On May 8, 7:25=A0am, P=E7teris Cedri=F2=F0 (Peteris Cedrins)
<cedr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 8 Maijs, 06:23, The Black Monk <ch....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 12:34 pm, P=E7teris Cedri=F2=F0 (Peteris Cedrins)
>
=2E..cut...
> > > >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-Russia=
n
> > > > troops into the trenches, she could not have failed to win the
war.
> > > > Every time =A0the Letts advanced, he said, they were let down by
the=
> > > > Russians, who failed invariably to support them. He despised, too,
t=
he
> > > > 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?
Yes. And how is it not in accord with my "theory?"
=2E..cut...
> > > > > As to Kerensky, et al. -- Black Monk, personally, as a Balt, I
am
> > > > > quite happy Russia failed, because those of your ilk would never
h=
ave
> > > > > let us go. I prefer Reds to Whites, yes. I prefer a weak Russia,
a=
nd
> > > > > 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.
=A0You
> > > > 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. =A0They played an active role in doing so, and even
> > you admit that their role was "critical." =A0Many Russias could have
> > emerged from that mess - a constitutional monarchy, a Latin American-
> > style dictatorship of some sort or a Horthy-like regency as in Hungary
> > (the latter two are most likely one in my opinion), etc. =A0Thanks 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.
As I posted to Anderson, Bolshevik terror was already on an
unprecedented scale from the very beginning.
> 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.
White terror was reactive and not systemic.
> > > 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.
I have posted several times that the USSR was a sort of Frankenstein's
monster. A grotesque, bloody reconstruction of the Russian Empire's
corpse. A monster that was constructed not by the Russian people but
by a small multiethnic gang of degenerates, criminals and sadists,
amongst whom Latvians played a critical and disproportionate role.
> > > 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? =A0The 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.
How so?
> 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 Confucius
> 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 fucked up. I can't
> be a responsible member of the international system if my nation
> doesn't set an example.
There is truth in what you write, but the Latvian Red Rifles in Moscow
and St. Petersburg weren't acting locally. They were perhaps thinking
locally and acting globally : )
But the risk in that is in not seeing the forest for the trees.
Remember my comment on Ukraine - as much as I consider myself a
patriot, I would not sacrifice the lives of millions of innocent
Russians, Balts, etc. if that were the price for independence. I
wouldn't help the Nazis (and I understand that many Latvians weren't
given a choice, and do not mean to imply that they do) or Bolsheviks
for the sake of my little plot of land, everyone else be damned.
> 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 important 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
=A0suppo=
rt for 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
> > support 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?
Something like that.
> 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 supported Russian
> democrats whenever possible, just as Russian democrats supported 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 "washing 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. =A0You seem to be saying that the Latvian people
shou=
ld
> > > > not collectively be held responsible for the actions of 10,000 or
so=
> > > > Latvian Bolsheviks. =A0That is correct, of course, and I have made
m=
y
> > > > 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
t=
he
> > > > work largely done as a result of the effort of 10,000 Latvian
> > > > Bolsheviks, which is ridiculous. =A0It's like, after 9-11, someone
> > > > saying that all Muslims or Arabs shouldn't be held responsible for
t=
he
> > > > actions of a few fanatics on those planes. =A0Instead, 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. =A0Sorry for being unclear. =A0I'm saying
tha=
t
> > assigning blame for all Muslims and Arabs for 9-11 is ridiculous.
=A0But=
> > 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. =A0But 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?
Are you implying that I am a racist or something? And where do you
get to this implication from what I had written?
> > > > > Neither the
> > > > > provisional government of Ulmanis nor the conservatives had
_anyth=
ing_
> > > > > 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? =A0A rare opportunity to control the course
of=
> > history.
>
> For many, it was a graveyard. I don't think the Riflemen got many
> recreational opportunities.
If you read about some of what the Chekists had been up to at that
time, the sadists certainly enjoyed themselves.
>
> > > > > 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...
>
> > > > 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.
Unless without your help they wouldn't be in power.
> > > Look at all of the other factors involved in building the states.
The
> > > _causes_ for the popularity of Bolshevism were addressed in Latvia
--
> > > through proportional representation and a radical land reform.
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > > > again, never having been Latvians.
>
> > > > So being or not being Latvian is a matter of convenience. =A0Just
do=
n'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.
Do you consider America "one bog" as well? Sure, Russia is a melting
pot to an extent, as is America. Many Russians have Tatar, or German,
or Ukrainian blood. Most of them are proud of this - they claim it
makes them stronger.
> > > 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 opportunity to achieve
> > > sovereignty and bring an end to that chaos here.
>
> > Which was commendable. =A0Unfortunately other Latvians made other
> > choices. =A0And 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.
Of course they did do that. And of course the Russians would not have
that totalitarian system to bring to Latvia if not for 10,000 or so
Latvian monsters that infested Russia at such a critical moment in its
history. Latvian Red Rifle participation in the Revolution may have
ensured Latvian independence for 20 years at the expense of the
Russian people having to live in a totalitarian regime, but ultimately
that misguided participation led to unimaginable Latvian suffering as
well.
> > 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.
You also didn't act like the people in the Balkans because the
Russians living in your country did not behave themselves like
Albanians. The relative bloodlessness in the Baltics is not to your
credit alone.
> 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. =A0 And no hatred of Russia by
other
> > Latvians can erase that fact. =A0It'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? =A0Pushing 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.
Lithuania's case is less ridiculous because at least Lithuanians are
blameless with respect to the Revolution. But it's still
ridiculous.
regards,
BM
>
> As to as stamp on the world -- I'm much more interested in local
> stamps.
>
> Regards,
> /P
|
