Peter Lavelle

Untimely Thoughts

back to bloglist

Peter Lavelle's blog

Entries
06 December, 2009, 21:07
“Tandemology” and holding your breath

It has become a ritual - every time President Dmitry Medvedev and
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin face the public - that the issue of the 2012
presidential campaign arises. This happened again when Medvedev was on
a state visit to Italy and when Putin held his now famed annual Q&A
session with the nation. The commentariat is obsessed with who among
the ruling tandem will lead Russia after Medvedev’s term comes to an
end. It would seem a new quasi-science has been invented and it should
be call “tandemology.”

Read more

Kremlinology was a failed quasi-science and so is tandemology. Both
are based on what the vast majority of so-called Russia watchers want
to happen and ignore evidence that contradicts their teleological
assumptions. There is no better example of this than Putin’s real or
imagined political ambitions. Will Putin return to the presidency? I have no
idea and I don’t think that Putin and Medvedev have come to any
consensus on this subject yet. But let’s consider what we do
know and apply some simple political logic, along with some basics
about Russian political culture.

During his trademark Q&A session, Putin was asked if he was
considering retirement from political life. His reply was, “Don't hold
your breath.” These words were instantly interpreted as a clear signal
that Putin is determined to reclaim his former office. This, of course,
makes headlines, sells newspapers and garners hits on the internet,
but what about circumstances on the ground here in Russia?

Putin’s Q&A marathons are now part of legend (and stand as brilliant
examples of domestic soft power). No other leader in the world of
his status comes close to Putin’s ability to engage his public (and
constituency). Does he continue this tradition as prime minister to
stay in the public eye (the commentariat thinks so) or does he do it
now because, as prime minister, he is responsible for the economy? Both
are in play, but I strongly believe the latter is far more important
to Putin. The Russia of today is the house that Putin built and he
wants, and even needs, to keep that house in order and under constant
renewal. Putin may be thinking about his political future, but most
assuredly he wants to protect his legacy, first and foremost.

Let’s return to the words “Don't hold your breath.” What does the
commentariat expect? What would happen in Russia if Putin said “Yes, I
will run again in 2012?” Or the reverse - what would happen if Putin
said “No, I will not run again in 2012?” Simple political logic and
current Russian political and social conditions dictate that Putin and
Medvedev must be circumspect when it comes to the 2012 presidential
election. Not doing so would render one member of the “tandem” an
instant lame duck. This is something Russia’s political elite cannot
allow to happen at the moment. By doing so, the entire Putin-Medvedev
project would undermine the political stability. The prospect of this is
completely unacceptable to the Russian body politic.

Putin and Medvedev have a political understanding, and at the core of
that understanding is Russia’s future – not the political ambitions of
either individual. This is what tandemology refuses to accept and
recognize.

Kremlinology suffocated itself to death and so will tandemology – so
don’t hold your breath.

Show comments (145)
Count Cash

05 February, 2010, 16:22

Fred,

Maybe Peter thought, why should I write a piece, when the topic will go somewhere else anyway. Peter is a good guy, and maybe thought; give some people what they want, somewhere to sound off on anything, a sort of free format area. He could be thinking, I don't need look for work, or lead the discussion, just people enjoy, if this is the product you want! and why not!


Katrina

05 February, 2010, 14:41

I must register my respect and admiration for Peter Lavelle. I do admit that in the first few episodes of Crosstalk, I did not like the new format. But Peter Lavelle has turned the program around. His interventions are brilliant and, some are simply priceless such his comment on this morning episode on Cross when an American female academic asserted that “it was the national interests of the United States to defend democracy around the world” !Peter was quick to ask her was it also American national interest to torture people, conduct extraordinary renditions and run torture/prison camps! The American academic in question was momentarily at loss for words; she was also visibly angry that her words were contradicted by these ugly inconvenient facts of American war on human rights. Peter Lavelle deserves every last rouble/euros RT pays him!


Fred

02 February, 2010, 10:53

Where's Peter? It appears that this blog has become a sounding board for some anti-Russian, raving , lunatic Estonian ...this guy won't give up!!!! Hey buddy you made your point, give up! Estonians are not the only ones that suffered in history, Chinese under Japanese, Philippines under the Americans and Japanese, Vietnam under the US occupation, Armenians under the Turks, countless under the French and British. under the Germans etc.,etc.,
You my Estonian friend, as some one suggested on this blog must be paid by some conservative "think tank" in the US to irritate Russians.....Give up!!!
Remember after Russia spanked Georgia how the US claimed "we're all Georgians" etc., just a lot of hot air,,,,we only fight little weak countries !!!Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan. Keeps our miltary industrial complex well funded ,trying out our new weapons...You're out of luck, Estonia has no oil!!!!no US aid!!!!
fred.....oregon, usa


Walter

31 January, 2010, 02:38

Is this guy still pumping out his ill-considered untimely thoughts.


Marzipan6

31 January, 2010, 00:59

To xxxx: I neither promote hate for Russia, nor feel any hate for Russia myself. I do promote a knowledge of facts, because living in a fantasy land is as harmful for Russia as it is for its neighbours.

The facts I present may be verified in any relevant reference source the world over. May I assure you that the measure for determining whether or not a view is “crazy” is not whether or not it agrees with Russia’s preferred position, but whether or not it accurately represents verifiable facts. I note that although you clearly expressed your dislike of what I present, you did not even try to offer one bit of verifiable evidence that that discredits presented facts.


xxxx

30 January, 2010, 13:04

Marzipan, I do not read them for a long time because it makes me sick and tired reading the crazy nationalist ideas of yours. You promote only hate in your messages! I think you are paid. This is not freedom of speech! This is propaganda!
I have an excellent solution for you too: to stop blaming Russia and the Soviet Union and to focus on something else. Just imagine what you could do for the world if you used your energy to promote love and peace!


Aleksandar Hranov

29 January, 2010, 21:07

Peter,
Pls give us some direction of what to expect - like for example:
"I'm really busy guys, expect my next article not earlier than mid-february." or
"I'm closing this. Sorry guys."
As is I think we're a bit lost as to what happened.. .

All others, and especially 007,
I think you'll find it very interesting to follow Max Keiser's reports on programmes here on RT. I find them really.. illuminating.


BR
Aleks


Marzipan6

28 January, 2010, 11:02

To xxxx, who is tired of reading my comments: I have both an excellent solution for you, and also a request. My suggested solution is, don’t read them. My request is, that you also let Bianca know how displeased you are with her for bringing up the subject of Harry Männil in the first place, and completely out of the blue, in her post of 16 January 06:24. If she hadn’t have brought up the subject and kept it alive so long you would not have read my responses, and become tired.


xxxx

26 January, 2010, 13:01

marzipan, I got tired of reading your comments, I hope not all Estonians are like you, Bianka, good job! Thank you for your comments


Marzipan6

21 January, 2010, 09:45

What was my first point? Simply that Männil may have arrested the 7 people in question, or he may not have. There is no written or witness evidence to confirm it either way. It is entirely possible that he did, and entirely possible that, 7 days after the imposition of the German occupation on Tallinn, someone else did. I don’t know, you don’t know, no one knows. That’s my point.

My point further is, that Männil is not Mikson.

What was my second point? That there is no evidence to show that Männil’s interrogation of the seven arrested people was itself criminal, and that there is no evidence to show that Männil knew, six days into the German occupation of Tallinn, that the arrest of the 7 would lead to execution. Neither you, I, nor present-day Estonian authorities know of a certainty that Männil had no guilt. I have merely pointed out time and again, and so has every judicial investigation that has considered the matter, including the KGB, that there is no evident that proves that he was guilty. The contrary (and non-judicial) opinion is that of Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Efraim Zuroff, who is committed to serve the SWC’s goals. Those goals, as I detailed in my post of 17 January 07:00, do not explicitly specify the bringing of justice to bear on individual Nazi War Criminals, but of keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive.

What was my third point? That neither I nor Estonians at large are some kind of bloodthirsty ghouls that thrive on Russian blood, and love to see it shed. But that anyone who attacks any country, whether Germans attacking Russia or Russians attacking Estonia, can expect to be vigorously resisted, and quite rightly so.

What was my fourth point? That the numbers of Russian killed that you attributed to Estonia are simply false, for the reasons I previously detailed. And that the Russians driving into Estonia in 1944 utterly lost all right and expectation to be called “liberators” on account of the brutal mass atrocities that the same Russians worked against innocent Estonian civilians in 1941. Their immediate resumption of those atrocities in 1946, which continued in a severe form for ten years, and reduced to “mere” oppression and attempted cultural extinction of Estonia for more than the next 30 years, amply demonstrates that this expectation was entirely justified. Estonia was not responsible for what Hitler did in Russia or elsewhere, and had no responsibility (or ability) to defend Europe. Russia was responsible for its atrocities in Estonia, which far exceeded Germany’s there, and Estonia was responsible for trying to protect its people from a resumption of it, because no one else would. Nowhere have I ever “blamed the Soviet Union for all the world’s problems of the time,” and it is a nonsense for you to imply that I did. But I do blame the Soviet Union for its barbarities in Estonia, so does the world, and so should you.

You asked , “Was every country that Allied Forces fought over with Hitler called ‘occupied’? According to you, Red Army could not have, or should not have pursued Hitler until his defeat, because it had to go over Estonia?” Every Nazi-occupied country was given freedom, except those which the Red Army “liberated”. This includes Estonia and its Baltic neighbors. Russia “liberated” countries into a new totalitarian Soviet empire of oppression, some with a pretense of nominal sovereignty such as the Warsaw Pact countries, and some that weren’t even accorded a pretense of sovereignty, such as the Baltic countries. As far as Estonia was concerned, the Red Army could pursue Hitler to its heart’s content, but Estonia knew, from Russia’s own previous behavior in Soviet occupied Estonia, that the Red Army would bring only more death, misery and oppression to it, and no liberty at all. This assessment proved to be 101% accurate, as you well know.

The number of Red Army losses in Estonia is certainly known. The number that should legitimately be attributed to Estonians themselves is absolutely unknown.

What is my fifth point? The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact may have been an attempt by Stalin to buy time. Or it may have been an attempt by Stalin to buy half of Europe. Or it may have been both. For the Baltics, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was destruction, slavery, death, and fifty years of foreign occupation.

What is my sixth point? The civilians killed in Dresden, as in every other bombed city, were overwhelmingly innocent of any crimes. Their countries were at war. The civilians murdered and enslaved by Russians in Estonia were also innocent. Their country was not at war with anyone in 1940, nor was Russia at war with them. What they experienced was a callous, calculated, cold-blooded crime against humanity, committed not in the heat of battle against an enemy combatant nation and with no military objective involved at all, but cold-blooded, paranoia-driven murder and enslavement. My further point is, that Dresden was a city of a nation of somewhere around 60 million or more people. The murdered and enslaved of Estonia were from a nation of 1 million people. Numerically, Dresden’s victims were greater; proportionally, Estonia’s were. None of this makes the death of any of the dead any better. But it makes the crimes of one set of killers vastly worse.

What was my seventh point? Estonia did not break the terms of its 1939 Bases Treaty with Russia, and that individual Estonians leaving for Finland to join the Finland’s repulsion of Russian aggression was neither under the control of, nor promoted by, the Estonian government. But Russia’s bringing in of troops way beyond the numbers specified in the Treaty until they amounted to more than 10% of the country’s entire population, its establishment of additional bases outside of the ones permitted by the Treaty, its use of some of these as bases from which to mount bombing raids against Finland, and finally its use of those troops to attack Estonia itself all were gross Russian violations of the Treaty. If Estonia broke the Treaty (it didn’t), Russia clearly broke it many times over beforehand.

What was my eighth point? Estonia, as a sovereign and responsible nation, never had a policy of killing Russian civilians, nor ever pursued such a policy. Under German occupation, a few (very few) rogue Estonian war criminals did participate in such German war crimes. Representing this as an “Estonian action” is false and dishonest. That was no more an “Estonian action” as the participation of Belgian volunteers in the defense of Estonia against Soviet re-invasion in 1944 was a “Belgian action.”

Finally, you claim that “Estonian history is all about technicality.” No. Since the arrival of Russian people at its borders about a thousand years ago, Estonian history has been all about survival. A citizen of a larger country finds such a concept very hard to understand.


Bianca

21 January, 2010, 06:29

Marzipan6,

So, I am making wild accusations, and you despair of specifying errors of fact...

I despair of your doublespeak.

Bianca wrote:

“Now you are being even more creative. He (Männil) was ‘not an arresting officer’ you say.”

Marzipan6 wrote:

No, I did not say this, and you know I did not. In my post of 19 January 12:02 I wrote, “As for Männil, it appears that he may indeed have not … even known he arrested the seven Jewish people to whom you refer. HE MAY HAVE DONE – but documentary evidence specifying that he was the arresting officer does not exist.”

AND YOUR POINT IS?

... he may indeed have not even known he arrested
... he may have done it
... no DOCUMENTARY evidence SPECIFYING that he was arresting officer exists.

Exactly, what is your point?

MY POINT IS:

....According to Simon Wiesenthal Center, Mikson was his superior, quote from their report:
....In the conclusions of the International Commission, there was an unequivocally negative evaluation of the activities of Evald Mikson, who was "particularly singled out," along with six other Estonian Nazi collaborators, as being "actively involved in the arrest and killing of Estonian Jews." He and three others -- Ain-Ervin Mere, Julius Ennok, and Ervin Viks -- were named as the ones who "signed numerous death warrants."

Estonian investigation confirmed not only that Mannil had worked for the dreaded Estonian political police, but that at least seven persons (all named) whom he had arrested and interrogated had been executed by Estonian Nazi collaborators.

This is the report. I did not invent it.

Marzipan6 wrote:

Six days after the establishment of the German occupation in Tallinn, Männil was hired by the German political police (by the way, there never was any Estonian political police) as an ASSISTANT.

Nor have I ever said that the seven detained people in question were executed without his knowledge. I don’t know when they were executed, but it would have been some time after their interrogation, and by then Männil would have presumably known it. What I wrote was that this early in the German occupation people would be unlikely to know that an arrest and interrogation would lead to execution.

AND YOUR POINT IS:

.... he was hired by the German political police, as there was NEVER Estonian political police
.....he was hired to be Mikson's assistant
.....you never said that the seven detained people in question were executed without his knowledge
.... it was too early in occupation to know what is going on, he may not have known what is happening

So, exactly, what is your point?

MY POINT IS:

.... Evald Mikson was his superior, proven murderer
.....A lot of data available on the crimes by Evals Mikson and others I have already named in the above quote from the report
.....KGB files, the same data available to the US Justice Department OSI, contained extremely incriminating testimony against Mikson
....Estonian Foreign Ministry issued an official statement that asserted that Mikson was not guilty of any crimes, and least of all against the Jewish people, a total distortion of the historical facts
....The testimony recorded by the Sandler Commission (which investigated the Baltic refugees who escaped to Sweden) that Mannil had killed as many as 100 Jews, was thrown out because it was not possible to link victims to individuals to establish that they personally killed them
....According to the documentation, the name was Estonian Political Police, even though it was set up under Nazi rule
....This Estonian Political Police employed Estonians, from Mikson to all others who signed death warrants
.... The executioners were also Estonians
....Harry Mannil's name was associated with seven Jews, according to the report
....You can go on denying the SWC report for as long as you wish....

..... or are you REALLY saying that you HAVE NEVER DENIED IT, and that you are not DENYING it, while stating that Harry Mannil is not the arresting officer, that he may not have known about the arrests, interrogations and executions.... or that you MAY have done it, and MAY have known it.

Considering that his superior and other named executioners were Estonians, there is very little doubt in my mind that during his tenure as an ASSISTANT to Mikson --- he could not have helped knowing what his employer, Estonian Political Police did for living. Or managed not to be part of it.

Marzipan6 said:

Your next untruth is this: you wrote, “For you, hundreds of thousands of Russians killed by the Estonians, mean absolutely nothing.” Yet you know very well that in my post of 15 December 10:27 I had written, “I will not get into a debate as to who amongst Estonians and Russians killed more of the other, as all killing is a tragedy and the extinguishing of something unique and priceless. It all is to be utterly, utterly regretted. I will say, though, because it is true, that those who invade and occupy another country can expect to be vehemently resisted. If they didn’t want to take the casualties, they shouldn’t have invaded and occupied.” Why are you dishonest in regard to what I write?

YOUR POINT:

.... All the killing is tragedy
......If they didn’t want to take the casualties, they shouldn’t have invaded and occupied

And what is your point? It is regrettable, but they deserved it

MY POINT IS:

.....All deaths in this war were senseless
.....Russia did not start the war, Hitler did
.....Russia did what it had to do to defend itself and conquer Hitler
.....Do not defend vigorous Estonian help to Hitler's efforts in the name of "unprovoked occupation by Soviet Union of the Baltics"
.....There was nothing innocent about Estonian anti-Soviet actions in the war with Finland, and Soviet Union had learned all it needed to know about the Estonian "neutrality"
....The numbers of killed DO MATTER; Estonia's land was the slaughterhouse of Soviet Army, and the Red Army had to break through to pursue Hitler's forces
....By avoiding to look at the horrendous number of Red Army casualties in Estonia, Estonians can easily forget that these are real people and real deaths ---- and that their casualties of the war are not the strange exception, but unfortunately the rule.
....Do look at the numbers, they may help you see the real cost of bringing Hitler down, and who sacrificed how much to make it happen.

Estonian actions, contributed to prolonging Hitler's rule over Europe. You may find it strange, but many of us would for that reason alone, call Estonia a collaborationist nation.

Marzipan6 wrote:

“Do you know that Estonians killed more Russians and other nationals of the former Soviet Union then the total number of US losses in WWII?”

No, I don’t know that, and neither do you nor anyone else. You are recklessly assigning to Estonia the death of every Soviet soldier involved in the 1944 invasion of Estonia. Yet Estonian units, drawn from a tiny national population of only 1 million, always comprised the minority in any action where they fought alongside the much larger German units. The majority of Russians killed in the re-occupation of Estonia were killed by Germans. Although Estonians, whose memory of mass Soviet atrocities of 1941 from the first Soviet occupation was very fresh, were entitled to prevent the return of Soviet mass murderers to their country in any way they could. When Soviets imposed their first occupation in 1940, Estonians killed no one at all, and we all know the way that Russians thanked them for that. I already detailed the foregoing in my post of 17 December 10:41, as you also know.

My comment:

DO I NEED TO MAKE A POINT, OR ARE YOU SAYING ALL ANYONE NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR ELEVATING ESTONIAN VICTIMS ABOVE ALL OTHERS? Returning Soviet Army was the return of mass murderers, while the biggest mass murder known to mankind just occurred in Russia, where Hitler's forces killed millions? And you did expect then that Red Army was going to say ---- now we have to stop going after Hitler! We cannot enter Estonian territory!

So they were the mass murderers for killing tens of thousands of Estonians, while Estonians and Hitler killed about 400,000 thousand Russians, and the departing German army left on Russian soil millions of dead civilians?

Can you by any chance even comprehend your lack of grasp of what was going on at the time?

All the numbers of war dead in WWII are recorded. Are they totally accurate? No. Are they good representation of the order of magnitude? Yes.

Try to reflect on the magnitude of the tragedy, before you blame the Soviet Union for all the world's problems of that time.

YOU INSIST THAT RED ARMY, HAVING PUSHED HITLER OUT OF ITS COUNTRY, AND BATTLING HIS FORCES IN ESTONIA, ALONG WITH ESTONIANS WAS " REOCCUPATION OF ESTONIA". Was every country that Allied Forces fought over with Hitler called "occupied"? According to you, Red Army could not have, or should not have pursued Hitler until his defeat, because it had to go over Estonia?

.....The number of Red Army losses in Estonia is known.
.....The number of Estonians that perished during that time, is known.

Marzipan6 wrote:

As your next lapse of logic you wrote, “The invasion of Hitler on Russia speaks all I need to know as to the supposed ‘partnership’ they may have had.” It speaks all you need to know about Germany’s attitude towards Russia. But it says nothing at all about Russia’s attitude towards Germany. For that, you would need to consult not only symbolic events like joint Red Army-Wehrmacht military parades prior to Germany’s attack, but also the practical strategic and supplies support that Russia gave to Germany which helped facilitate Germany’s attack against Europe, and Stalin’s initial disbelief that Hitler had turned against him. Though Stalin was heartless in crushing ordinary human life underfoot, he did at least presume a certain honor amongst thieves which Hitler did not replicate, and Hitler’s perfidy caught him unawares.

My comment:

Do I have to point out the lapse in your logic?
Other then some marginal writers, all serious historians that went over the documents understood Soviet Union's buying of time. Nobody had any illusions about Hitler's intentions. What Stalin did not anticipate, was the speedy collapse of Europe.

He was surprised that Hitler was wasting no time to move to the East. Stalin was genuinely surprised by Hitler's decision to invade so quickly, but not by the intentions to move to the eastern front. In fact, anybody who had anybody in WWII, knew that Hitler was going to turn to the East. Stalin was not the only one to be ignorant of the fact.

You are trying to make this sound like the two of them had a real partnership going! What nonsense!

Marzipan6 wrote:

But perhaps your post’s towering dishonesty was you writing, “Just one bombing of Dresden saw more civilians being killed than Estonians during the entire war, and the post-war Soviet rule.” Er – Dresden was a city not only of an enemy combatant, but of the primary aggressor nation of WW2.

MY POINT:

Really, this is the TOWERING DISHONESTY? Dear Marzipan6, it is worth repeating your words: "Er – Dresden was a city not only of an enemy combatant, but of the primary aggressor nation of WW2." Really? Dresden was a city of an enemy combatant? How can a CITY be an ENEMY COMBATANT? And Dresden's crime was that is was a city in a country whose insane leadership became primary aggressor nation of WWII!!!!!!!!!!

I do not know how can you ever think this way, and then having the nerve to actually say it in public. And then, accuse others of TOWERING DISHONESTY?

You are, here, for all to see, claiming that the only innocents in WWII were Estonians. All other civilians that were killed, somehow deserved it, and just cannot possibly be compared with Estonian innocents! This is twisted.

And do you think that it was OK to drop atomic bombs on two towns, at the time when Japan had no capability to attack any more? And all in the name of "ending the war"? These were civilians that were killed, not military assets of Japan.

I, UNLIKE YOU, DO NOT CLASSIFY INNOCENT POPULATION INTO "ENEMY COMBATANTS".

For me, innocents are innocents. Be they innocents of Estonia, Russia, Japan or Germany.

You believe that THE ONLY MURDEROUS ARMY WAS RED ARMY. The "return of mass murderers" is how you describe the Red Army push of the Eastern Front away from its borders. But to you, it was not EQUALLY MURDEROUS killing of ANY civilians in the war.

Marzipan6 wrote:

Estonia had committed no aggression against anyone, was not even at war, was determinedly neutral and had treaties of mutual assistance with Russia whose faithful observance Pravda had praised as late as 28 May 1940.

MY POINT:

What a propaganda trick. Pravda was just being politically correct, as this was the official position. What did you expect them to write? Something like this: "Daily we are being spied on by our presumed partners, so every time we send planes out to the Gulf of Finland, our positions are in jeopardy. Daily, hundreds of Estonians are going over to Finland to fight against us. With Finland up until its knees already in Hitler's camp, Estonia is following the trend". That would have sounded reassuring to the public! Naturally that they lied --- everything is just roses, and we are doing so well.

What was your point to bring the article up? To say that Russia really liked what was going on in Estonia, and then changed their mind overnight, and turned into a strange, outer space-like killing machine that descended on Estonia?

Marzipan6 wrote:

Yet less than three weeks later Russia initiated its 50-year ravaging of Estonia. This, along with its concomitant mass atrocities was an inexcusable and barbaric evil.

My point:

You are forgetting the period of Nazi Germany residing in Estonia, building concentration camps, busily killing millions of Russians, so close to you, that you could smell the stench? So, the "fifty year ravaging, was interrupted by Estonian participation in the largest mass murder in WWII, the killing of Russian civilians? And then proceeded with a vigorous "defense" to stop Red Army pursue the one an only true evil, the monstrous Third Reich.

But you see only Soviet Union committing barbaric evil.

The "mass atrocities" you are blaming Red Army for, is under 50.000 dead Estonians, including civilian and military, over the entire WWII period. If I am not accurate in the numbers, let me know.

The city of Dresden had many, many more civilian victims. Only civilians. And they were not killed by Russians.

Marzipan6 wrote:

The bombing of German cities was tragic, and in some cases as with Dresden, probably unnecessary. But it was a tragedy which Germany brought on itself. Your comparison of allied bombing of German cities with Soviet Russia’s half-century assault and oppression of a peaceful neutral neighbor simply takes one’s breath away.

MY COMMENT: My shock over your morals cannot be greater. This is the kind of reasoning that brings about wars and destruction. Now I can see, as I really feel the chill, how can some people justify the death of innocents.

For you, some things are just "regrettable". Well, they were the enemy population! What? Those civilians brought it ON THEMSELVES! What?

Your thoughts, feelings and attitudes towards the value of human life are as far away from mine, as one can get. No, Marzipan6, you are not right! Civilian population is not responsible for whatever their leaders decided! Nobody had the right to kill civilians indiscriminately from the air!

Taking your logic to its conclusion, Soviet Union was justified in occupying Estonia and treating the population as enemy combatants! Why not? You are saying that Estonia was peaceful, but that is not what the Russians felt on their skin? So, why not just call it "regrettable"?

Because it would be insane, as it is insane to defend the murder of civilians anywhere.

Marzipan6 wrote:

The historical assessment of the War has been accurate since the day it ended everywhere in the world, except in Russia.

But then, Russia’s description of its own deeds has never been confused with “history”, not even in Russia itself, which is why revisions of it keep being turned out every couple of decades.

My comment:

Frankly, Marzipan6, after your definition of Dresden as the city of the "enemy combatant", I can hardly have anything much to tell you. You have your own version of history, while Russian history of WWII, does not really look any different from what is being thought in schools here in US.

Estonia suffered and still suffers from bad political judgment. As an independent country, seems to be making decisions that are disastrous to its population.

You see, Marzipan6, Estonian history is all about TECHNICALITY. Technically, Estonia was neutral. In reality, it played high risk politics. For a small country --- that is a big problem.

Today, same problem. Baltics, Estonia the primary cheerleader, are insisting on NATO developing a defense plan for Baltics. Clearly, the "insistence" is viewed with benevolence in some Western circles. But not all. A non-existent threat is elevated to the highest rank of militarization. Estonia is interested in high politics --- again. It will be more then happy to house any military gear on Russia's border. That is a judgment that only Estonia can make, but let's not claim innocence all over again.

Estonia is exposing itself to adventurism in high-stake politics, forgetting that it should strive to build good relations with all of its neighbors, especially Germany and Russia. Playing off one against the other is a loosing proposition.


Aleksandar Hranov

20 January, 2010, 23:56

Thank you Bianca!
As usual it’s been very educational reading you.

Funny how current Ukrainian leadership wants to join the EU, but asks instead Georgia to send its “monitors.” If they share so much with Georgia in terms of values, I suggest they form a union with this country and leave the EU alone; I’m sure a few other would like to join such a union too... .

“According to Saakashvili, "their stay there was on my order agreed with all political forces, we received confirmation and agreement from all.””
Not what I heard on RT. Party of Regions was pretty surprised for somebody who has been asked and has agreed.

“Surely, before the second tour we'll ask them again whether they want to involve our monitors. It's up to them to decide."
Surely I want to see a confirmation from the Party of Regions that they have been asked on this before the second tour!

“Yesterday Levan Tarkhnishvili, the ex-head of Central Electoral Commission of Georgia, said most Georgian monitors departed for Georgia.”
Yes, as you said, I want to know how many were send in total in the first place? I want to know what “most” means?..
Also, what their background is, how come there isn’t a single woman among them, how come they’re all between 25 and 40 years of age, and (most importantly) what was/is the purpose of their.. “monitoring”, and the means they were/are entitled to use?
This should be investigated I believe by institutions concerned and facts brought in the light ASAP. If any wrongdoing, people and institutions should be charged. As it is it definitely stinks and lack of digging into the matter more deeply will definitely invite more of the same.



BR,
Aleks

Ps. If I had to define age we live in, “lawlessness” comes to mind. If criminal behaviour on all levels is only rewarded, guess what conclusion will people worldwide come to?.. It’s an intelligent monkey you’re dealing with after all.. .


Marzipan6

20 January, 2010, 04:43

I better correct an inadvertent error of fact in my long reply to Bianca, to save her the trouble of correcting it for me. I had said that Männil was hired by the German political police 6 days after the German occupation of Tallinn. This is not correct – I don’t know when he was hired. The interrogations which are the subject of Bianca’s accusations regarding Männil occurred 6 days after the German occupation of Tallinn.


Marzipan6

20 January, 2010, 04:31

Bianca, you are making some very wild false accusations. I despair of specifying your errors of fact, as past experience shows that this is likely to have as much effect for you as water on a duck’s back. But perhaps not so for other readers, so here goes:

You write, “Now you are being even more creative. He (Männil) was ‘not an arresting officer’ you say.” No, I did not say this, and you know I did not. In my post of 19 January 12:02 I wrote, “As for Männil, it appears that he may indeed have not … even known he arrested the seven Jewish people to whom you refer. HE MAY HAVE DONE – but documentary evidence specifying that he was the arresting officer does not exist.”

You continued, “And are you also saying that, while he was in charge, and under his watch, these seven people were executed --- without his knowledge?” No, and you know that I’m not. First, there is no evidence designating Männil in charge of anything, yet you magically promote him to being “the man in charge of the institution.” It is hard for me to credit that this is not a deliberate and knowing untruth on your part.

Six days after the establishment of the German occupation in Tallinn, Männil was hired by the German political police (by the way, there never was any Estonian political police) as an ASSISTANT. Nor have I ever said that the seven detained people in question were executed without his knowledge. I don’t know when they were executed, but it would have been some time after their interrogation, and by then Männil would have presumably known it. What I wrote was that this early in the German occupation people would be unlikely to know that an arrest and interrogation would lead to execution. Just as six days into the Soviet occupation of Estonia, people would not have dreamt that before the month was out, some 10,000 of them would have been transported to Siberian slavery, and most to their death, by the Soviets. There are some levels of barbarity that are very hard to apprehend before the event.

Your next untruth is this: you wrote, “For you, hundreds of thousands of Russians killed by the Estonians, mean absolutely nothing.” Yet you know very well that in my post of 15 December 10:27 I had written, “I will not get into a debate as to who amongst Estonians and Russians killed more of the other, as all killing is a tragedy and the extinguishing of something unique and priceless. It all is to be utterly, utterly regretted. I will say, though, because it is true, that those who invade and occupy another country can expect to be vehemently resisted. If they didn’t want to take the casualties, they shouldn’t have invaded and occupied.” Why are you dishonest in regard to what I write?

You go on to say, “Do you know that Estonians killed more Russians and other nationals of the former Soviet Union then the total number of US losses in WWII?” No, I don’t know that, and neither do you nor anyone else. You are recklessly assigning to Estonia the death of every Soviet soldier involved in the 1944 invasion of Estonia. Yet Estonian units, drawn from a tiny national population of only 1 million, always comprised the minority in any action where they fought alongside the much larger German units. The majority of Russians killed in the re-occupation of Estonia were killed by Germans. Although Estonians, whose memory of mass Soviet atrocities of 1941 from the first Soviet occupation was very fresh, were entitled to prevent the return of Soviet mass murderers to their country in any way they could. When Soviets imposed their first occupation in 1940, Estonians killed no one at all, and we all know the way that Russians thanked them for that. I already detailed the foregoing in my post of 17 December 10:41, as you also know.

As your next lapse of logic you wrote, “The invasion of Hitler on Russia speaks all I need to know as to the supposed ‘partnership’ they may have had.” It speaks all you need to know about Germany’s attitude towards Russia. But it says nothing at all about Russia’s attitude towards Germany. For that, you would need to consult not only symbolic events like joint Red Army-Wehrmacht military parades prior to Germany’s attack, but also the practical strategic and supplies support that Russia gave to Germany which helped facilitate Germany’s attack against Europe, and Stalin’s initial disbelief that Hitler had turned against him. Though Stalin was heartless in crushing ordinary human life underfoot, he did at least presume a certain honour amongst thieves which Hitler did not replicate, and Hitler’s perfidy caught him unawares.

But perhaps your post’s towering dishonesty was you writing, “Just one bombing of Dresden saw more civilians being killed than Estonians during the entire war, and the post-war Soviet rule.” Er – Dresden was a city not only of an enemy combatant, but of the primary aggressor nation of WW2. Estonia had committed no aggression against anyone, was not even at war, was determinedly neutral and had treaties of mutual assistance with Russia whose faithful observance Pravda had praised as late as 28 May 1940. Yet less than three weeks later Russia initiated its 50-year ravaging of Estonia. This, along with its concomitant mass atrocities was an inexcusable and barbaric evil. The bombing of German cities was tragic, and in some cases as with Dresden, probably unnecessary. But it was a tragedy which Germany brought on itself. Your comparison of allied bombing of German cities with Soviet Russia’s half-century assault and oppression of a peaceful neutral neighbour simply takes one’s breath away.

You declared, “Again and again, you want WWII to be refought and redefined.” Please don’t tell me what I want – it is for me to tell you what I want. And I assuredly don’t want WWII refought (where do you get such ideas from?) much less re-defined, as the historical assessment of the War has been accurate since the day it ended everywhere in the world, except in Russia. But then, Russia’s description of its own deeds has never been confused with “history”, not even in Russia itself, which is why revisions of it keep being turned out every couple of decades.

Finally you wrote, “And if you wish to insist that there was no Nazism in Estonia, you would be the only one, to my knowledge, making that claim.” It all depends on what you mean by “Nazism.” There was certainly a Nazi occupation, though no particular sympathies amongst the people for it or for Nazi ideology either before, during or after the event. There were Estonians fighting within the German military against the return of Soviet occupation because Estonians had no military of their own after Russia, by deceit, occupied their country and destroyed their own military. And there were a few individuals who, sadly enough, did participate in German war crimes. Does this equate to there “being Nazism in Estonia?” One might just as sensibly ask, “Was there Communism in Estonia”? Well, there were several Communist occupations of the country. Before the first one, the membership of the Estonian Communist Party totalled less than 100, but as the second occupation extended into the decades, many took out party membership because that was the only way to secure half-way decent housing, jobs and education. Estonians even ended up serving in the Red Army – they had no option but to. And yes, there were also a few “true believers” who were committed Communist and betrayers of their people. But throughout all that time, Estonians as a whole resisted Soviet rule in any way they could, and got out from under it the very first opportunity that came along. There was “Communism in Estonia” in pretty much the same way as “Nazism in Estonia.”


Bianca

20 January, 2010, 01:49

Aleksander,

This I found in Georgian paper.

"In the view of party leader, ex-Speaker Burjanadze, these actions of the government show what, in this government's view, are "democratic elections."

"We are sure that the freedom-loving Ukrainian people in fraternal Ukraine will ensure the victory of democracy without Saakashvili's interference!" statement says.

The first tour of presidential elections in Ukraine took place on January 17th. Before the elections 400 Georgian "monitors" arrived in Donetsk.

The President of Georgia commented the incident and said that monitors were sent on the request of Ukrainian people, and "their arrival was hailed with heart and soul". According to Saakashvili, "their stay there was on my order agreed with all political forces, we received confirmation and agreement from all. Surely, before the second tour we'll ask them again whether they want to involve our monitors. It's up to them to decide."

Georgian Central Electoral Commision intended to accredit over 2000 monitors. On January 17th the Ukrainian CEC re-considered registration of Georgian monitors and again rejected. CEC members decided to turn to Prosecutor General's Office.

Yesterday Levan Tarkhnishvili, the ex-head of Central Electoral Commission of Georgia, said most Georgian monitors departed for Georgia.

He said this decision must ease "tension", accompanying Georgian monitors in Ukraine; moreover most of them were not allowed to work.

Well, at least it is news in Georgia, but looking at this carefully, somebody invited them. There is only one "somebody", and that is the current reckless President of Ukraine.

The purpose is still not clear, nor is it clear that they left Ukraine. Even less is clear, just how much of these "monitors" are there?


Bianca

19 January, 2010, 22:42

Marzipan6,

I will let others look at my sense of ethics and morals.

You have quite clearly expressed yours. Your defense of Estonian Authorities, and your continued defence (that is apparently not needed) of late Harry Mannil, is stunning.

Now you are being even more creative. He was "not an arresting officer", you say. Is it ever the practice that high-ranking people in any police go out to actually arrest people themselves?

Are you also saying that he had nothing to do with their interrogation? And are you also saying that, while he was in charge, and under his watch, these seven people were executed --- without his knowledge? So, the man in charge of the institution that has arrested, interrogated and then executed these seven people is not responsible for these murders, because there is no paper documentation showing him to be the arresting officer? \

Do you realize how far have you gone? And what are you really saying? In your world, nobody would have ever answered for the war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, unless they have themselves been the arresting officers, or killers, and the written documents to that effect exist?

So, for the first nine months of the Nazi administratoin in Estonia, as many Jews were liquidated, you are claiming that the most notorious of all outfits, the one Harry Mannil managed --- had nothing to do with their death and disappearance?

First you claimed that may be he did not know what was going on. Now, you are backing off that line of thinking --- to point out that his name was not the name of the arresting officer. But he was the man in charge!

I have commented on the Estonian Authorities, not on your personal sense of justice. But since you chose to be personal, let me remind you that your anguish for the victims is very selective. For you, hundreds of thousands of Russians killed by the Estonians, mean absolutely nothing. Oh well, you say, they should not have been there in the first place. That is like saying that Estonia should have been in different place, as it stood right on the eastern front.

Do you know that Estonians killed more Russians and other nationals of the former Soviet Union then the total number of US losses in WWII? That is, if you add all the fronts, Pacific and European together?

Nobody ever said that the losses that Estonia suffered in the slaughterhouse that was WWII are not tragic. I have often pointed out to you the tragedies and bitter fate that had befallen Estonia.

Do you remember how many times I said that I would never ask for an appology from anyone who was on the loosing side of WWII? And you know why? Because people are NOT GUILTY COLLECTIVELY. And the armies in the field do not make decisions --- they go and confront those that are their enemies.

You make such an extraordinary case for German-Soviet closeness, that nothing in history can confirm. You like photo-ops, as if they mean anything. The invasion of Hitler on Russia speaks all I need to know as to the supposed "partnership" they may have had. The annihilation of civilian population in areas of Nazi incursion into Soviet Union speaks all I need to know about your imagined partnership. In the light of millions of civilian victims in Russia --- your suggestion is not only without logic, it is immoral.

You have never regretted, as far as I remember, the senseless death and disappeance of millions of Russians in the cursed war. It is almost as if you think it was allright to slaughter them.

Estonia did loose close to 50,000 people to the war and deportations. That is a calamity for a small nation. But the death and destruction of civilians in other parts of the Europe and elsewhere cannot be overlooked, if you are to have some all encompassing judgement on the Soviet Union.

Just one bombing of Dresden saw more civilians being killed then Estonians during the entire war, and the post-war Soviet rule. What about other German cities, like Hamburg and others? Dresden at that time did not have any military, or military supportive infrastructure to warrrant that vengeance. And at the time when Japan did not even have enough fuel to raise it military planes in the air, how does one justify dropping atomic weapon on two cities?

Your penchant for evidentiary support --- written one --- tells me that your feelings for victims seem to be "situational". You will be outraged over the death of some, while stone cold about others.

I do not question your morals and ethics. That is never possible without actually knowing the person, and their contribution to the lives of others.

But I question your judgement. It is heavily coloured by a driving force to portray history of Estonia in a simple, almost fairy tale manner. Yours is a story of an innocent nation, brutalized by a barbaric, large neighbor. Your context is the stage on which only the pieces of your selected props are visible.

Again, and again, you want WWII to be refought and redefined. While the end of the Soviet Union brought to the larger audiences more historic depth, the net result did not change the overall knowledge.

As somebody at this forum mentioned before, the knowledge of the hardship under Stalinism in Estonia and other Baltic states, has been also supplemented by the knowledge of the Nazi era in those countries.

And if you wish to insist that there was no Nazism in Estonia, you would be the only one, to my knowledge, making that claim.


Marzipan6

19 January, 2010, 12:02

It’s not “my” history of Estonia, Bianca, but universally available anywhere Estonian history is recorded.

Claiming that in 1939-40 “Finland was engaging the Soviet Union on behalf of Hitler” is about as ridiculous as one can get. Finland was engaging, on its own soil, a completely unprovoked attack against it by Soviet Russia, which Russia mounted in pursuance of claiming for itself territory which the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that it signed with its virtual ally, Nazi Germany, assigned to it. I can even refer you to photos on the web of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht joining in parades together celebrating their combined destruction of Poland at the same time as Soviet Russia was attacking Finland. Strangely, RT has not actually published these.

Occupying Estonia in 1940 and wantonly murdering and deporting its civilians into Siberian slavery by the thousands at a time when Russia was not at war with Germany, and when Estonia was at war with nobody at all, was as “necessary” as continuing the occupation, murder, deportations and oppression for almost 50 years after Nazi Germany was a memory.

Some Estonians fought under the Nazi banner, and some under the Soviet banner. Each was fighting one enemy of their country.

As for Männil, it appears that he may indeed have not have even known he arrested the seven Jewish people to whom you refer. He may have done – but documentary evidence specifying that he was the arresting officer does not exist. But of course, who needs evidence when a surfeit of ideology and bias will do just as well? You don’t, but courts do. Which is why no formal accusation has ever been lodged against Männil, including by the KGB. And which is why no defense is necessary.

Yes, the Soviet Union and allies were the winners of WW2. The Soviet Union was also the oppressor of half of Europe for half a century, seamlessly exchanging one totalitarian occupation for another. Some more of “my” history, I suppose.

The more I learn about the ethics and values upon which you promote your views, the more I shudder.


Bianca

19 January, 2010, 06:16

Aleksandar,

This bizarre event is stuck in the twilight of Ukrainian administration. It is really strange that these flights did arrive, and the authorities were ascertaining the purpose of the passengers' mission.

The whole thing is made more awkward, since Ukrainian authorities made it clear that these were not certified election observers. The authorities actually made things worse by not being clear about the passengers, and their "en masse" arrival. All that the authorities did, was add to the confusion.

It is really hard to speculate here. It is very possible that someone invited election monitors, but did not notify others, and did not issue appropriate certifications. I wonder about election monitors that did not happen to have one female team member?

Things are not adding up, but it would be hard to speculate on the purpose.

However, just imagine that these were two plane loads of Russians, looking all clean-cut, military tight-lipped. I can just imagine the outcry. Soon, you would see articles accusing Putin of personally tucking them in with blankets on that plane.

However, the current President has proven that he is game for any kind of gamble. Nobody would have ever imagined that he was going to pull the stunt with the gas cut-off. Nobody would have imagined such reckless behavior, in the middle of the winter. Yet, he did it. The propaganda did a fantastic job in painting Russia for the problem, even though even a little rudimentary investigation would have shown that only Ukraine could have cut off various branches at various times, since Russia controls only two entry points into Ukraine, while Ukraine controls four exits into Europe.

It was just as reckless to get himself involved in the Russian-Georgian war.

But what would be the purpose of undermining elections? There is a great probability that Timoshenko will win, as she can pick up voters of the smaller candidates, and Yuschenko vote will very likely go to her, unless they stay home.

Unless, the position of various groups around Julia is weaker then I think. If this is the case, and the reckless nature of Yuschenko proves to be at play, one can be prepared for the most nasty surprises. The gas crisis was a big, big time gamble. It created a serious situation for Russia, and forced European nations to start singing Nabucco tune. But just as it appeared that the strategy bore fruit, it backfired.
Several events have occurred that are contributing to the Nabucco project falling apart. One, the rather deceptive nature of Russia-Turkmenistan conflict over the gas contracted for by Gazprom. While the drama froze in place and mesmerized the normally vocal NGOs in both Turkmenistan and Russia, the ahead of schedule gas pipeline Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Kazakhstan-China, came on-line. Following that, just like magic, Turkmenistan-Russian gas started flowing again. Additional pipe to Iran indicates that the networking of pipes is multi-directional. Additionally, Russia and Turkmenistan are starting the project to network various gas fields inside Turkmenistan, allowing for utilization of any of the sources to meet the demands in any direction. Second, surprising move happened on South Stream. While a lot of political capital has been spent on Bulgaria, and the new government's review of South Stream plans --- an Italian-Turkish-Russian agreement on the move of underwater section to parallel Blue Stream into Turkish territorial waters, was a surprise. As it may turn out, the hotly contested trunk of South Stream entering Balkans at Bulgaria, may not be the first focus. The less talked about, the southern trunk of South Stream, that was to branch off from Bulgaria into Greece and then to Italy, may become the first to implement --- straight from Turkey, without Bulgaria. This may make Balkan strategy obsolete, or at least not the pipeline buster, as some have hoped. More difficult for Georgia is the move to open Turkish-Armenian border. With the Azerbaijan keeping low profile over Nagorno-Karabakh, it seems to me that some tacit agreements have been reached. The significance is in the possibility that Georgia may be bypassed in the future. Azerbaijan-Armenia-Turkey will be the new energy direction from the Caspian. Since Azerbaijan has just recently increased the amount of gas delivered to Russia, even less is left for any other competing pipeline.
The only realistic option at this point is to try to secure Iranian gas. This however, due to the political impasse, may not be possible in the medium term.
As Russia and Turkey plan for expanding gas pipe to Lebanon and Syria, the capacity of Blue Stream will increase.

All of these developments are now pointing to the higher, and higher degree of inter-networking of Eurasian territory. They also point to the fact that Turkey and Italy are seeking major roles in energy map of the future. And in the future, any new Turkmenistan's fields that come on line, require that Azerbaijan is part of the transfer towards Europe. Azerbaijan, Russia and Turkey see more value in utilizing Armenia for transit, and avoid volatile Georgia.

The reason I am reviewing the recent events in the complex energy futures, is the feeling that I get that Nabucco has sustained a bad damage. It all may have started with the ill-advised snub of Angela Merkel, as she was departing US. On her last day, she was informed that GM decided not to sell Opel according to Germany's plan; as Germany was adamant about refusing any other deal, GM just pulled Opel from the market. This was a hostile act, as far as I see this. It did not take long for the response. The following day, Sweden and Finland, on the same day gave a green light to Nord Stream's environmental plan. It looked to me that Germany needed to send a swift message across Atlantic. It pulled in few favors by its neighbors, and the Nord Stream became an unstoppable reality.

All of this adds up to the unpleasant fact that the oil majors that stood behind Nabucco, now have very little leverage.
I may be way off the base, but I happen to believe that Yuschenko and Saakashvilli were all about securing Nabucco. Now, both places look rather irrelevant. Unless, some provocation makes Ukraine world news again.

Again and again, I am not convinced that the risks are worth it, and that Ukrainian political scene is not so deeply poisoned. But what if I am wrong, and the provocation may aim at creating a practical and political mess.


Bianca

19 January, 2010, 04:18

Marzipan6,

just by repeating the "history" of Estonia, you are not convincing anybody. Your history is just as accurate as is your characterization of my comments. For example:

" Bianca congratulates Russia for committing no atrocities against Estonia between the signing of the Bases Treaty in September 1939 and the Soviet occupation of the country in June 1940 as if this was a point of high honor, and ignores the fact that throughout all this period Russia consistently broke the terms of the Bases Treaty increasing its troop numbers way beyond permissible levels, and then used them to overthrow the country."

Bianca never CONGRATULATED ANYONE FOR ANYTHING. This is not my quote, and you attributing this to me, shows just how much respect you have for others.

What I did, I pointed out to the readers that Russia first came to Estonia on the basis of the agreement for the use of naval base. And that during that period, Soviet Union did not interfere into the Estonian affairs. Nobody was prosecuted, arrested or deported. But Estonia ACTED IN A HOSTILE MANNER TO SOVIET UNION. Just the opposite from what you claim. It was Estonia that sent many volunteers to fight in Finland. It was Estonians that sent intelligence to Finland detailing Soviet military assets, as well as any departure of planes from the naval base. All documented.

As Finland was already engaging Soviet Union on behalf of Hitler, and shortly afterwords became a de jure ally of Hitler's Germany, these actions by Estonians were hostile to the Soviet Army.

You may not agree with Soviet strategy for winning WWII. Part of the strategy was to occupy the Baltics ahead of Hitler's push to the East. By doing so, Soviet Union eliminated military assets that were to be used by Hitler's army. You may not think that the occupation was necessary, but I am afraid, not many people who understand military affairs would agree with you.

Your argumentation is pointless. Estonia and Baltic states were assets to Hitler's military. The countries were occupied to create a forward position for Soviet military. On the surface, that did not do Soviet Union much good, but I can imagine that the position of St. Petersburg would have been much worse, if not terminal, if Soviet Union left preserved all the military assets for Hitler to use.

You are still trying to portray Estonia as a total innocent, in spite of a mountain of data to the contrary. Most historians feel sorry for Estonia and Baltics, but almost without exception state: "Estonia did fight under the Nazi banner". That is something that cannot be erased from history.

Marzipan6, you can keep on trying, and everyone will tell you how foolish you look. You keep on looking for the technicalities, so that you can explain away Estonia's past.

Just as in the case of Harry Mannil. Having defended him with the most ridiculous argument, you than claim that you have not defended him! And to prove your very technical point, you did not defend him, because --- there was no need for defense! Mind you all, Harry Mannil did not need to be defended by Marzipan6, because --- he was never charged! Yes, Marzipan6, we got that! Estonian authorities would not charge him, no matter the evidence, and you, Marzipan6, have technically no need to defend him. However, just in case somebody is wondering, you slip in the defense. Poor man, he did not really know what he was doing, it was so early in the Nazi administration!

He did not know that he arrested seven people, had them interrogated, and then executed --- not by some far away Nazis --- but by Harry Mannil's own Estonian Nazis.

What is clear to the whole world, but not to you, is that the command responsibility in Nazi institutions carried accountability. What I have said to you, and will say again, your whitewashing of Estonian Nazi past is your passion. You go very far in defending it, and then --- without explanation --- claim that you do no such thing.

If you insist, I will keep quoting your "defense" of Harry Mannil, to refresh your memory.

Your entire approach to the case of Harry Mannil is the mirror image of your difficulty with Nazism in Estonia. You will not defend it, because you do not believe the defense is needed --- it is always somebody else's fault.

As for your obsession with Stalinism, go for it. For as long as you let go of the WWII. Soviet Union and allies were winners in WWII. Accept this. Estonia was not the only country in Europe that has paid dearly for the conflict between the two. Estonia was on the wrong side of the war.
For as long as it is clear to you, Marzipan6, that allies did win WWII, and that Soviet Union was part of that effort. Do not get yourself confused by the technicalities, as you are in the case of Harry Mannil.

Harry Mannil is responsible for the lives of seven Jews, whom he arrested, interrogated and executed. In his command capacity, he is certainly responsible for many more lives.

Since you insist that there is not a shred of evidence against him, I can equally insist that you are silencing those seven people once again. These are people who did not get the justice, and you brazenly insist that they do not matter.

I am not so sure anymore that you care about the lives of those he killed. Because, as you say, he has not been charged by the Estonian authorities, so those people never existed.

The more I learn about Estonian authorities, the more I shudder.


Marzipan6

19 January, 2010, 01:00

To Starlight:

Nothing you wrote even begins to overthrow the fact that Estonia’s government of the 1930s was strongly anti-fascist. Please read again more carefully Section 3 of my response to you of 16 January. It may also be helpful to read the following excerpts from Wikipedia’s article on Konstantin Päts:

“In order to head off the seizure of power by the proto-fascist Vaps Movement, Konstantin Päts declared state of emergency in the whole country…on 12 March 1934, disbanding the Vaps movement and arresting its leading figures. Konstantin Päts established a moderate regime that the historian Georg von Rauch has called Authoritarian Democracy. Regarding the constitution of 1934 too dictatorial, he organised the passing of a new constitution through a plebiscite and a National Constituent Assembly. During the transition to his constitution he became Riigihoidja (President-Regent) of Estonia on 3 September 1937 and President of the Republic, under the new constitution, on 24 April 1938. His constitution was based on the contemporary Polish and Belgian constitutions. He also admired the British two-chamber parliament.”

Between 1934 and 1938 the Estonia had a government that was authoritarian, but emphatically not fascist. For a more detailed account of that period of history, visit Estonica.org, and then click on “History” and on to “The Story of the Estonian Republic – 1918-1940 ”, and from there click box 9 at the foot of the page to take you to “Authoritarian Estonia.”


post comment
13 November, 2009, 23:37
Medvedev as “our kind of guy”
01 November, 2009, 21:51
Obama’s foreign policy – “business as usual”
About author

Peter Lavelle is the host of RT's week in review programme In Context, and was the anchor of the commentary series IMHO (In my humble opinion). And RT viewers can expect to find Peter in the news studio commenting on breaking events. This includes live press conferences and when decision makers meet anywhere in the world.

Peter Lavelle has extensive experience in academia and the world of business. He did his doctoral studies at the University of California in Eastern European and Russian studies. He has lived in Eastern Europe and Russia for a better part of the last 25 years. During that time he was a lecturer at the University of Warsaw, a market researcher for Colgate-Palmolive, an investment analyst for a number of respected brokerage firms, including Russia’s Alfa Bank.

In the realm of media, Peter Lavelle is widely published. He has written for Asia Times Online, Moscow Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, United Press International, In the National Interest, and Current History – to mention only a few.

Peter enjoys reading, films, long walks through Moscow, and caring for his two dogs. Viewers are invited to read his daily blog, below.

Peter Lavelle also has an Internet discussion group on Russia:

http://groups.google.com/group/Untimely_Thoughts_An_Expert_Discussion_Group_on_Russia