CountCash justifies Russia’s aggression against Japan days before the close of WW2 (and in contravention of an active treaty that Russia had with Japan at the time) by the claim that the Allies agreed to this perfidy at Yalta. If so, then I doubt that the Allies also agreed to a permanent occupation of Japanese territory. Or if they did, that this had any legitimizing force of law. The Allies also sold the Baltics into Soviet slavery at Yalta, again without a shred of legitimacy or legality. The United States has formally apologised for this to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; Russia has not. As for Estonia’s economy, your comment about it is simply a throw-away line based on no factual understanding. If you want to learn about the subject, Google “Estonia economy”, and you’ll have enough substantial reading material for a week. The current world financial crisis has hit Estonia just like all other countries, but by no means as badly as many others. The economy continues to enjoy a high rating, is soundly based, has neither asked for nor received any financial bail-outs, continues to receive only standard benefits specified by standard EU protocols, and is a provider of foreign aid to Eastern Europe and to numbers other countries in the developing world.

Marzipan6: You say that Russia should apologize for the crimes (internal/international) that "Russians committed in the service of the Soviet state". So, there were some Russians (communists, I presume) who committed some crimes to other Russians (internal) and to some non-Russians (international). Now the whole of Russia should apologize for that? On the other hand, there were some Estonians that were SS troupers, but there were others who were not Nacy supporters. But you do not mention that today's Estonia should apologize for the crimes of the SS trouper Estonians. That's a kind of reasoning you are pursuing: Russia is always to be blamed. You really haven't made an effort (neither, as it appears, you have a will to do so) to grasp the "crime period" from the Russian point of view. On the top of that, these communist Russians (who have made the crimes) were not really a kind of individuals that have been using to think about themselves as Russian natives, as their communistic ideology denied the concept of nation and, consequently, they were using to regard themselves as communists-internationalists. Besides, many of those who made the crimes were non-Russians. Is it that Russia should apologize for Stalin's crimes? Not Georgia? The crimes were indeed made and it is a sad fact. That was that kind of ideology. "Revolutsia eats its children" (not only its enemies). Remember? I sense somehow that at the end you will become a wild pro-Russian (but do not turn then into becoming a hater of Estonians). Cheers!

To argue Russia was the aggressor against Japan is simply absurd. It would be like arguing Britain was the aggressor for declaring war on Germany after Poland was invaded, or the US or Canadians were agressors for waging war on the Nazis and coming ashore on D-Day, the arguments are total and utter nonsense, as anyone can see, they are perverse and are the product of a dimented creation as a Russophibic dimentia. Yes the issue of Kuril was settled at Yalta, do some reading, instead of fantasising. As for Estonia's economy it is a mess and nosediving, it was propped up by the Swedish banks over-reaching and the EU handouts, the Swedish money has already gone, the EU will follow. You can fantasise all you like about that one too, but the people will go hungry, and they will start asking questions and they won't be about the 1940s.

Vladimir - once again you are exactly correct, the manoevering has already started for the conflict, the US is manoevering to get as much hardware on the Russian border as possible. The 'good cop' has been put in power, to do this; this is the game. If they can delude themselves that they can win, then they will attack. You are also correct that if it does kick off, because of the shortsightedness of some Baltic countries, they will get trampled under foot, and again find theselves on the wrong side. As you say Russia will defeat any forthcoming attack, we have the leadership to do it and we also have the military capability. That is certain!

Vladimir, once again you show a major lack of knowledge of the subject about which you write. You either have not considered, or simply do not know about, the following: (1) In the experience of the Baltic nations, their occupiers came from Russia, on orders from Russia, backed up by the army of Russia, accompanied by the secret police of Russia, speaking Russian, and overwhelmingly were Russians. They killed thousands of civilians in the name of Soviet Russia, and deported hundreds of thousands of other innocent civilians in cattle wagons to slave camps in Russia, run by Russians on the authority of the government in Russia and imposed their own national anthem on the occupied Baltics, whose first two lines cynically declared, “Unbreakable bond of freeborn republics, put together by great Russia.” (2) The above crimes were Russian crimes against humanity. Surviving perpetrators overwhelmingly live in Russia, enjoy Russian pensions, wear the medals of Russia and celebrate their heroics each year in officially sanctioned parades in Russia. The government that can require them to answer for their crimes in a court of law is Russian; the country that can atone for their crimes against neighbouring countries is Russia. And Russia is the country that has done absolutely zero to bring appropriate closure to these crimes. (3) Unlike in either Russia or Germany, Estonia never had a repressive government. Persecuting, arresting, enslaving, killing civilians was never done in Estonia as an expression of the government of Estonia, nor by agents of the government of Estonia. Also unlike in Russia or Germany, foreign conquest was never a policy of the Estonian government. And unlike pre-war Russia, Estonian never allied itself with Nazi Germany. (4) When it was under the first Soviet occupation, then Nazi occupation, and then under a second Soviet occupation which together extended from 1940 to 1991, Estonia had no government of its own, government policies of its own nor alliances of its own. It was totally in the power of its foreign occupants. During wartime occupation, many Estonians fought within both the militaries of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, because Moscow had already dismantled Estonia’s own military. Some Estonians were conscripted into these militaries, some volunteered. But none fought for the war aims of either Moscow of Berlin – all fought as best they could for the liberty of their homeland because whether in German or Russian uniform, each was fighting at least one deadly enemy of Estonia, and the overwhelming majority fought with honour and valour. Units which had been formed within the German military wore Estonian insignia on their uniform, refused to swear allegiance to Hitler, and because Germany was so desperate for military manpower they allowed them to get away with it. (5) During that time when Estonia had no government of its own, some few – a very few – of those who fought both in German or Soviet uniform did, in fact, participate in some German and Russian war crimes. Although this was never as a result of any policy of any Estonian government but an expression of the policies of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, post-occupation Estonia has nevertheless apologised numerous times in the persons of its President, high government ministers and in parliament resolutions, for the crimes of these individuals. Holocaust Day is solemnly commemorated in Estonia each year, and traditionally the Estonian President attends lays a wreath of flowers at a monument built on the site of a German concentration camp in Estonia. Did you know that? (6) Russia has never apologised to Estonia for monumental crimes which Russians committed against Estonia in the name of the Soviet state. There is no monument in Russia for Baltic people who were murdered or transported into Siberian slavery by Russians, no Russian president has ever laid flowers on that monument. And unlike other world leaders, no Russian president has ever even expressed regret or condolences to Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania on June 14, which is those countries’ annual day of mourning remembering the first mass deportation of approximately 30,000 innocent civilians from those countries by Russians in that 24-hour period in 1941. That savage gesture was intended by Soviet Moscow to shock and numb the newly-occupied Baltic countries into submission. So violent was that attack and so inhumane that it, and other even larger mass deportations that followed after 1945 still continue to shock and numb the Baltics to this day, and make normal relations with Russia impossible for as long as Russia refuses to display the honesty and humanity to seek genuine reconciliation. (7) Estonia’s relations with Russia today are correct, but not cordial. To help you understand why, imagine how Russia might feel about Germany today if (a) Germany denied that it ever occupied Russia but that areas of Russia had willingly seceded and legally became part of the Third Reich; (b) if Germany claimed that any crimes it may have committed against Russians are somehow justified by the fact that Germans also committed crimes against other Germans; (c) if Germany demands that German occupiers of Russia have automatic right to Russian citizenship; (d) if Nazi flags are held in honour in Germany, and are brought out each year in annual parades; (e) if Nazis continue to be members of the German parliament, and if Chancellor of Germany is a former Gestapo officer; (f) if Germany had not brought even one single Nazi to answer for his crimes in a court of law; and (g) if Germany had never apologised to Russia for its crimes against it, but endlessly and on a continuous basis only criticised and blamed it. Baltic countries have to deal with the Russian equivalent of each and every one of these issues. I am very sure that you have never chosen to think about it like that. Hardly any Russians ever have – which is a pity, because otherwise they might understand how Russia appears to others, and do something constructive about it.

CountCash writes that “To argue Russia was the aggressor against Japan is simply absurd. It would be like arguing Britain was the aggressor for declaring war on Germany after Poland was invaded, or the US or Canadians were aggressors for waging war on the Nazis and coming ashore on D-Day, the arguments are total and utter nonsense.” There seems to be some “total and utter nonsense” in the air all right – let’s see if we can pin it down. (1) Britain had pledged itself to assist Poland if it should be invaded. Germany did invade Poland, and Britain was obligated by its pledge. By contrast, the only treaty Russia had with Japan in WW2 was a non-aggression treaty which it violated in attacking Japan. (2) Whereas Britain came to the aid of Poland to help defeat aggression, Russia attacked Japan in literally the final few days of WW2 not to help defeat it (it was already defeated) but, unlike Britain in Poland, simply to grab territory for itself. (3) The US waged war on the Nazis because in December 1942, Germany declared war on the US. Japan never declared war on Russia. Russia had no justification whatsoever in attacking Japan in the final days of the War. Had it been serious about wanting to meaningfully engage an aggressor, it would have declared war on Japan in 1941, when it might have done some good. I understand, however, that Russia was fighting for its own life in 1941, and was in no physical position to declare war on Japan then. And it was in no moral position to do it in 1945. Nor does it have any justification to still be hanging onto its cynically grabbed piece of Japanese territory in 2009. World War 2 began with Russia and Germany, hand-in-hand, invading Poland together and partitioning it between them. I would love to hear someone explain how Germany’s part in the dismembering of Poland was aggression, but Russia’s part of the deal was righteousness, by the way. And World War 2 ended with Russia gratuitously attacking an already defeated Japan for no military reason at all. In each case, the reason was a Russian territory grab. As for the Estonian economy, we'll let events of the next 12 months speak for themselves.

We see more bilateral nonsense, appearing as usual from the Russophobe dimension, conveniently forgetting Canada and trying to argue a piece of paper, stating you will attack in a certain circumstance, has some legitamacy in terms of aggression over an agreement within a command prosecuting a war. What total nonsense and utter nonsense. For those who haven't noticed, it was a world war, it was free of the bilateral relationships that nonsense bilateral analysis tries to impose. WW2 was fought between the Allies and the Axis powers, look it up in any textbook of whatever bias. Countries joined respective sides and sometimes even changed sides. But there were only two sides,the allies and the Axis powers. To prosecute the war, they aided and assisted each other, in what ever way they deemed necessary, this included, invasion of many countries to get the job done. Some actions were even accompanied by a formal declaration of war. Remember it was and still is a sovereign right to wage war. Doing so does not necessarily mean aggression. It is sheer and total nonsense to present a different view. If you joined the Axis, you were fair legal game, and quite right too, and that is the simple truth of the matter. Effectively the same article 5 protection, in NATO today, applied within to the Allies, it is as simple as this. Russia didn't have to wait for people to declare war on it before it could act, only a Russophobe would argue this. Russia had every right to react to Japanese aggression, foisted on the Allies, and reacted to the Allies direct request to clear Manchuria. To discuss a previous peace treaty is meaningless and stupid, the legal declaration of war on Japan, annuled all previous treaties, just as the Russian Japan treaty did before, the treaty itself did not contain any non aggression pact, just a statement of peace, and even if it had, it would have been irrelevent and void in the context of WW2, Again try reading instead of fantacising. You can look up every agreement in the book, and try to twist it outside its factual and historical context to try to change histiry, which is what you try to do an a daily basis. However, it will never change the facts, that Russia legitimately attacked Japan to aid the Allies, as agreed within the Allied command, and that Japan was the aggressor. It is irrelevent what stage they entered, this is another dellusion on your part. As for the islands, they were agreed at Yalta, and thus will remain with Russia, until Russia decides otherwise, probably based on a peace treaty, that will also have to contain further war reparations to Russia from Japan. Enjoy your economy!

It seems Mi6 gets money for misinforming others. Estonia the russophobic dungeon isnt interesting and is given too much attention. I wonder how much you get paid for your hard-written perversive logic lines. Eastern Europe isnt afraid of Russian threat. Eastern Europe is tired of being misused against Russia. However all this isnt heard of in the media here. Its all well silenced and tried to be marginalized or demonized. Youre either with or against US according to Bush... Bobama proved he was nothing else but a cosmetic change in the two-headed commie party. Who the hell believes the bs you spill here?You think of some possibility and then believe it and start to manipulate others into believing you. On topic: Japan should know its place and its story of ww2 murderers and nazis. This should be well mentioned. The former aggressor cant be allowed to even think of its former ambitions and should be humiliated some way. It wasnt the victim of WW2, even though everyone was a victim of bamkers, it doesnt jsutify anybody from his evil deeds, that somebody fooled him....

To CountCash: No, Canada wasn’t forgotten, whether conveniently or otherwise, nor were the other British Commonwealth countries that even you did not mentioned. In a much more tightly-knit and homogenous Commonwealth of the late 1930s, Britain was strongly seen as the Mother Country, and Britain’s commitments were automatically seen as also being the commitments of the Commonwealth. My post assumed that those who read it understood this. Britain and the British Commonwealth stepped into WW2 to help a Poland that was suffering aggression. By contrast, Soviet Russia, along with Nazi Germany, kicked off the war by committing the aggression against Poland in an undisguised Stalinesque land grab, and ended the war with another similar land grab at the expense of Japan. Had Hitler not turned against Stalin in 1941, it is likely that the two would have remained partners in crime throughout the duration just as they were at the start, and Stalin would never have become part of the Allies. The least one can say of Hitler and Stalin is, that freedom fighters they were not! CountCash’s analysis is rather too simplistic when he writes, “But there were only two sides, the allies and the Axis powers.” While that has been the common view, it does not match the facts. Some countries were overtaken by the War which had no side at all, and the Baltics are a case in point. In the years leading up to the war they were determinedly neutral, but then got invaded and occupied in an unprovoked attack by one side (Russia), then by the other (Germany) and then by the first again (Russia), and remained occupied for 50 years. They had no national policy in the conduct of the war, struck no alliances, and from 1940 to 1991 had no strategies or aims or even voice. They did not have a side at all, and no matter who won the War, they would lose. For them, the war ended only in 1991, when their serial occupation finally ended. The reason Eastern Europeans’ experience of the War had generally not been part of the narrative prior to 1991 is because Moscow effectively locked up Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain and prevented their experience of the War being told, superimposing it instead with its own. However since 1991 Russia has been unable to continue dictating the script, and the experience of Eastern Europe, which does not fit the naïve bi-polar good guys/bad guys image of the War, has at last become part of the story. It will become even more so as time passes, because Eastern Europe at last has its own voice again. To T and CountCash: Posts are useful and carry credibility when they present logical reasoning based on verifiable facts. Emotional outbursts of slander have the opposite effect. Some examples? “Misinforming”, “russophobic dungeon”, “Bobama”, “bs”, “manipulate others”, “bilateral nonsense,” etc. Such expressions reveal nothing at all about the subject under discussion. They reveal only reveal something about the frame of mind of their writer, and this is not always interesting.

Isn't it amazing, the simple, common view, doesn't match the contrived manipulative view of the Russophobe. It doesn't match the facts taken out of context that the Russophobe nonsense is spun from. The Russophobe tries to create a new history, by isolated facts linked together by a web of nonsense. It is their trademark and destroys their credibility in anything they write. Everone knows the common view is correct, every one knows Canada and the rest of the British commonwhaealth entered the war not as British puppies, but as sovereign national states, doing the right thing and declaring war on the Nazis. We are indebted to their moral standing and commitment. The problem is the facts don't suit the Russophobe, because it defeats their argument hands down, so they invent something else. Yes there were only two sides in WW2 the Axis and the Nazis. It doesn't fit the Russophobes logic, but the facts seldom do. Truth is simplicity iteself. I am not going to trawl through the whole of WW2, I leave it to our great readers to do that, if they wish, However some interesting things to search for might be the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran, a bit topical today,that will give you a taste of what the great Allies had to do with regard to third party countries to prosecute the war and secure our freedom. It also gives a taste of the debate about the greater good of defeating the AXIS powers, over the rights of third parties. For Japan, it is a fact that they were convicted as an aggerssor in WW2, they formed part of the Axis powers under the Tripartite agreement. Japan's fate was sealed when Germany attacked the Soviet union. Japan, knew it meant war with the soviet union, it was a huge shock to them. So the Soviet union did nothing wrong with regard to Japan, the facts speak for themselves, in a simple fashion, that the world knows and understands. The Allies acting together, did a fantastic job to defeat the AXIS powers, it was a huge effort, with enormous sacrifice, that we will never forget. Part of not forgetting, is to stand up to the nonsense put forward by extremists, be they Russophobes, Anti-Americans, or anyone else trying to sell their brand of hatred. Well done the Allies, be they from the ex Soviet states, US, Canada, UK, AZ,NZ, free French ........ It secured our freedom, from the evil of the Axis powers. For Japan, we will keep what is rightfully ours, however, of course in all life there is room for negotiation, so negotiate!

Marzipan6: It is almost useless to discuss with you the issue of Russia and its relations with neighbors and other countries. You will find whatever an argument just to stick to the basic line of your exposition: making Russia guilty in almost any phase of history, making it a side that should apologize to everybody and for any occasion. I mean, putting President Putin in parallel with a Gestapo officer is really not a kind of courteous discussion. You have gone too far for that, haven't you? By using the constructed "logical reasoning based on verifiable facts" you can arrive at whatever standpoint and claim it being "based on a facts". After all, wasn't it that papa Bush had become the head of CIA long before he became president of United States? Putin, at least, has never been the head of KGB. I am just curious of what kind of an excuse you are going to dig out for that. It seems that the abbreviation "Mi6" probably perfectly fits for the nature of your engagement here. With these analyzes, Marzipan, you will surely not convince any of us about righteousness of your attitudes, but they are nonetheless interesting as they picturesquely display your "frame of mind". They are therefore either "commissioned", or simply reflect an extreme case of Russophobuosness. Cheers!

CountCash (whom I do not and have not insulted in any way) criticises what I write because it contradicts his accepted viewpoints. However, contradicting preferred beliefs is not the same as contradicting actual facts, and I try to keep my posts factual. For my part, where demonstrated and verifiable facts require me to change my views, I will change them. CountCash writes, “Everyone knows Canada and the rest of the British Commonwealth entered the war not as British puppies, but as sovereign national states.” Of course. I know it too, and I have never suggested otherwise. Britain and the old Commonwealth nations had a very special relationship based on loyalty, shared kinship, shared values and shared history, and within that relationship no one was anyone’s “puppy”. Britain declared war on Germany on September 3 1939, and within days Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa did likewise not because they were Britain’s slaves or puppets, but because their sense of loyalty and honour made it unthinkable for Britain to be involved in a struggle for its life, and them not helping. This is a relationship Tsarist Russia may have had in some degree with some of its dominions, but which Soviet Russia never did. Its relationship with its captive peoples was based on fear and terror. Perhaps this is why some, who only know that kind of dynamic for international relations, also impute the same to relations within the British Commonwealth. CountCash continues, “Yes there were only two sides in WW2, the Axis and the Nazis (he means the Allies and the Axis). It doesn’t fit the Russophobes logic, but the facts seldom do. Truth is simplicity itself.” There were certainly only two warring camps. But there were not just two orientations in the War. The Baltics, for example, were on neither side. They tried to keep out of the war altogether, were serially invaded by both sides and kicked as a football between both sides. The same is true of much of Eastern Europe. Russia began the war as an ally of Hitler, then became an ally of the West, and when the German danger had passed fell out of alliance again and imposed its own utterly oppressive totalitarian regime of occupation in the lands out of which it had driven the Nazis – Stalin was anything but a freedom fighter. France fought in the name of freedom, but there were nominally two Frances. And it did not occur to the France that won to grant similar freedom to its North African and Indo-Chinese colonies, just as it never occurred to Britain to grant freedom to India and to its many colonies in Africa, and further wars had to be fought against those “liberators” in some of those areas. Italy was an on-again, off-again friend and enemy through the war. Finland had its sympathies entirely with the Allies, but Russia’s aggression against it forced it to fight on the Axis side. I can go on and on with such examples. I’m afraid that truth is not simplicity itself – one-line propaganda slogans are. They propose definitive answers in black-and-white certainties (or in red-and-white banners) so as to imply further thinking is not necessary. But truth is not like that, as I have illustrated. CountCash asserts that “the Soviet Union did nothing wrong with regard to Japan.” Yet the war against Japan which Russia entered for about 3 days ended more than 50 years ago. Russia has still not signed a peace treaty with Japan, and still has not left the Japanese territory it occupied. This stands in quite some contrast to the example of the other Allies.

To Vladimir: In its worst days the Soviet state murdered, enslaved and terrorized millions upon millions of its own people and its neighbours; in its better days it still ruled by fear and arbitrary arrest and grinding oppression, there still was no justice or freedom, and half a continent of captive countries was still sealed off from the rest of the world. At all times the main instrumentality that propped up Soviet totalitarian rule and made its oppressions possible was, under its various names, the KGB. Whereas no security service of any powerful country is angelic, the KGB’s record of murder, imprisonment and repression at the behest of a totalitarian state is, along with the Gestapo’s, in a class of its own. Let me assure you that the countries and people who suffered under both Gestapo and KGB-sponsored oppression – and unfortunately there are many countries and people like that – saw little difference between the two. The two organisations inspired the same fear, the same revulsion, and were responsible for the same monumental suffering and injustice to millions of innocent people.