Thread: Почему распался Советский Союз? Что происходит в Прибалтике, и немного истории

Of course, these two things can’t be compared. But does it means that killing unarmed civilians is normal and everything have to be like that????

It means that we are not worse than you and your allies. There were bad things happened in Soviet Lithuania however in that time Lithuanians treated the same way as Russians and others and there were also similar clashes in Moscow in 1991, 1993. You've thrown words "90 per sent of my home town was completely destroyed" but how it was did, was it like in South Ossetia by night missile shelling on sleeping unarmed civilians by your ally? Or was there planned destroying worn-out buildings in order to build new ones?

by the way doesn‘t really killing all these Lithuanian people without any reason doesn‘t seem to be a genocide? How would you call it then?

There were political crimes and applied the same way to Russians, it wasn't on nationalistic reasons. If there was genocide you don't talk here.

Originally Posted by Romik

There were political crimes and applied the same way to Russians, it wasn't on nationalistic reasons. If there was genocide you don't talk here.

The term genocide came from Latin word ‘gens‘ which stands for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. However, according to Historian Norman Naimark these soviet crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First of all, some of Stalin‘s attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition.

By the way, if it was just a crime for political reasons, then maybe you can explain what political crimes did just born babies, pregnant women or elders??? And if you still keep on claiming that during soviet times one communist kiled another communists then where is the info about all those ‘‘hundred thousands of Russians who died in Siberia because of starvation or slave labour‘‘ the same way as people from Baltic countries died????? Were russians massively deportated to Siberia without any reason and then people from occupied countries came to live in their houses? I said to you that you should go and tell fairy tales to someone else.

Originally Posted by mergike

The term genocide came from Latin word ‘gens‘ which stands for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. However, according to Historian Norman Naimark these soviet crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First of all, some of Stalin‘s attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition.

By the way, if it was just a crime for political reasons, then maybe you can explain what political crimes did just born babies, pregnant women or elders??? And if you still keep on claiming that during soviet times one communist kiled another communists then where is the info about all those ‘‘hundred thousands of Russians who died in Siberia because of starvation or slave labour‘‘ the same way as people from Baltic countries died????? Were russians massively deportated to Siberia without any reason and then people from occupied countries came to live in their houses? I said to you that you should go and tell fairy tales to someone else.

Deportation is not genocide and after Stalin's death the exiled were allowed to move back. Frankly speaking, it was a strategic step to remove untrusted people from the borders of the country as there were had shown terrible things during the nazi occupation.
About hundred thousands of Russians dead from Stalin's repressions there is a lot of information, for example near Moscow in Butovo polygon were shot 20,000 political prisoners.

Originally Posted by Romik

Deportation is not genocide and after Stalin's death the exiled were allowed to move back. Frankly speaking, it was a strategic step to remove untrusted people from the borders of the country as there were had shown terrible things during the nazi occupation.
About hundred thousands of Russians dead from Stalin's repressions there is a lot of information, for example near Moscow in Butovo polygon were shot 20,000 political prisoners.

‘’Untrusted people’’? Then why all these ‘‘untrusted people‘‘ were deportated there by force? Did these ‘‘untrusted people‘‘ wanted themselves to go to Siberia and die there from starvation or slave work? What was the reason to exile everyone doesn‘t matter if they were babies, children, youth or elders, men or women?

And I think that now you can really start comparing Russian victims with all the people who were killed by soviets in occupied countries... You really should see a difference...

Originally Posted by mergike

And if you didn‘t know it then remember that most of Lithuanians tried to help these innocent Jewish people hiding them in their houses or priests simply forged identity documents of newborn Jewish children, though for that that they could die themselves if Nazis found out this, and many actually died. And you know when Nazis told Lithuanians to kill these Jewish people, most of Lithuanians first of all shot themselves!!! So these your statements that Lithuanians helped Nazis to kill Jewish actually can‘t be really justified

Из википедии:

22 июня 1941 года, после нападения Германии на СССР, последовали мятежи в крупных городах Литвы. В Каунасе было провозглашено Временное правительство Литвы во главе с Юозасом Амбразявичюсом, которое с самого начала поддерживало тесные контакты с немцами. Как описывал Отто Кариус в своей книге «Тигры в грязи» начало оккупации Литвы:

Нас повсюду восторженно встречало население Литвы. Здешние жители видели в нас освободителей. Мы были шокированы тем, что перед нашим прибытием повсюду были разорены и разгромлены еврейские лавочки. Мы думали, что такое оказалось возможно только во время «хрустальной ночи» в Германии. Это нас возмутило, и мы осудили ярость толпы. Но у нас не было времени долго размышлять об этом^[6].

Даже немцев шокировала ваша "любовь" к евреям. (Если вы уж русским не доверяете в плане истории.)

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

Из википедии:

Даже немцев шокировала ваша "любовь" к евреям. (Если вы уж русским не доверяете в плане истории.)

It‘s a subjective statement made by German commander. Did you expect that he would say: oh yes, we killed all these Jews when we came to Lithuania!? I again ask you to explain why German soldiers were digging out bodies of Jews and burned it if it was Lithuanians who killed all these Jews??? What was the reason for Germans to do that???
By the way, I have another question for you As you know when USSR occupied Baltic countries they nationalised everything what people who lived there had, therefore both Lithuanian and Jewish shops also became a possession of USSR. So do you think that Lithuanians would have been so stupid so that they would break into these USSR nationalised shops and this way chose death penalty for themselves???
By the way, how it happened so that Nazi knew which shops before USSR nationalization belonged to Jews? Before you Romik said that they even didn’t know where Jews lived but somehow they knew which shops 1 year before they came here were possession of Jews? Really, so many mystical things happened in Lithuania during Soviet and Nazi occupations... Don’t you think so?
Furthermore, if these Nazi saw such a terrible view of these ‘’Jews shops’’ then why no one knows when it actually happened and these events do not have such names like crystal night?

And what is most important, it’s a long time since these who took part in Jews’ killings in Lithuania are sentenced, on the other hand, Russian criminals who killed innocent Lithuanians during occupation years, January events, Medininkai massacre etc. are still free and Russia isn’t extraditing them... therefore, I guess it again says more than it is needed to be said...

Nulle, I am not sure why I am seeing more poverty in Riga than in Liepaja? Some people look really poor.....
Also, here, I can guess who is a Russian speaker, because they actually look more Russian in faces etc. Maybe the people who immigrated to Liepaja are different somehow than the ones that immigrated to Riga? Perhaps the Russian speakers in Riga are from further East in Russia or something? In Liepaja, everyone looked the same, and many Russian speakers were people I mistook for Scandinavian or German tourists.

And following on from all the talk about Jews and the war etc: I don't think there are hardly any Jews here, but before the war, there were probably very many. I have heard the same thing about Vilinius.
IN RIGA they are actually building a museum about the Ghetto that the nazis set up, and about the holocaust. I walked past it today.

And regardless of what you think of Russians, I would be happy to swap Swedens 1 million Somalis, Iraqis, Afghans etc for 2 or 3 million Russians. You are much lucker in this respect. If you go to Scandinavia, Germany, Netherlands etc you'll see what I mean. Our situation is really problematic. These people can't adapt, in many cases they can't read and write properly and they can't speak any European language.... In the long run, it's going to create much more problems than your situation.

These people can't adapt, in many cases they can't read and write properly and they can't speak any European language.

As I said - we have the same problems here.
For example - parliament deputy Valery Kravcov (he is not the only one, but most notorious) - he does not understand Latvian almost at all.
Can you imagine that in Sweden's parliament deputies do not understand swedish?
Can you imagine that in Russia's parliament deputies do not understand russian?
Previously we had a law that prohibited people who do not understand official language to work in the parliament.
Recently we dropped that - and look what happens...

You can't honestly compare a Russian with Somalis or Afghans? And on the language issue, Russian is a European language, and everyone in Latvia speaks it.

Somalis or Afghans take ten years to learn Swedish to a useful level, they can't speak English to a useful level either and in most cases they have no job that is suited for the economy in Sweden. Many of them can't even read or write.

But for what it's worth Valery Kravcov sounds like an arrogant twat.... I personally think he ought to set a good example for his constituency and try learning Latvian. But it's a democracy, so people have a right to vote for him anyway, I suppose. Maybe some of the Russian speakers are beginning to wake up to the idea of democracy and realise that with 40% of the population, their language needs should be better represented.
But with Kravcov: Since everyone is forced to learn Latvian now, he's the last generation of people who will be able to realistically claim he can't speak Latvian. And the law doesn't force anyone to speak with him either. If he's being arrogant about it, they can give him the same treatment and just not speak with him.

I can see from churches, inscription and culture in general that Russians were around in Latvia long before the Soviet era. I think with a small country like yours, in such a strategic crossroads in Europe, it's just unavoidable. Other countries (at least in the past) can't stay away. Neither their generals, nor the people. I think you just have to make the best of the situation. To be very negative or constantly complain about it won't help.

Luxembourg for example is such a country. Their language is really small, and throughout history they are constantly invaded and had plenty of immigration. But they take pride in learning the languages of their neighbouring countries and being friendly and open. As a result they are very prosperous and a very successful country.

I understand that it was a fear in the Soviet days that the Latvian language would just disappear and the whole area would become an extension of Russia. Perhaps that was part of what Moscow politicians were trying to achieve, who knows? The risk of that is gone though.

But obviously, Russian is a much more internationally useful language than Latvian. There will be more books, culture and opportunities for those who can speak it. It seems that Latvia is trying to quickly make English fill that role instead, by constantly pushing English ahead of Russian, ignoring the Russian population.

I have noticed that there are probably more Russian spoken on the streets of Riga, than Latvian. I can understang that this is really irritating for you and that it feels wrong. Yet, what can you do? This is going to make me sound terrible, but the Russians are Europeans, educated, mostly nice and have been part of your country for centuries. I am going to return to Sweden and the terrible immigration problem... Mass immigration into Scandinavia is just such a good example that there is something very dodgy with democracy. Practically nobody wants it, yet it keeps happening, and it's not even possible to protest about it. Like I said, I'd rather have the Russians any day.

I understand that it was a fear in the Soviet days that the Latvian language would just disappear and the whole area would become an extension of Russia. Perhaps that was part of what Moscow politicians were trying to achieve, who knows?

Yes - in 1935 Latvians were 75% of population (Russians were about 10%, the rest were Germans and Jews), but in 1989 only 52% - and if Soviet Union continued to exist for some ~20 years, share would be probably ~40% or less.
That was the reason why we adopted such "apartheidistic" policies.

Practically nobody wants it, yet it keeps happening, and it's not even possible to protest about it.

Allowing Afghans, Somalis, etc to immigrate was Swedish people's decision. We had no choice, because we were told: "Either you accept these immigrants or we send tanks to Riga".
And Latvian families had to wait even 10 years for an apartment, but to immigrants these were given immediately.

I have noticed that there are probably more Russian spoken on the streets of Riga, than Latvian

Of course - Latvians actually are minority in Rīga.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I can see from churches, inscription and culture in general that Russians were around in Latvia long before the Soviet era.

Actually it is. Latvia was a part of Russian Empire after Great Northern War, Russia achieved that fighting not with Latvians.

Peter the Great was a big fan of Riga. He married Latvian Martha Skavronskaya, after his death known as Empress Ekaterina I. Having received a palace as a gift from the municipality of Riga (although he insisted on paying), Peter used to visit Riga regularly. He helped to rebuild the tallest church in Riga (St.Peter's church) after it was burned down, and created a general plan for Riga's development, including planning many parks and boulevards, and planting some trees himself. Riga became an industrialised port city of the Russian empire, in which it remained until World War I. By 1900, Riga was the third largest city in Russia after Moscow and Saint Petersburg in terms of the number of industrial workers and number of theatres.

Wikipedia

So the solution is to force the Russians to become Latvians, lol? If you add an "S" to the name, and force them to speak Latvian...
Honestly, this is not my business obviously.... it's just so unbelievably un-PC that I can't believe it's going on in a neighbouring country.
Oh well.

I am writing from the ferry to Sweden. I remember doing this exact journey in my childhood on the scruffy little ferry that was running back then. It was so wobbly that I got sea-sick and at that ferry they had just one cafeteria and canteen. But this current boat is a floating nightclub/shopping centre/restaurant complex - there is one leaving every day.

And... more than half the passengers and all the staff are Russian speakers. But there is practically no written Russian and no announcements in Russian.

The internet connection here is rubbish so I will finish my "travel blog" tomorrow or so, with a summary about things to do in Latvia.

I don't think most people realise that almost all of Latvia's cost consists of gorgeous sand beaches, or that the country isn't quite as small as it looks on the map. It takes a full day to travel from one corner to another.

So the solution is to force the Russians to become Latvians, lol?

Solution is to encourage everyone living in Latvia to know and use Latvian.
They can use any language they want in informal communication.
Not to make something like Belgium.
If someone really does not like Latvian and wants signs in Russian - well - ~300 km away is a country where you can put as many signs in Russian as you wish and Russian is official there.
And this country somehow happens to be biggest in the whole world.
But why they choose to live under this oppressive apartheid regime and not go to the happy land in the east where they will not be oppressed and forced to speak Latvian?
Hell, Putin himself have published many calls for Russians to return to the fatherland - why they do not return if their lives are so bad in Latvia? - We will happily help them to move.

it's just so unbelievably un-PC that I can't believe it's going on in a neighbouring country.

Then why there are no signs in arabic/persian in Sweden? Why these languages are not official - if you say that there are ~1 000 000 speakers of these languages in Sweden?

And... more than half the passengers and all the staff are Russian speakers. But there is practically no written Russian and no announcements in Russian.

Is it a Tallink ferry?

Russians were around in Latvia long before the Soviet era.

Yes, and after 1918 when Latvia became independent - everyone (including Russians, Germans, Jews) received citizenship automatically.
And in 1990 their citizenship was restored with no questions asked.
Most russians here have citizenship - most Soviet time immigrants do not.
So russians that lived here for centuries always had the same rights as Latvians since independence in 1918.

You make a good argument Nulle.
All I can say is that it is probably not easy for these Russian speakers to simply emigrate to Russia even if the thought occurred to them. Perhaps all their family and friends are in Latvia, they were born and grew up there. Plus it is expensive to emigrate. The immigrants to Sweden have no ties whatsoever and no group is very large. None of the individual groups are over 1% of the population with the exception of Finns. Also there is absolutely no shared history.

However, an interpreter is provided to them for free for quite a lot of different circumstances, such as police and hospital etc if they can't communicate in Swedish. My view is that this is excessive and too expensive to be tax subsidized. It's political correctness going too far in the other direction! A

Sweden historically give gives out state information in Finnish and Sami in some areas though - but I don't come from such an area so I don't know how it works. There is practically nobody in that group who can't speak Swedish.

Yes, the ferry was Tallink. In contrast, getting off the ferry there were lots of information in Russian, including "Welcome to Stockholm", maps, tour guiding etc.

it is probably not easy for these Russian speakers to simply emigrate to Russia even if the thought occurred to them.

But they do not have problems to emigrate to UK and Ireland. Which is way further than Russia and there Russian is not official too.

However, Hanna, I would not recommend you to base your opinion on Russians in general from your experience meeting Latvian Russians. Here is some Swiss guy's opinion on that subject from another forum:

As I am sure you are aware there are substantial Russian minorities, especially in the Baltic states.

As I talked with various business men, politicians and ordinary people they all give me a impression of the Russians living there as being a low social class with high crime rates, high abuse problems.. etc.
A quick look at economic demographics confirm this.

So after these experiences I had quite a bad view on Russians since I judged every russian based on the baltic ones.

But then one day I was on a business trip to St Petersburg that changed my mind completely, not only were the Russians, polite, well mannered and pleasant to deal with, they also looked very differently from those living in the Baltic.

They were tall almost blonde, those in the baltic are short gray creatures.

WHY IS THIS?
What kind of people did you export during the soviet times?

I think that the policy of Baltic governments towards Russian population during the last 20 years quite marginalized them and the most of the decent ones who didn't want to be a "second grade" non-citizens simply left.

I would not call them "second-grade" - the only difference is voting rights.
And as I said - most russians ARE citizens...

If I posted something like previous Basil77's post on Latvian Russian forums, I would certainly be called Фашист, ганс, латышский нацист or something like that

But I agree, that we probably received not the best people from USSR.

My impression is that most of the Russian speakers in Liepaja were very blonde and looked Northern or exactly the same as the Balts. They were well dressed, polite and in my opionion more helpful than the Latvians.
On the other hand in Riga.... the Russians there are definitely mostly working class, and also, there was something different about their looks. No idea the reason for that. I had absolutely no trouble by anyone though - I think it's a safe city although like I said earlier, some areas looked a bit grim and some people were in a bad shape.

It seems likely as Basil77 said, that many of those who could leave, left.
I would probably leave if I was in their situation.