia. Ivan the Terrible wrote to Andrey Kurbsky that the latter was a lier and then added: what else can be expected from a blue-eyed person.
Some scholars do think that the word Chud meant the Estonian and Finnish people and that assumption was introduced to the Big Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary. I just thought that it was a little bit frivolously for you with your profound knowledge of the Estonian history to stick to one unproved hypothesis.
You are a little bit mistaking about the source criticism. When reviewing the French eintelligence report a scholar is to check if the report is fake or authentic. If the report is authentic than the source-criticism was applied. The information it contains may be wrong. That is true. But the report itself is a historical source. So the question is are there any counter-claims proving that the information contained in this historical source is wrong?Reigo wrote:
-there is apparently no source-criticism: if some claim somewhere fits to the fantasy, then it is claimed again without any hesitation. For example this claim with the French intelligence. A smart author would
a) apprehend that intelligence information may be very well wrong
b) try to find supporting or unsupporting evidence for this claim
c) try to find if these problems are discussed in Estonian history-literature
It is very easy- a gistorical source against another historical source. For example nobody is basing on the claims the "Pravda" newspaper contained. Because everybody understands that Pravda was propaganda. The French intelligence report is the source of some other type.
Source criticism includes something more -- checking into the authenticity and reliability of a source.You are a little bit mistaking about the source criticism. When reviewing the French eintelligence report a scholar is to check if the report is fake or authentic. If the report is authentic than the source-criticism was applied.
Yep, however this isn't the style of some authors. Also honest authors don't call intelligence info simply as "investigation".So the question is are there any counter-claims proving that the information contained in this historical source is wrong?
It is very easy- a gistorical source against another historical source.
Interesting. Kara-Murza is not a historian and never reviewed the question of Estonian independence. He is a communist journalist who writes about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the post communist processes on the territory of the former Soviet Union. His articles are debatable, preconceived and polemic. He has his audience but the claim that he represents a approach of Russian scholars towards the Estonian independence is an exaggeration.Reigo wrote:I think it is simple insult, if you don't read my post. What I also said was that:Your generalization is simple insult. There are many honest and systematic authors in Russia...I would also say that actually majority of Russian authors are honest and systematic.(and not all Russian history literature has these problems)
Some brainwashing authors: S. Kara-Murza; V. Shambarov (I just "love" his chapters concerning Baltic in his book "Belogvardeishchina".)
Shambarov is a historian. I think that he is an interesting scholar though I can agree that he is one-sided. I read his "Belogvardeishina" and should say that in some terms it was not "politically correct" in paragraphs about Estonia. He soundly called the Estonian Government "chauvinist". But that is all. He said that the Estonian army was the best of all newly formed Baltic states. He wrote about the attempts to enlarge the Estonian territory at the expense of Latvia. He wrote that the Estonian Statehood was establishing on the basis of united national efforts. The social support the Estonia got on the basis of distribution of nationalized estates of German landowners etc.
But actually Shambarov said that the Estonian state could have never survived without British economic and military support.
That the establishment of Baltic states was the result of the conspirous plot of British Generals Gof and Marsh. Despite the broad national support they would have never survived in those conditions of the war of all against all.
He also said that the establishment of the Baltic states with the support of those British generals caused the international political scandal because the French alliens were interested in the reinstitution of the legitimate power in Russia and in the reconstruction of Russian Empire as their Allies in the future (what they missed in WW2).
The British concillors were replaced for a French one who was supporting the Russian whites in their war against bolsheviks and then Estonians made a deal with Bolsheviks (informed the Entante about that in a respective Memorandum) arrested the Russian Whites and treated them wrong.
That is actually the intrigue of his description of the Estonian independance in brief. If you found mistakes in the facts he described or in the documents he quoted it would be interesting to see. But actually Shambarov does not deal with Estonian (or any other independence) but with the Estonian relations with the Whites and the Reds. That is it.
I see. So you mean that the source is not authentic.Reigo wrote:Source criticism includes something more -- checking into the authenticity and reliability of a source.You are a little bit mistaking about the source criticism. When reviewing the French eintelligence report a scholar is to check if the report is fake or authentic. If the report is authentic than the source-criticism was applied.
About the reliability. If it were a note of of a French belly-robber home it is one thing. If it was the report of the French intelligence to the Office it is quite another thing. So you mean that they spent the time in restaurants and did not make any investigation? Any proves?
About your first post: well I see that you enjoy discussing with me. Flattering. However I have other things to do than discuss another tirade of your's.
Second post:
Second post:
Watch again and take a wild guess why the reliability is underlined.I see. So you mean that the source is not authentic.
Sorry, but you and allkind of Pykhalovs have to give proof that there was an investigation. But things are actually so that to give credibilty to your fantasy you talk about investigation (hearing witnesseses and included parties?), instead of saying exactly what it was - intelligence information.About the reliability. If it were a note of of a French belly-robber home it is one thing. If it was the report of the French intelligence to the Office it is quite another thing. So you mean that they spent the time in restaurants and did not make any investigation? Any proves?
In conclusion I have to say that you have neglected to back up all of your statements. Pykhalov referred to the Report. I referred to Pykhalov and said "there is the report". If you think that tarring anybody with the Stalinist brush is enough to justify your position than I should say that you are mistaking.Reigo wrote:About your first post: well I see that you enjoy discussing with me. Flattering. However I have other things to do than discuss another tirade of your's.
Second post:
Watch again and take a wild guess why the reliability is underlined.I see. So you mean that the source is not authentic.
Sorry, but you and allkind of Pykhalovs have to give proof that there was an investigation. But things are actually so that to give credibilty to your fantasy you talk about investigation (hearing witnesseses and included parties?), instead of saying exactly what it was - intelligence information.About the reliability. If it were a note of of a French belly-robber home it is one thing. If it was the report of the French intelligence to the Office it is quite another thing. So you mean that they spent the time in restaurants and did not make any investigation? Any proves?
I am not interested in continuing any discussion with you as it is waste of time. At the beguinning I did hope to learn some more info. Any way thank you for your time.
Take care.