On 6 Maijs, 06:18, The Black Monk <ch....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 3, 12:28 pm, P=E7teris Cedri=F2=F0 (Peteris Cedrins)
[deletions]
> Do you doubt that the Bolshevik Revolution would have failed if not
> for the Latvian Red Rifles?
That's a what-if game.
> If so can you find any sup****t for the idea that the Latvian Red
> Rifles weren't critical for the Revolution's success?
I'm not denying that.
> Perhaps I am misinterpreting your intention, and if so I apologise,
> but it seems that you are trying to deflect the conversation away from
> the clear fact that Latvians were crucial to the Revolution (so much
> so that it would not have succeeded if not for them) to a different
> conversation, on whether Latvia as a whole is responsible for those
> actions. I've already repeated many times that I consider neither
> Russia nor Latvia collectively responsible for the actions of a band
> of criminals - I assume you are intelligent enough to remember that.
Here and elsewhere, the distinctions you make -- or fail to make --
between ethnicity and nationality are far too slippery. And you are
leaving a vital element out -- the state. I don't hold Russians
collectively responsible for Soviet crimes, but the Russian Federation
is the successor state of the USSR, which invaded the Republic of
Latvia. States have responsibilities. I would note, too, that
nostalgia for the Soviets is far more prevalent among Russians than it
is among Latvians, and I think that's rather illustrative of whether
Bolshevism was forced upon Russia or not.
> > > > > Sure, the Latvians forced a regime on the Russian and Ukrainian
pe=
ople
> > > > > 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.
>
> About as possible as 5 Arabs with boxcutters (no guns, no knives)
> subduing a plane of 92 people and cra****ng it into a building. Russia
> at that time was in chaos, anything was possible. It was a real
> window of op****tunity for a well-led group of brave, disciplined
> fanatics. That the tsars' and provisional government's incompetance
> made all this possible in no way deflects responsibility form the
> criminal - after all, are rapists less rapists if their victim became
> drunk and stupidly wandered into a bad neighborhood at night?
Another weird analogy, sorry. The state of the neighborhood was
something that developed over a long period of time. So did the
fanaticism, in fact -- I'm sure you've read _The Devils_ and couldn't
help but think about later revolutionaries and the Russian character.
I know very well that the Latvian character had also secreted
considerable venom -- as I said, the 1905 Revolution was also not a
pretty thing. Nonetheless, we were able to build a democracy, if
briefly, from 1918/20 -- and to rebuild one in 1991.
> > As to what had been done to our people and wa****ng 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.
>
> Really? According to an arrested Western spy:
>
> http://www.historia.lv/publikacijas/gramat/mangulis/05.nod.htm
>
> "The Letts [Latvians] were the best [sentries]. Most of them were
> contemptuous of the Russians, whom they regarded as inferiors. One
> Lett informed me that, if Russia could have put a million non-Russian
> troops into the trenches, she could not have failed to win the war.
> Every time the Letts advanced, he said, they were let down by the
> Russians, who failed invariably to sup****t them. He despised, too, the
> dirt and laziness of the Russian troops. On the other hand, he had a
> wholesome respect for the Bolshevik leaders, whom he regarded as
> supermen."
I wonder if you bothered to read the rest of the Mangulis text, much
of which isn't at all in accord with your theory?
> But wow - you've gotten really upset. Perhaps now you understand a
> little bit about how Russians feel when Latvia blames them
> collectively for Soviet crimes (which is the case when it tries to
> send Russia a bill for such crimes)
No it is not -- see above, re the state.
> > They were never Latvians taking over another people -- they did not
thin=
k
> > 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).
>
> How do you know what they thought of? We know that they knew they did
> not think of themselves as Russians in an ethnic sense Russians and,
> indeed, held ethnic Russians in contempt.
The passage regards ethnic Russian soldiers, not ethnic Russians. And
again -- nationality is not ethnicity.
> > Secondly, they didn't set the rules. Soldiers rarely do.
>
> Ah, the "just following orders" defense. Unfortunately in doesn't
> apply to the Latvian Red Rifles, because they were actors not
> subjects. They made history. Facts have an inconvenient way of
> trumping excuses:
>
> http://www.historia.lv/publikacijas/gramat/mangulis/05.nod.htm
>
> The Bolshevik uprising in Petrograd took place during the night from
> November 6 to 7 (old style calendar, October 24 to 25, hence it is
> called the October Revolution). Troops loyal to Bolsheviks occupied
> railway stations, banks, and the telephone exchange. Kerensky fled for
> the front. The Provisional Government in the [page 27] Winter Palace
> surrendered during the night from November 7 to 8 to a force of Red
> Guards, sailors, and soldiers. The sailors were led by the Latvian
> Ei=FEens Bergs.
>
> The Second Congress of Soviets met in the great hall of the Smolny
> Institute in the evening of November 7 while the Winter Palace was
> still under siege. The Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries
> denounced the uprising. A delegate from the 12th Army protested the
> revolution as a stab in the back of the army and a crime against the
> people. Khinchuk, an officer from the 5th Army, declared that the
> Congress of Soviets was not necessary because a Constituent Assembly
> was scheduled to be held in three weeks. Khinchuk read a Menshevik
> declaration of withdrawal from the Congress. The delegates hesitated -
> perhaps the Bolsheviks did stand alone, and perhaps the army was
> marching on Petrograd. Then, as described by the American
> correspondent John Reed, a delegate of the Latvian Rifles, K=E2rlis
> P=E7tersons, leaped upon the speaker's platform:
>
> "Comrades!" he cried and there was a hush. "My name is P=E7tersons - I
> speak for the 2nd Latvian Rifles. You have heard the statements of two
> representatives of the Army committees; these statements would have
> some value if their authors had been representatives of the Army."
> Wild applause. "But they do not represent the soldiers! ... Our
> Committee refused to call a meeting of the representatives of the
> m***** until the end of September, so that the reactionaries could
> elect their own false delegates to this Congress. I tell you now, the
> Latvian soldiers have many times said, 'No more resolutions! No more
> talk! We want deeds-the Power must be in our hands!' Let these
> impostor delegates leave the Congress! The Army is not with them!"
>
> According to John Reed the hall rocked with cheering and suddenly the
> delegates stopped wavering-this seemed to be the voice of soldiers. In
> reality most of the 12th Army was either neutral or against the
> Bolsheviks, and the Latvian Rifles (plus a few Russian regiments) were
> the only ones actively sup****ting them, misled by Lenin's promises of
> self-determination for all nationalities.
>
> However, the Bolshevik foothold in Russia was still small and
> precarious. The Menshevik majority in the Executive Committee of the
> Soldiers' Soviet of the 12th Army in the Latvian town of Valka
> declared itself against the new Bolshevik government on November 8.
> However, the Latvian Rifles purged their regiments of anti-Bolshevik
> officers and occupied C=E7sis on November 9, Valmiera on November 11.
> They frustrated the attempts of the 12th Army Headquarters to send
> troops to Petrograd and, in the words of the Russian General
> Baronovskii, terrified the whole 12th Army. The reserve regiment,
> stationed in Estonia, secured the town of Tartu. The last stronghold
> of the anti-Bolsheviks, the 12th Army Headquarters in Valka, was
> occupied by Latvian Rifles on November 20. To avoid the appearance of
> ethnic warfare, a Russian regiment was sent along. The planner of the
> seizure of Valka, Colonel V=E2cietis, was appointed Commander of the
> 12th Army.
>
> Kerensky had gathered a small force and clashed with Red Guards
> southwest of Petrograd on November 12-14 while officer cadets
> attempted an unsuccessful uprising against the Bolsheviks inside the
> city. Defeated, Kerensky fled into exile.
>
> In Moscow the Latvian Ensign O.B=E7rzi=F2=F0 became the Bolshevik
commanda=
nt
> of the Kremlin on November 7. The Kremlin was im****tant both as a
> fortress and as an arsenal for the Red Guards. The Chief of Staff of
> the Moscow Red Guards was the Latvian J=E2nis Pie=E8e. Fighting between
> Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik forces ended on November 15 with victory
> by the Bolshevik Red Guards.
>
> Since the German occupation of Latvia had dispersed Latvians
> throughout Russia, they were active in the October Revolution from the
> Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean. Ivars Smilga was the head of the
> Regional Soviet Committee in Finland. Roberts Eidemanis was the vice-
> chairman of the Siberian Executive Committee. The chairman of the
> Crimean Military Revolutionary Committee was Juris Gav=E7nis. The
> Commandant of Petrograd was Augusts K=EFavs-K=EFavi=F2=F0. M=E2rti=F2=F0
L=
=E2cis,
> J=E7kabs Peterss, K=E2rlis P=E7tersons, and P=E7teris Stu=E8ka were
member=
s of
> the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee. Stu=E8ka became
> Commissar of Justice (equivalent to a cabinet minister) at the end of
> November.
>
> etc. etc. "Just following orders," right?
>
> > 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.
>
> So what. So did many other murderous Bolsheviks. We know that the
> Bolshevik volunteers who took took the last bits of grain at gunpoint
> from starving Ukrainian peasants during the Famine sometimes had heavy
> hearts, and convinced themselves that this tem****ary evil was
> necessary in order to build the future paradise.
>
> Does that make them less criminals or less responsible?
Crimes are specific and committed by individuals or individual units.
> > 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.
>
> You left out a major reason of Russia's weakness thanks to the Red
> government you prefer for Russians - the murder of millions. You
> didn't write it openly, but implicit in your statement expressing
> preference to Reds versus Whites as rulers of Russia - I prefer
> millions of dead Russians, as long as Latvia is independent.
No -- it's a matter of separating one's country off from a berserk
empire that you really can't do anything about. Why should a Latvian
have chosen anachronistic feudalism over the Reds' utopia? That
question gets asked about what happened a couple of decades later --
choosing the Soviets or the Nazis. Given a free choice, most would
choose neither. The Whites were dismissive even of Baltic autonomy.
Why should anyone here defend their cause? The idea of a fully
independent Latvia came about quite late, with the realization that it
was possible -- because of the strength of the Riflemen as a fighting
force -- and the realization that Russia would not become a decent
country. Fighting for "a free Latvia in a free Russia" makes no sense
if the latter is impossible. You see a similar thing again in the
1980s -- everyone urging sup****t for a kindler, gentler USSR when
most here wanted to get out.
> I sup****t Ukrainian independence, but If the price for Ukrainian
> independence were tens of millions of innocent dead Russians and
> Balts, I would decline. But as for you - some lives have more value
> than others, right? "I ptrefer Reds to Whites, yes. I prefer a weak
> Russia..."
> As for "not the Latvians' fault" - I've already posted the evidence of
> their culpability. I know you have excuses, but can you provide
> evidence by some historians that the role of the Latvian Red Rifles
> WASN'T critical for the Revolution's success? I doubt it.
>
> I wonder how many other Latvians share your racist, genocidal
> viewpoint. If it is the majority (and I hope it is not), how can you
> expect sympathy from anyone for Latvia's ordeals of the 1940's and
> 1950's?
> > That you even indulge in such sick fantasies is my favorite fodder for
a=
musement.
>
> > "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 sup****ter 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?
>
> That Latvian conservative is as much to blame for Latvian Red Rifleman
> crimes as were the 95% of the Russian population who did not take the
> Bolesheviks' side in 1917 and 1918.
>
> > You take collective guilt to new lows, Black Monk.
>
> Well, you are assigning guilt not even collectively but to someone
> else entirely. You seem to be saying that the Latvian people should
> not collectively be held responsible for the actions of 10,000 or so
> Latvian Bolsheviks. That is correct, of course, and I have made my
> opinion clear on this matter when we discussed it a few months ago.
>
> But then you want to assign blame collectively to the Russians for the
> work largely done as a result of the effort of 10,000 Latvian
> Bolsheviks, which is ridiculous. It's like, after 9-11, someone
> saying that all Muslims or Arabs shouldn't be held responsible for the
> actions of a few fanatics on those planes. Instead, it's the
> passangers' fault beause they failed to stop the hijacking.
You're saying that all Muslims and Arabs _should_ be held responsible
for those actions?
> > Neither the
> > provisional government of Ulmanis nor the conservatives had _anything_
> > to do with the Reds, ever, in any way.
>
> Nor did most Russians whose country served as a playground for the
> Latvian Red Rifles.
"Playground"?
> > There was no wa****ng of hands
> > -- what happened was that a nation-state came into being.
> > The Reds were driven out, Black Monk, and became Russians...
>
> That's convenient.
"Convenient"? I can walk up 18 November Street and see the graves of
the Latvians and others who died clearing the Reds out, or go around
the corner and see the crucifix where the Poles who died were buried
(a hill before the Soviets bulldozed it). The Latvians had plenty of
help from others -- but you'll recall that the Allies attempted to
intervene in Russia also.
Look at all of the other factors involved in building the states. The
_causes_ for the popularity of Bolshevism were addressed in Latvia --
through pro****tional representation and a radical land reform.
> > again, never having been Latvians.
>
> So being or not being Latvian is a matter of convenience. Just don't
> be surpised if non-Latvians don't take this sort of nonsense
> seriously.
It seems to me that confusion is more convenient for the other side --
your side, as John put it. I don't find the issue confusing -- I am
talking about nationality, obviously. In 1917, _everyone_ was a
Russian national. There was a war -- and, as even you realize, Russia
was in chaos (your words). Latvians took the op****tunity to achieve
sovereignty and bring an end to that chaos here. Citizen****p was a
choice (though the Bolsheviks, of course, worked to mislead the
Riflemen... on the other hand, people worked to bring them back).
Being Latvian was a matter of law -- the peace treaty signed with the
Soviet Russian government in August 1920.
Regards,
/P
|
