On Sep 29, 12:11 pm, hol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article
> <d9cc572b-bd1d-49f6-9802-1e6d44a60...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > I am *not* making excuses for them. Russia and the United States
both=
hav
> > e
> > > a history of imperialism. What I am objecting to is that some of the
=
same
> > > people expressing amazement that Russians can deny the fact of the
Ba=
ltic
> > > countries having been occupied, but denying that Hawaii came to be a
=
part
> > > of the United States according to precisely the same scenario, but,
u=
nlik=3D
> > e
> > > the three Baltic countries, is still under foreignoccupation. It
ain'=
t
> > > OK, and I do not make excuses for either.
>
> > Well, as I said to Macbeth's friend (McDuff), it doesn't go over well
> > telling us Balts that you find a creep like the nats-bol B=3DE4ckman's
> > left-wing revisionist theories "interesting" when you should be
> > finding them repulsive, just as you would find theories of left-wing
> > neo-nazi revisionist repulsive.
>
> I do not agree with him, but I disagree even more with people who would
> silence, censor, or ban him. Many of his viewpoints are indeed
repulsive,
> but his raising the issue of the degree to which the word "occupation"
is
> appropriate to the Baltic countries after the early 1950s, or, arguably,
> the mid-1960s, wen they were opened to the world again after having been
> cut off for a generation, is interesting. Even if you and I agree that
th=
e
> three Baltic countries were under foreignoccupationfrom 1940 until 1991
> or even 1995, many perfectly rational people would deny this, just as
> most Americans would deny that Hawaii was or is occupied.
Do these people also deny the period of US occupation of Okinawa after
WWII? Or the Philippines from 1898 to 1912? I wouldn't call them
"perfectly rational" then.
The problem seems to be that you are equivocating between the present
situation in Hawaii and the situation during the annexation of Hawaii
and the Baltic countries. The question of Soviet occupation in the
Baltics is about *military* occupation, which means, if I'm not
mistaken, that a territory is under the formal control of a foreign
armed force. Of course, in that sense it is wrong to style modern
Hawaii an "occupied territory". However, B=E4ckman denies that there was
a Soviet occupation *ever*, even in 1940.
(I don't know where you got the "after the early 1950s or arguably the
mid-1960s" part, but on his blog B=E4ckman clearly states that there
never was an occupation, it is a "lie")
Understandably Balts and some Hawaiians like to style the whole period
of non-independence an "occupation". However the question here is not
whether this is inaccurate, but whether there was a hostile occupation
in the first place.
> I don't know
> abput you, but I am interested in finding how people are able to
construc=
t
> such different historical narratives from what seems to be the same
> empirical evidence. Nor, I have to say, am I comfortable with the idea
of
> countries that were themselves recently the objects of invasion,
> externally forced regime change, invasion, and insurgency suddenly
gettin=
g
> themselves involved in such activities on the giving end. As I said in a
> previous posting it is *not* OK when America does it, it is/was *not* Ok
> when Russia/the Soviet Union does/did it, and it is damned repulsive for
> the Baltic countries to have gotten themselves involved in such
behavior.
The refusal of large nations to come clean on their past only serves
to promote such behavior.
PS. This B=E4ckman guy is hilarious!
"V=E4hentyisik=F6 ty=F6tt=F6myys, jos Suomi liittyisi Ven=E4j=E4n
Federaati=
oon?"
:D :D
-- w.
|
