On 8 Maijs, 06:23, The Black Monk <ch....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 6, 12:34 pm, P=C4=93teris Cedri=C5=86=C5=A1 (Peteris Cedrins)
[cont'd. from where I left off in the previous response...]
> > The state of the neighborhood was something that developed over a long
p=
eriod of time.
>
> Of course.
But I think that's a much more interesting field for discussion. I
have a Ukrainian friend who has lived lived in Riga since the
mid-1990s-- he's a Western Ukrainian (Lviv), and he feels closer to
Latvian culture than he does to Russian culture in some ways
(linguistically, even -- he's perfectly fluent in Latvian, whereas
Russian is a language he never studied formally). What I find
interesting is the cacophony of influences and the occasional
melodies, and how they work here (with the harmonies...).
> > 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.
>
> Sure, but Lenin and friends would never realize their dreams without
> "Latvian muscle".
See my response to what-ifs in the previous response.
> This is not a vague exercise in "what-ifs" - the
> facts that I posted speak for themselves. Lenin, Trotsky et al were a
> handful of radical intellectuals, the sort capable of assassination
> and conspiracies (which obviously happened throughout the 19th
> century) but not of actually capturing an entire country. In the
> chaos of 1917 they might have actually captured and held onto a city
> for a few days (as ahppened in Paris in 1871, for instance). Consider
> Savinkov to get an idea of what a Revolution without the 10,000 or so
> Latvian Red Rifles would have looked like. For Lenin to succeed in
> holding his city, consolidating his rule and cru****ng opposition he
> needed a large number of loyal, disciplined, skilled, brave soldiers.
> The Latvian Red rifles filled that role. They made sure that the
> Bolshevik intellectuals came to power.
But even the hardcore Bolshevik intellectuals were obviously not in
accord -- see Trotsky, heh. And what was the range of the intellect of
each, and its role? Stu=C4=8Dka ended up writing the Soviet constitution
--
but would anybody really place Stu=C4=8Dka among the luminaries of Red
intellect, in retrospect?
> > > > 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?
>
> Which of the text is not in accord with my "theory"?
The text as an entirety -- did you read it?
> ...cut...
>
> > > > 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).
>
> > > 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.
>
> Are you suggesting that the Latvian soldiers who held Russian soldiers
> in contempt had positive feelings towards Russian non-soldiers?
No, not really -- but I don't like to see a meaning that isn't there
put upon a text. You know as well as I do that whenever one ****fts
into generalizing about nations, one risks stereotyping and slippage.
One of Valdem=C4=81rs' famous lines was "the German's nails of flint could
never be as dangerous as the Russian kulak." Even Lt. Col. Dardz=C4=81ns
--
who, as I mentioned, does not think highly of the Russian nation --
has plenty of affection for individual Russians. I don't think I need
to retread the stereotypes, or their origin, here. Latvians tended to
be literate, politically active, better educated, disciplined, etc.
> As for nationality and ethnicity:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationality
>
> Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary states, among others:
>
> 3. A race or people, as determined by common language and character,
> and not by political bias or divisions; a nation.
>
> To be clearer you should use the term citizen.
I think I was clear enough in describing the differences in detail,
time and again. And even "citizen" doesn't quite cut it -- it was and
is more complex than that.
> > > > 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=C3=BEens 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=C3=A2rlis=
> > > P=C3=A7tersons, leaped upon the speaker's platform:
>
> > > "Comrades!" he cried and there was a hush. "My name is
P=C3=A7tersons =
- 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=C3=A7sis on November 9, Valmiera on November
1=
1.
> > > 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=C3=A2cietis, was appointed Commander of
th=
e
> > > 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=C3=A7rzi=C3=B2=C3=B0 became the
Bolsh=
evik commandant
> > > 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=C3=A2nis Pie=C3=A8e.
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=C3=A7nis. The
> > > Commandant of Petrograd was Augusts
K=C3=AFavs-K=C3=AFavi=C3=B2=C3=B0.=
M=C3=A2rti=C3=B2=C3=B0 L=C3=A2cis,
> > > J=C3=A7kabs Peterss, K=C3=A2rlis P=C3=A7tersons, and P=C3=A7teris
Stu=
=C3=A8ka were members of
> > > the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee. Stu=C3=A8ka 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.
>
> Of course.
>
> > > > 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
w=
as
> > > > from LSDSP in 1905 because I also come into difficulties studying
th=
e
> > > > ins and outs. But 1905 wasn't pretty, either -- in fact, that's
what=
> > > > radicalized most... the reaction to that failed revolution, which
wa=
s
> > > > 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
hav=
e
> > > > 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.
>
> As the posted information above describes, the Red Rifles did much
> more than that - they determined the direction in which that "berserk
> empire" would go. They played an active role in doing so, and even
> you admit that their role was "critical." Many Russias could have
> emerged from that mess - a constitutional monarchy, a Latin American-
> style dictator****p of some sort or a Horthy-like regency as in Hungary
> (the latter two are most likely one in my opinion), etc. Thanks to
> the Latvian Red Rifles, it was the genocidal Red regime.
I don't agree with that. Regimes often change dramatically even
without being overthrown -- in fact, even you hint at the fact that
even the genocidal Red regime changed considerably, and we all know it
did. Even with 20/20 hindsight, you can't look back upon average
Tovarishch Bolshevik in 1917, 1918, 1919, or 1920 and expect him (or
her) to see himself as contributing to a decades-long terror. There
was a White terror, too, you know, and to many it looked even worse
than the Red terror, because it would have swept away what were seen
as gains -- the erasure of autocracy -- in favor of a reaction, i.e.,
reactionaries.
> > Why should a Latvian have chosen anachronistic feudalism over the
Reds' =
utopia?
>
> You really think that Lenin's Russia was equivalent to that of the
> Czars?
Where did I say that? In the end, though, on a deeper level, the
Soviet Union mimicked the tsarist empire -- Communism instead of
Orthodoxy, etc. As Akuraters said, in 1924 I think -- the Revolution
did nothing; Russia consists of the same gallows, prisons and
graveyards it always has been made up of.
> > 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.
>
> The problem here is that the Soviets were the lesser evil vis a vis
> Hitler while the Whites were a lesser evil compared to the Soviets.
> Is there a pattern there of consistantly chooisng the greater evil?
A revealing remark, Black Monk, in that it shows that you really don't
get the picture _as seen from a small country_, I think. You like bad
analogies, so here's one -- people love this "think globally, act
locally" slogan I'm sure you've heard (and knowing you [by what you
sometimes write], you probably cringe at). The trouble with that
slogan, for me, is that one _must_ act locally first, as Con****ius
could certainly explain. I can whine about my neighborhood, but what I
can _do_ is act locally, by making my garden nice. "Thinking globally"
ought to begin with an understanding of watering, fences,
microclimate, etc. It is, in other words, not thinking globally
_rather_ than locally -- it's thinking in concentric rings, in a
sense. I can't be a good guy if I'm not at peace with myself. I can't
criticize a dysfunctional society if my family is ****ed up. I can't
be a responsible member of the international system if my nation
doesn't set an example. The great evils are something I can have only
a limited effect upon -- hey, to get concrete here... my making my
garden nice would be as nothing against the general plan calling for
the replacement of all houses in this neighborhood with khrushchovkas,
which would have been implemented had the Soviet Union not collapsed
(our block held out partly because it had a couple of im****tant Party
people on it, one of whom stole part of our land). I'm not going to
play your game, sorry -- to Latvians, the Soviets were a greater evil
than the Nazis, for the most part. Personally, I wouldn't choose
either -- but few had a choice, you know. I would love a beautiful
planet upon which everybody lived happily ever after, as I am sure we
all would -- but life just doesn't work that way. I spent a few months
in the Middle East, and came back feeling lucky -- neocon though I may
be at times, travel is a great way to learn... to notice _how_
societies cohere, what they value, how very difficult it is to build
something. The scale there is dramatic -- look at how Turks value
education vs. how Egyptians do. Again -- many factors. But this
"History of Latvia" started with animation -- with a comic book. And
the consistent aspect is that befuddled peasant. The very consistency
is the basis of the comedy -- and the tragedy. The last couple of
minutes are the most absurd -- he _can't bild that wall around him, as
Lorad might like... and anyway he's dying out; it was a lot easier to
resist something imposed upon us than it is to resist something in
which we either move or get run over.
> > You see a similar thing again in the 1980s -- everyone urging sup****t
f=
or a kindler, gentler USSR
> > when most here wanted to get out.
>
> Question for you: if getting out for Latvia in the late 1980's meant
> setting up a Pol Pot type regime in the rest of the USSR, would you
> sup****t that?
And what was the Pol Pot regime? Bad French Marxism mixed with ancient
Khmer hatred? Because that's actually similar -- wasn't Bolshevism
poorly grasped German socialism mixed with the Russian character?
Your question exhibits the problem with your arguments -- the choice
is never offered like this. Sure, Black Monk, I have heard it said
thousands of times that "Russians will be Russians," for example
during the bombing of the White House. Latvians sup****ted Russian
democrats whenever possible, just as Russian democrats sup****ted the
Balts. Beautiful! But we're a sovereign country, and with all our
failings -- we're free and Russians are slipping into their old habits
(so are we, to a degree... and that means inching back towards
Russia).
So -- it's called "cutting one's losses." As I remember, people here
were often actually optimistic about Russia in the 1990s. But Russia
is huge, Black Monk, just like it was when those criminal Red Riflemen
went on their gnat-like rampage. Massive, with a very different
inertia. We all wish Russia well (well, with some exceptions, esp. at
s.c.b....)-- but as far as we're concerned -- let them do their thing.
This is indeed what you might call a "wa****ng of hands." We have small
hands, you see. We have our own problems.
> ...cut...
>
> > > > 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?
>
> Reread my first paragraph. Sorry for being unclear. I'm saying that
> assigning blame for all Muslims and Arabs for 9-11 is ridiculous. But
> assigning blame for 9-11 on the passengers is even more ridiculous.
> Likewise, asssigning blame for the Revolution for Latvians as a people
> is ridiculous. But blaming the Russian victims is even more
> ridiculous.
It's not a slip? Because I can't help but compare your views on other
things -- your remark on building swimming pools for the black
underclass, for example. Oh, well, why do it -- them nihilistic
niggers will just litter them with broken bottles anyway?
> > > > Neither the
> > > > provisional government of Ulmanis nor the conservatives had
_anythin=
g_
> > > > 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"?
>
> How would you descibe it? A rare op****tunity to control the course of
> history.
For many, it was a graveyard. I don't think the Riflemen got many
recreational op****tunities.
> > > > 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.
>
> Sure, but not enough and White Russia was too big and too divided to
> have much of a chance agianst the centralized ruthlessly efficient and
> well-led Red Russia.
And that's why some worked hard to call our brothers home, and why
whatever Pol Pots Russia comes up with are not our business.
> > 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.
>
> Yes.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Nationality has many definitions and I'm using "a race or people, as
> determined by common language and character, and not by political bias
> or divisions; a nation" which is no less correct and no more confused
> than yours.
See previous remarks about your confusion, or come visit Latgallia,
which -- like much of eastern Lithuania -- really didn't see ethnicity
as a major mover; that's part of history, in which religion was often
the identifier. The tsarist census-takers often counted Orthodox
Latvians (i.e., ethnic Latvians, speakers of Latvian or Latvian
dialects) as "Russians." And that is all part of Russian identity --
one bog, etc.
> > 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.
>
> Which was commendable. Unfortunately other Latvians made other
> choices. And now you want to make the Russian people collectively
> responsible for those choices made by some Latvians.
I want Russians to look at their history, but I can't demand that. It
would be better for Russians if they did. The corner of my local TV
has the orange and black ribbon in it, and tomorrow Russians celebrate
their big day. I'll stay home. I detest the way they think of it -- I
fully agree with the notorious "vodka, vobla, chastushka" speech, the
essence of which was that when Russians here celebrate the marvelous
victory, they might also consider analysis -- i.e., the fact that they
did not "liberate" Latvia but replaced one totalitarian system with
another.
> Look, it seems to me that the sad fact is that Latvians' most
> significant contribution to world history was ensuring that Lenin was
> in power in Russia.
I think our most significant contribution to world history is the fact
that we are alive, we are free, we have a democracy, and we can set an
excellent example for exquisite behavior to other small nations long
held captive by imperialistic behemoths. I can count upon my fingers
how many people perished here in the restoration of our independence
-- they were killed by OMON, unless you count the Muslim who burned
himself to death because he couldn't get residency. If we acted like
certain people do in the Balkans, the built-up resentment could have
caused bloody chaos, but it didn't -- and it's not surprising, because
that's not how we act. If you had fighting in the streets, then
everybody could get all excited and talk about it more, or make the
morning paper. The lovely trouble is that we do everything so well
that all you can complain about are a bunch of rioters in oh-so-
civilized Estonia, who left few valuable sound bites and weren't
joined by most of their brethren.
> Although a small minority of Latvians, the
> Bolshevik Latvian Red Rifles left more of a stamp on the world than
> did any other Latvians in history. And no hatred of Russia by other
> Latvians can erase that fact. It's ironic, isn't it, that the nation
> most vocal in calling for reparations is the one whose contribution
> was so indispensable, isn't it? Pu****ng this unpleasant idea out of
> their minds may be why otherwise rational, intelligent and decent
> people make ridiculous arguments about Russia's responsibility for
> what the Bolsheviks had done.
And again you don't know what you're talking about -- Latvia is hardly
the nation calling for reparations most vocally; Lithuania (which
_gained_ territory during the occupation) long ago took that role.
As to as stamp on the world -- I'm much more interested in local
stamps.
Regards,
/P
|
