On 3 Maijs, 06:54, The Black Monk <ch....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 2, 10:39 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[deletions]
>
>
>
> > The Black Monk wrote:
> > > On May 1, 2:36 pm, P=C3=A7teris Cedri=C3=B2=C3=B0 (Peteris Cedrins)
> > > <cedr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> On 1 Maijs, 18:19, MTRP(tm) <Mir.Topol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > >>> It does. Still earlier Mr Latvia licked German and both Bolshi and
> > >>> Nazi asses. That's what your cartoon was all about and why I asked
> > >>> about Mr Latvia's new white massa. Even his ex-Prezidentsha was
> > >>> imported from massa's (Canadian) harem ...
> > >> I guess you don't realize how comments like this weaken your case
to
> > >> the point of absurdity? Tell me, please, how Latvia _ever_ licked
> > >> German ass. Latvia even declared war on Germany, in November 1919.
>
> > >> Licked Bolshie ass? You should watch the cartoon again -- it must
hav=
e
> > >> been too subtle for you. Letts were quite Bolshevik, yes -- for
good
> > >> reason.
>
> > > Claiming someone as being pro-Bolshevik "for good reason" is
> > > comparable to claiming someone is a Nazi, or a child molestor, or a
> > > murderer "for good reason."
>
> > To say something like that is equivalent to believe in the original
sin
> > - and see no causality in the events.
>
> Causality is quite clear. I object to Peteris' implication that
> causation equals justification.
I didn't intend to imply that, and I was indeed clumsy with my words.
For that I am as sorry as, er, Obama is abiut whatever Rev. Wright
says.
Fortunately, Volodya said what I meant to say quite succinctly.
> > First, Bolsheviks neither Nazis came out of Blue - people were pushed
in=
> > this dark corner.
>
> Sure. And? It makes their crimes okay? Latvian Red Rifles pushing
> Bolshevism on the Russian people weren't such bad guys, because the
> czars had used them as cannon fodder? That makes statues to those
> monsters acceptable?
Almost all statues would be unacceptable to somebody. There's the
recent statue to Dubrovin here in Daugavpils, for instance -- he was
the greatest mayor this city ever had, and the statue is in the first
park ever created... he created it. I suppose Poles could be rather
upset because he received a high award for putting down the Polish
mutiny. Such is life. Barclay de Tolly sits under the Cathedral in
Riga, Slavas skv=C4=93rs honors Soviet occupiers here, the Victory
Monuments here and elsewhere still stand, etc. You want me to get rid
of the Three Drunks (e.g., the Red Riflemen who so offend you)? Nah,
sorry... and there are even more offensive monuments, like the one to
Fabriciuss in Ventspils. He was a _real_ Bolshie ("let's build
barricades of bourgeois bodies"). I don't see the Riflemen in that
light at all.
> > Secondly, neither Bolsheviks nor Nazis in the
> > beginning told people what is expecting them in the end of the tunnel.
> > And the last - if you inquire in the psychiatric history of child
> > molesters you will find that they were molested themselves. Like
father
> > like son.
>
> While victims of child abuse are more likely than non-victims to
> become abusers themselves, the majority of victims do not do so. And
> some perpetrators were never abused.
>
> > So, despite I think that Cedrins at least sometimes - expresses
himself
> > - if not thinks like neocon, he has a point here - Latvians did have a
> > very good reason to make a deal with Bolsheviks, mabe be not well
> > thought reasoning, but who did one? Half of the world was on fire.
>
> You are well aware that Latvian involvement in the Bolshevik
> revolution went much deeper than merely making a deal. The revolution
> would have been stillborn without Latvian participation.
Meaning what, exactly? We've been through this before, Black Monk --
(1) _most_ of the Riflemen (by far) didn't end up Red, and (2) the Red
Riflemen were never Latvian in terms of nationality (as opposed to
ethnicity)... and the Riflemen who fought in Ukraine weren't even
Latvian by ethnicity, for the most part. But most of what you write
implies that Latvia, the nation-state or polity, should take
responsibility for what a few thousand people did to Russia. Why is
that, and how can that possibly make sense? I'm not my brother's
keeper, or? Is a Jew in Piter responsible for the ravages of Zionism,
perhaps?
> > > Sure, the Latvians forced a regime on the Russian and Ukrainian
people=
> > > that was far, far worse, than what had ever been done to their own
> > > people, and washed their hands of it, living happily for about 20
> > > years. Unfortunately the consequences of that crime came back to
them=
> > > and their people.
John's joke was good enough -- it was made at the time, and I've come
across it in various memoirs written back then. Ooh, ooh, those
terrifying Letts, responsible for subjugating the Russian people.
Gimme a break -- that's just not possible.
As to what had been done to our people and washing our hands of it --
you're just being a racist moron, sorry, Black Monk. For one thing,
they were Russians, transcendent, dreaming of global communism. They
were never Latvians taking over another people -- they did not think
in terms of peoples (or, for that matter, people in the way we think
of them -- the narod in its lowest sense was their people). Secondly,
they didn't set the rules. Soldiers rarely do. This applies even to
the entire Party -- as Volodya suggested, no one told them where the
tunnel ended. They fought for a free world, and many really believed
in it. Down with Czars and Kadets and Black Monks, et al. Thirdly, the
Party was hijacked, and that is something you should look into more --
the high vote for the Bolsheviks here was essentially a vote for LSD,
the Social Democracy of Latvia, and you tell me how different that was
from LSDSP in 1905 because I also come into difficulties studying the
ins and outs. But 1905 wasn't pretty, either -- in fact, that's what
radicalized most... the reaction to that failed revolution, which was
rather different in the Baltics than it was in most of the Empire.
As to Kerensky, et al. -- Black Monk, personally, as a Balt, I am
quite happy Russia failed, because those of your ilk would never have
let us go. I prefer Reds to Whites, yes. I prefer a weak Russia, and
its weakness is not the Latvians' fault. That you even indulge in such
sick fantasies is my favorite fodder for amusement.
"Washed their hands of it" is the most interesting phrase here -- it
shows how little you know and how racist your view is. So a Latvian
conservative -- e.g., a supporter of a German puppet government,
perhaps -- would have to wash his hands of some Reds he always
detested, even more than than the Russians or Germans detested him?
How so?
You take collective guilt to new lows, Black Monk. Neither the
provisional government of Ulmanis nor the conservatives had _anything_
to do with the Reds, ever, in any way. There was no washing of hands
-- what happened was that a nation-state came into being. The Reds
were driven out, Black Monk, and became Russians... again, never
having been Latvians. You'll find some crossovers, and they're quite
fascinating, but unless you refuse to make distinctions between
Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, etc. ...you're out in left field. LSDSP (i.e.,
the non-Bolshevik party) was re-founded already in 1918. The SRs
Karlamov so loves made a sharp right turn even then -- Valters, a
hardcore revolutionary, was allied with the Peasants. Menders, a far
Left revolutionary, wrote much of the Constitution. But they were
never Bolsheviks -- in fact, both suffered for that, Valters dying in
Nice and Menders persecuted by the Soviets into the 1970s.
Regards,
/P
|
