Latvian Fascism – Not Necessarily Who You Think It Is – Part I

Dear Readers:

Today I saw this very interesting essay in VZGLIAD, written by Vyacheslav Vishnevsky.  Vishnevsky takes as his starting point the “We are Latvianstorchlight procession last month in Riga, which was organized by a “far right” political coalition, and which attracted as many as 17,000 people.  Still another symptom, in case you overslept Ukraine of the past couple of years, that European nations, both large and small, are tumbling head-first back to the politics of fascism.

Now, I do not throw out the word “fascism” casually, like the pin-heads do.  Fascism is a complex political movement involving its own philosophical, political, and economic concepts and platforms.  In the genus-species relationship, German Nazism was a particular national species of fascism; but fascism is a broader concept than just the German variety.  The other thing that people need to keep in mind when studying the various fascist movements popping up all over Europe, is that the fascism is a mass movement.  Involving tens of thousands, and even possibly millions of people.  This point was made by Leon Bronstein, back in the early 1930’s, in his famous polemic, “What Is Fascism?” .  The always cantankerous Trotsky set out to debate those on the Left who believed that fascism was just some fake “movement” patched together by corporate elites in a back room.  Sort of like the American Tea Party!

Nope.  Fascism is a real political movement.  Sure, it may be funded by international corporations and the American CIA, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a real thing or have armies of followers.  Unfortunately for those who believed this totalitarian agenda had been rooted out once and for all in 1945 — nope, think again!  Fascism is on the rise, and fascism is on the march.  Once again, this is a mass movement, pulling together people from all walks of life, including the lower classes.  Who are terrified of the impending capitalist economic collapse and enraged to see their “way of life”, whatever that is, disappearing in the whirlwind of international corporate reconstruction and oligarchic looting of the planet’s assets.

Latvian schoolchildren

Before proceeding with Vishnevsky’s essay, also please keep in mind that Latvia is a tiny country.  The stated estimated population of 2 million is over-generous.  As in all the Baltic states, the Latvian population has been declining steadily since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and especially since these nations accepted the Kiss of Death by joining the European Union.  Their decline also feeds the impetus to fascism, because people see, not only their way of life, but even their very national identity, and the identity of their own children, under threat of demographic collapse.

Fascism and Nationalism

One of the peculiar things about fascism, I guess you could call it a paradox, is that it is both a “nationalist” and an “internationalist” political movement.  I have joked before about the “Nationalist Internationale”.  Joking is the only way my linear brain knows how to deal with this odd paradox.  But the fact is, these rustic “nationalists” who laud their own nation and people, jet-set all over the world and hold international conferences with nationalists of other, different nations.  Each one claiming that his or her nation is the bee’s knees, yet still mostly getting along just fine with the other fascists.  And they are not all necessarily white-skinned either!

So, Vishnevsky’s piece, as you will see when you read further, supports my feeling of bemusement.  Life would be simpler if we could just write off fascists as primitive racists.  As in the case of the Third Reich, when the German people adopted the genetic theories of that outstanding scientific Anthropologist, Doctor Adolph Hitler.  But most fascists are not that simplistic.  Their shtik is the notion that the “titular nation” is the bulwark of the monolithic state, led by a strong and preferably dictatorial leader.  And obviously the “titular nation” varies from titular nation to titular nation.  And I like to repeat the word “titular” as many times as possible, because it sounds funny and makes me snicker.  For example, in Italy, titular would be “Italy for Italians”; in Latvia it would be “Latvia for Latvians”, and in Russia it would be “Russia for Russians”, etc.

Leaving the details of who is or who is not a titular whatever, up to the great political minds who run these fascist circus shows; and also taking into account that he who is being excluded also varies from nation to nation; although the constants seem to be Jews, gypsies and Arabs.  And not always Negroes, strangely enough!  But otherwise, details may vary, as does your mileage.

Are Russians the Underclass?

Fascists of the titular state like to have an enemy, the “Other”.  He who is not one of us.  In the Latvian context, this is obviously the Russian ethnic minority.  And most people who have heard of Latvian fascism, along with their cute annual Waffen SS marches, probably believe, and rightfully so, that this movement is mostly directed against Russia, and against the internal Russian ethnic minority.

Every year on March 16 Latvian Nazis celebrate the Waffen SS legion.

Here is the wiki entry on Latvian historical demographics.  Quoting liberally:  “Latvians have always been the largest ethnic group in Latvia during the past century, but minority peoples have always been numerous. Before WW II the proportion of non-Latvians was approximately 25%, the Russians being the largest minority (app. 10%), followed by Jews (approx. 5%), Germans and Poles (2–3%). After World War 2 only small numbers of Jews and Germans remained and following a massive immigration of Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians, Latvians almost became a minority. In 1989, the proportion of Latvians had decreased to only 52% (from 75.5% in 1935). Despite the decreasing number of Latvians due to low fertility rates, the proportion of Latvians has considerably increased during the past two decades and reached 62.1% in 2011 (slightly higher than the 62.0% in 1959). This is due to large scale emigration of Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. The number of these peoples almost halved between 1989 and 2011.”

Even with this prudent exodus, ethnic Russians remain the second largest ethnic group in Latvia.  Due to historical reasons, Russians live mainly in the urban areas.  In 2006 Russians made up 42.3% of the population of Riga, and over half the population of Latvia’s second-largest city, Daugavpils.  Areas of contention include citizenship rights, religion (most ethnic Russians are nominally Orthodox, and Latvians are Catholics) and the usual squabbles around mono-lingualism, bi-lingualism, and having an official state language.

Given these typical inter-communal squabbles, it is interesting to read, as Vishnevsky points out, that the current “Latvia for Latvians” movement includes quite a lot of ethnic Russians.  Or at least people with Russian names and surnames.

And, on the other side of the coin, many truly ethnic Latvians oppose the fascists and defend the rights of the Russian ethnic minority.  A sterling example of this is the aging ethnic Latvian Communist politician Alfrēds Rubiks, whose sons continue his legacy of national harmony and civil rights for ethnic minorities.

[to be continued]

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Friendship of Peoples, Russian History and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Latvian Fascism – Not Necessarily Who You Think It Is – Part I

  1. Setting facts says:

    A bit funny to talk about “violations” of a “minority”, which lives next to the world’s biggest country in terms of territory, watch their media, can freely use Russian language even in governmental institutions and live well without knowing the official language of Latvia. The life of Russian minorities is so tough in Latvia that more and more people from Russia choose to come to live to Latvia. They are so oppressed that the mayor of capital city is affiliated to Putin’s party, and they are so minority that they are more than 50% in the capital city of Latvia. Meanwhile, people like Alfreds Rubiks, opposed the idea of independent Latvian in early 90s and favouring totalitarian Soviet Union, is somehow a hero of civil rights? In addition, Hitler not only occupied Latvia during WWII, but also had a plan to destroy the indigenous population, what was afterwards done by Stalin, so talking about fascism in Latvia and a march to remember people who were forcefully mobilised in army, is out of context. It is not like our tiny country is going to force upon someone our culture ( which is core of fascism), but in Latvian territory Latvians have a right to their culture and language ( read UN human rights). And it is not much to ask from minorities to show some respect to that instead of forcing Russification, which the country has already experienced, and continues to experience due to unwillingness of Russian population to take part in Latvian society. If minorities would respect the legislation of Latvia, there would not be any problems living in one country, but the practise shows quite the opposite scene.

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      Stalin destroyed the indigenous population??
      So how come there are still Latvians?

      Like

      • Setting facts says:

        To be precise, more than 70 000 Latvian people suffered from Soviet genocide. It had a purpose of destroying indigenous population ( that is the definition of Soviet genocide upon which you can read more in history books and a definition of genocide in general). Evidently, there are Latvians left just as other groups that have suffered from genocide are also still existent in contemporary world, for instance, Armenians. That does not change the definition of genocide.

        Like

        • Pavlo Svolochenko says:

          Fantastic.

          It really doesn’t matter how much education you waste on a Latvian, you’re still dealing with a caveman whose mental vocabulary stops with ‘Potato’, ‘Club’ and ‘Outlander’ – and has never heard of paragraphs.

          ‘Genocide’ for example. He’s seen the word thrown around by the foreigners he adores – he concludes that it means ‘OUTLANDERS CLUB OUR PEOPLE AND TAKE OUR POTATO!’.

          Let me help you out.

          “Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”

          Now the Nazis you worship meant to rid Latvia of Latvians and all things Latvian – that is genocide. The communist authorities set out to create a communist Latvia inhabited by Latvians, while neutralising their opponents (frequently because they were Nazis like yourself).

          Explaining the difference to you is probably futile, since cavemen are baffled by concepts more advanced than ‘OUTLANDERS CLUB OUR PEOPLE AND TAKE OUR POTATO!’. But here goes: genocide of Latvians means reducing the number of Latvians with a view to eliminating them entirely or decreasing the number of them, because one feels that they’re awful people and the world could do with fewer of them. It doesn’t mean executing or deporting hopeless degenerates who would have signed on to fight for Hitler as soon as he asked them too – the guiding principle underpinning this action is not ‘the world would be better off with fewer Latvians in it’.

          The other fellow may wish to debate you further – personally I am opposed to attempting sensible conversation with primitive savages.

          Like

          • Setting facts says:

            I understand that it is tough to understand the logic of: “Hitler had plans to assimilate native population of Latvia” and therefore “we are somehow worshiping Nazism”, because that makes perfect and logical sense ( no, not really). And Soviet genocide is recognised officially as genocide by multiple authorities and conventions – we know very well that “neutralising” oponents meant destroying local people who had done nothing wrong apart from having a land or being influential and educated people, even kids and women were deported ( Were they also political oponents? I do not think so). Mass deportations also took place in 1949, so it has nothing to do with Hitler. Notably, Soviet Genocide took place in Russia as well towards its own educated, but it was recognised of course only after “glasnostj” politics and many people still have not gotten that even since then due to the long history of suppressing facts. If that makes a very big difference, a term “mass killings” may also be used instead of genocide, but that does not change the fact.

            Commenting on education level of a debater is not an argument; however, that says a lot a person who uses that as an argument. 🙂

            Like

            • Lyttenburgh says:

              “And Soviet genocide is recognised officially as genocide by multiple authorities and conventions “

              Be so kind and provide us with links to such august, respected and internationally recognized bodies postulating just that – i.e. that the USSR commited genocide in Latvia.

              “we know very well that “neutralising” oponents meant destroying local people who had done nothing wrong apart from having a land or being influential and educated people, even kids and women were deported”

              Private property is not a human right. If you are building a socialism all traces of capitalism are, naturally, going to go. To do exactly this the USSR had the appropriate laws. Those who resisted or cheated the system were persecuted by the law. Their family members, who knew about said crimes, who benefited from said crime and who did not report said crime were also punished.

              I’m pretty sure no one was deported with the official verdict “was educated smart ass”. It is though a reality that the members of intelligentzia have penchant for kvetching, sabotage, nationalism and subversion. These were their crimes and they were punished accordningly.

              “Mass deportations also took place in 1949, so it has nothing to do with Hitler.”

              They had everything to do with local nationalist and terrorists waging war against lawful and internationally recognized USSR government, of helping them and for their past crimes as Nazi collaborators – or the hostile West willful agents.

              “Notably, Soviet Genocide took place in Russia as well towards its own educated, but it was recognised of course only after “glasnostj” politics “

              Please, name me the official document by the late USSR period which would postulate that there was a “genocide” in Russia (RSFSR) proper.

              “If that makes a very big difference, a term “mass killings” may also be used instead of genocide, but that does not change the fact.”

              State has monopoly on the violence. If the state has the death penalty it can use it. It is not a “murder” or “killing”. It is “execution”. It is not a crime when done to those who deserve it accirdning the law. Traitors, spies, terrorists, banditds and other scum deserved it. Yes, there were some innocents caught up in the process of Repressions. This does not invalidate the fact that it was not a “murder”. Even in the so-called Free World justice screw ups and convicts innocents. So what?

              Like

            • Setting facts says:

              First of all, killing of civilian people is not justifiable under any circumstances ( I hope that we can agree upon that). Secondly, of course there can be a debate of whether it is a genocide, politicide, mass killing or any other type of killing, it does not justify the crime.
              However, the term “genocide” comes from academia, for instance, Naimark, Norman M. (5 December 2011). Stalin’s Genocides. Princeton University Press. p. 89. ISBN 978-0691152387.; J. Pohl, “Stalin’s genocide against the ‘Repressed Peoples’”, Journal of Genocide Research, Volume 2, Number 2, 1 June 2000, pp. 267–293; R. J. Rummel. Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocides and Mass Murders Since 1917. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4128-2750-8.

              I will let academia sort out the classification of terms since I believe such debates will be ongoing forever; however, it is not totally unreasonable to use it if referenced to certain works, which I will certainly do in future.

              Thanks for debate anyways. Peace.

              Like

            • Lyttenburgh says:

              “First of all, killing of civilian people is not justifiable under any circumstances ( I hope that we can agree upon that). “

              When the state that has a death penalty sentences a “civilian” person to said death penalty and then (wait for it!) executes whe punishment this is not a “killing”. This is execution.

              “Secondly, of course there can be a debate of whether it is a genocide, politicide, mass killing or any other type of killing, it does not justify the crime.”

              There won’t be a debate if you:

              a) Provide a definition of the term you so clumsy use

              b) Provide a proof that other recognize the events you are talking about as such.

              “However, the term “genocide” comes from academia, for instance, Naimark, Norman M. (5 December 2011). Stalin’s Genocides. Princeton University “

              Which has zero legal binding. There any number of insane or just wrong “academia” works – e.g. the entire body of works by the late and unlamented SoLZHEnitsin or Robert Conquest.

              “I will let academia sort out the classification of terms since I believe such debates will be ongoing forever”

              No. It is not academic – it is legal term. And you can’t apply it left and right if you like it.

              You just demonstrated, that you have nothing but hot air and empty claims. Therefore, you can’t use the term “genocide” in good faith when making and argument.

              Like

          • Pavlo Svolochenko says:

            Borat, appeal to authority is a low form of argument, but I guess it comes naturally to you with your typical Latvian slave mentality – If I barked at you in German to shut your gob and fetch my slippers I suspect you’d do it as a reflex action.

            Like

      • Setting facts says:

        If we want to be even more precise, we can put victims of Soviet Genocide in multiple categories: “Those who died in deportations and GULAG”, “Those who died from KGB terror” in the 50 years of Soviet occupation. And yes, believe it or not, Latvians were not fans of fascist plans to colonize their lands and assimilate population ( not a single sensibly thinking person would be in favor of that), so it is obviously a myth that Latvians would have willingly supported such a plan against them, yet amazingly vivid due to misinformation upon German occupation ( and by the way, there is difference between fascism and nacism, please look it up). To add more, yes there were some people who used the occupation to collaborate with Hitler, jut as there were people who used opportunity to collaborate with Stalin. With an equation mark, there people were traitors of Latvian nation.

        Like

        • Setting facts says:

          PS. People who were forcefully mobilised by occupation army were not traitors, and there was also a fraction that did it in hope to eventually fight for independent Latvia. These people did not do it for ideological reasons. And that is a great difference and a reason why we remember these people once a year with flowers, nothing more. An ability to do a differentiation and understanding of a situation at a time is all it takes ( which takes quite some cognitive resources, but seriously it is not that hard to make a difference between genuine ideological supporters and people who had their own motives due to occupation, which they had already experienced before being occupied by Germans). Evidently, it is hard to name another country that experienced 3 occupations in a row at the 20th century. That explains something about motivations of people, doesn’t it?

          Like

        • Pavlo Svolochenko says:

          ‘With an equation mark’

          Hahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaaaa

          And I thought Indian English sounded daft – this new Baltese will be good for generations of fresh comedy.

          Like

    • Lyttenburgh says:

      “watch their media”

      Latvia forbids retranslation of Rossiya Channel (April 2016). That was the second such ban – first time RTR was banned in 2014.

      “can freely use Russian language even in governmental institutions”

      According to Wikidepia, since 2000 no state institution accepts documents and appeals written in Russian. Just recently, the mayor of Riga Nil(s) Ushakov(s) was fined 50 euros for speaking Russia with some schoolchildren.

      “and live well without knowing the official language of Latvia.”

      Define “well”. Because being “non-citizen” is not “well” by any stretch. It’s called apartheid.

      “The life of Russian minorities is so tough in Latvia that more and more people from Russia choose to come to live to Latvia.”

      During “mass emigration” of the liberastia in 2014 only 917 (nine hundred and seventeen) persons chose Latvia as their destination.

      “They are so oppressed that the mayor of capital city is affiliated to Putin’s party, and they are so minority that they are more than 50% in the capital city of Latvia.”

      In the normal country it won’t matter whether he is affiliated with “Putin’s party” (btw – how?) or not.

      “Meanwhile, people like Alfreds Rubiks, opposed the idea of independent Latvian in early 90s and favouring totalitarian Soviet Union”

      Do you know the meaning of the word “totalitarian”? Perestroika era USSR was anything but that.

      “…but also had a plan to destroy the indigenous population, what was afterwards done by Stalin…”

      Do you know the meaning of the word “done”? It means that it happened in reality. If it happened in reality, you won’t be writing these words. Ergo – you are lying.

      “…so talking about fascism in Latvia and a march to remember people who were forcefully mobilised in army, is out of context.”

      1) A lot of said people (including civilians) absolutely voluntary participated in Holocaust.

      2) SS Divisions made up from ethnic Latvians were quite zealous in committing warcrimes and crimes against the humanity.

      3) Now, you ignore (1) and venerate (2) as heroes.

      “It is not like our tiny country is going to force upon someone our culture”

      You are forcing what passes for your culture on “non-citizens”.

      “…but in Latvian territory Latvians have a right to their culture and language ( read UN human rights)”

      And you also have to guarantee the same thing to ethnic minorities living on your territories.

      “And it is not much to ask from minorities to show some respect to that instead of forcing Russification”

      Showing respect to Nazi collaborators?

      P.S. Congrats, yalensis! Your blog became truly famous – you had your first butthurt ignorant troll from the Butthurt Belt of URope screaming ignorant nonsense! Wheee!

      Like

      • Setting facts says:

        1) That does not change the fact that there is a whole range of other Russian media left for watching on TV and we live in the Internet age – it is not like you cannot open any of these channels online, they are simply not translated in state television.
        2) Wikipedia sounds like totally credible source. 😀 But seriously, it is normal not to accept documents written in Russian when we have official state language. However, you can still speak Russian in governmental institutions and people will understand and talk to you in this language. We are not obliged to do that but we will anyways, because we know many languages, and do not have problem to utilise that knowledge.
        3) Defining “well”: people can go freely and use the language and people will talk to them in Russian in shops, institutions etc., so no problem. However, to become a citizen it is not much to ask knowing the official language of Latvia – if you know it, you are welcome to become a citizen, but that requires, of course, some studying and effort. If you do your duty, we will give your rights.
        4) It is well-known fact that recently people like Barašņikovs and different journalists move from Russia to Latvia, because it is safer here. It may not be about the quantity, but certainly about quality, since mostly intelligence comes to live here.
        5) It matters that he is affiliated to the extent that it is well-known that Putin’s party has a weak sense of corporate governance. Not nice to have high corruption model transported from Russia to Riga ( and it is academic fact about corporate governance).
        6) Fair point about the misuse of terms. However, still far from democracy.
        7) Not enough precision in text – yes, it was done to the extent of Soviet mass killings/genocide, which substantially decreased the local population as a result. Soviet killings is not a lie, it is a fact.
        8) Then how the celebration of 9th May war veterans who engaged in war crimes like raping, deporting women and kids etc. are better? People who did it because of personal gain ( rather than ideology) were a small fraction, most of them wanted to revenge for war crimes that were already committed by Soviet army during first occupation. But somehow celebrating 9th May is not controversial, because “winner” side? Isn’t occupation of another country a war crime ( and I know that many people still have problems with understanding Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and acknowledge that, although it is a historical fact).
        9) In our territory it is normal to require to know the official language of a state. That is not forcing anything, it is a duty of a citizen to know the language. Nothing more is asked. The Internet has also not been blocked, as far as I know, so everyone is free to be located in Russian media sphere.
        10) Few people putting flowers is seriously not a big deal. It is not like we are shooting fireworks like on 9th May, making a rock-concert, getting drunk and putting George ribbons and Soviet symbols everywhere ( although they are reasonably outlawed, people still do that time to time).
        10) Calling someone a troll is not an argument.

        Like

        • yalensis says:

          Dear Setting facts:
          Thank you for stimulating an interesting debate.

          Like

        • Lyttenburgh says:

          “1) That does not change the fact that there is a whole range of other Russian media left for watching on TV and we live in the Internet age – it is not like you cannot open any of these channels online, they are simply not translated in state television.”

          Boo-hoo. You are limiting the freedom of press in your own country. But that’s okay for you.

          “2) Wikipedia sounds like totally credible source.”

          Are you saying that this particular fact which I quoted via WikiDorkia is not true? If true, why was this jab at Wiki?

          “But seriously, it is normal not to accept documents written in Russian when we have official state language. “

          But you stated earlier:

          “[Russians] can freely use Russian language even in governmental institutions”

          I pointed out this not to be true, i.e. that you lied. Now you try to deflect by saying “Meh, no biggie here!”. But it’s biggie. And you are proved to be a liar.

          “Defining “well”: people can go freely and use the language and people will talk to them in Russian in shops, institutions etc., so no problem.”

          No, they can’t. On legislative level Russian is not recognized as equal, is not protected, and while such “good” situation might continue for some time, due to the lack of the judicial basis Russia might be infringed in the future. There are/were already attempts to do just that:

          See: В Латвии принимаются фашистские законы против русских

          Как в Латвии борются с русским языком

          When there are several crucial spheres of life when using your language becomes harmful for you this is not “well”. How can you treat as a “foreign” a language of 35% of your people?

          “It is well-known fact that recently people like Barašņikovs and different journalists move from Russia to Latvia, because it is safer here. It may not be about the quantity, but certainly about quality, since mostly intelligence comes to live here.”

          Quality? Oh, no. They are not the brain the of the nation. Quite the contrary. BTW – the “MEDUZA” Editorial board – maybe it’s time to check them on knowing Latvian. If these liberast dearies fail – by my guest, deport them!

          BTW, how do you determine “quality” of emigrants? By the applied skull-measuring? Besides, you were claiming earlier:

          “more and more people from Russia choose to come to live to Latvia.””

          And, again, I proved that you lied. Once more. But you are helplessly deflecting. Don’t you feel pathetic?

          “It matters that he is affiliated to the extent that it is well-known that Putin’s party has a weak sense of corporate governance.

          wat???

          No, really – what does this nonsense means?!

          Not nice to have high corruption model transported from Russia to Riga ( and it is academic fact about corporate governance).”

          Can you prove that there is indeed such a fact taking place? I think, ifthere was indeed such fact, then the legal court would have established it long ago. But they didn’t. So you only have specualations and unproven allegations. I.e. – nothing of substance.

          Try again or shut up.

          ” Fair point about the misuse of terms. However, still far from democracy.”

          So instead of misusing one term, you are misusing now another. Do you even know what the democracy is?

          ” Not enough precision in text – yes, it was done to the extent of Soviet mass killings/genocide, which substantially decreased the local population as a result. Soviet killings is not a lie, it is a fact.”

          See above. There is no one besides you Butthurt Bunch who believes in “Latvian genocide” nonsense. Once again – State can’t “murder”.

          As for substantially reducing population – how come that the number of ethnic Latvians after nearly 30 years of “independence” are now lower than ubder “Bloody Regime” ™?

          “Then how the celebration of 9th May war veterans who engaged in war crimes like raping, deporting women and kids etc. are better? “

          Are you claiming that every single war veteran of the Soviet Army was engaged in the war crimes? Have you proven that? If not, then why are you bringing this up?

          As for deportation – it is not always a war crime. Besides, the NKVD/MGB Interior troops dealt with that, not ordinary soldiers. It wasn’t a crime if done in accordance to the law.

          Crimes of the Nazis and their collaborators were proven and condemned at Nuremberg trials – heard about them? Your “heroes” whom you are worshipping as part of the “national” identity are condemned criminals. Internationally recognized as such. Our veterans are internationally recognized Heroes. We Won the War. Now, either you can be with the Victors and venerate those ethnic Latvians who fought in the ranks of the Soviet army and Fleet or with the losers with your pathetic crowd of criminals. The choice is all yours.

          “But somehow celebrating 9th May is not controversial, because “winner” side? “

          Yes, precisely. Again – are you with winners or with losers?

          “Isn’t occupation of another country a war crime “

          The West was just fine with said “occupation” and didn’t raise a voice during the war and several years after wards. So, it was not an occupation. No one persecuted the USSR for that and it is not internationally recognized as such.

          “In our territory it is normal to require to know the official language of a state. That is not forcing anything, it is a duty of a citizen to know the language. “

          Why Russian is not recognized as another state language?

          “The Internet has also not been blocked, as far as I know, so everyone is free to be located in Russian media sphere.”

          Now imagine if the situation would magically reverse and you had only Internet for all things Latvian, while only Russian is recognized as the “true” and “state” language. Would you like that?

          “Calling someone a troll is not an argument.”

          Primarily I was calling you butthurt – which you don’t dispute. And this is not an argument – that’s an observation.

          Like

          • Setting facts says:

            1) There is a difference between limiting post-factual press or limiting factual press. Post-factual media is not part of media freedom. There are standards in journalism as well, not just freedoms. Those who fulfull standards are free to operate, for instance, EchoMoskvi.
            2) Not informed upon the precise incident, but Wiki is not a source of facts.
            3) They are free to use spoken communication and will be understood. There is difference between written and spoken communication forms, but ok, maybe it is too difficult to distinguish these.
            4) There is no reason for Russian to be protected somehow in legislation. I am not going to Russia and asking them to make Latvian a second country language. And there was a referendum and people voted No, so it was decided in democratic way. People expressed their opinion.
            5) No one has deported people from Latvia. Not a fact. But to have a citizenship you need to know the language. It is nothing undemocratic.
            6) Migration can be looked though a prism of education, profession etc. as far as academia does not. Journalists are clearly threatened in Russia, it is not a secret.
            7) “more and more” is indeed vague statement, but if you want to examine stats, you can check migration data in official sites. I am very doubtful on a human flow towards the direction of Russia.
            8) I am not asking you to understand what is corporate governance, it is indeed too much to ask.
            9) There are multiple corruption scandals upon Nils Usakovs as a mayor, not a problem to find that on web. Regarding academia, go to google scholar and write key words and you will find what I am talking about.
            10) State can murder – Hitler was also in power of a state. Not an argument. To see the origin of term “genocide”, look in academic books that are stated above.
            11) “Every single one” – that applies to your previous statements as well. Cannot prove. Deportation is not a crime? Ok, I guess here we can end our discussion since you are very far from having read a single UN convention.
            12) Again, Molotov-Ribbentrop fact is not known to you, and you do not see that when a country is occupied by Hitler, it is not a collaborator, unlike Italy or Japan ( but probably you do not see the difference).
            13) It is recognised internationally as occupation by the US and several other countries. 🙂
            14) Very intelligent observation, indeed.

            Peace to you and have a very nice day!

            Like

            • Lyttenburgh says:

              “There is a difference between limiting post-factual press or limiting factual press. “

              This is meaningless sentence. What is “factual/post-factual” press to begin with? Who determines that? By what right and according to what law?

              ” There are standards in journalism as well, not just freedoms.

              The only possible way to “punish” said journalism is via libel suits. Nothing more

              “Those who fulfull standards are free to operate, for instance, EchoMoskvi.”

              […]

              “Not informed upon the precise incident, but Wiki is not a source of facts.”

              This is not an “incident”. That’ a law in your own country adopted in 2000. Is the information provided there true – yes or no?

              “They are free to use spoken communication and will be understood. There is difference between written and spoken communication forms, but ok, maybe it is too difficult to distinguish these.”

              No, just admit that you lied. Also, a question – can a person function “well” in modern civilized socity without using written forms of communication?

              “There is no reason for Russian to be protected somehow in legislation. I am not going to Russia and asking them to make Latvian a second country language. “

              In Russian local ethnic language in local autonomies enjoy protected and official status there. In Tatarstan there are roadsigns, billboards, ads, commercials, papers, etc in Tatar.

              Once again – a significant minority uses Russian as their first, native language. What are the reasont to not recognize it as the second state language? Why in Ireland no one is banning the use of English? Why in Belgium there are two state languages? Why in Canada? Why in Switzerland?

              Btw, there is an option for the Latvian language to be recognized as protected with the option of using it for the business, judicial stuff etc. You only had to become a subject of Russian Federation 😉

              “And there was a referendum and people voted No, so it was decided in democratic way. People expressed their opinion.”

              You mean the one where a significant part of Latvians could not participate because they were “non-citizens” due to the fact of them (wait for it!) knowing only Russian, which was not recognized as the state language and precluding them from receiving the citizenship? It’s called “Catch-22” situation.

              “No one has deported people from Latvia. Not a fact. But to have a citizenship you need to know the language. It is nothing undemocratic.”

              “Nothing undemocratic”?

              In the US of A, for example, anyone born on the American soil becomes its citizen. Said child might not know a word of the American English. How does Latvia compare in this regard? And what do you understand by “democratic” anyway?

              “Migration can be looked though a prism of education, profession etc. as far as academia does not. Journalists are clearly threatened in Russia, it is not a secret.”

              Once again – what are criterions? Form of the skull?

              How well are these kreakls adapting I was asking? When will your Language police check the brave “Meduza”? As for “journalists are clearly threatened in Russia” – meaningless phrase with not basis in reality. Last year a black guy shot a female reporter and cameraman in the USA. Does it mean that in the USA journos are threatened?

              ” “more and more” is indeed vague statement, but if you want to examine stats, you can check migration data in official sites. I am very doubtful on a human flow towards the direction of Russia.”

              I won’t make your point for you. I provided counter argument based in data – that the “flow” is miniscule. Now provide your own sources proving yourself or I will keep calling you a liar. A pathetic liar, who can’t even argue like a man.

              “I am not asking you to understand what is corporate governance, it is indeed too much to ask.”

              You are using some term which you provide neither definition of no context. What you expect?

              “There are multiple corruption scandals upon Nils Usakovs as a mayor, not a problem to find that on web. Regarding academia, go to google scholar and write key words and you will find what I am talking about.”

              That’s not how on-line debate works. I won’t do your job. Either YOU google all relevant links and provide them here or GTFO.

              “State can murder – Hitler was also in power of a state. Not an argument. To see the origin of term “genocide”, look in academic books that are stated above.”

              Again – in accordance with the law. Jews and other undesirables were exterminated in the death camps not according to the law. No matter how brutal or unfair the laws of the Nazi Germany were they didn’t have a single one which would state in no uncertain terms that just being an “Undesirable” was punishable with death. Ergo – so much secrecy.

              So your argument is both weak and inappropriate here. Reduction ad Hitlerum is the sign of someone losing a debate. Try again.

              And – once again – I want *your* definition of the genocide.

              “that applies to your previous statements as well. Cannot prove. Deportation is not a crime? Ok, I guess here we can end our discussion since you are very far from having read a single UN convention.”

              a) They were condemned by the virtue of membership in the criminal organization (Waffen SS). The degree of their guilt and the sentences dependent on the results investigation.

              b) The Supreme Court of the US ruled that deportation and internment of the Japanese Americans was well within Constitution of the United States.

              “Again, Molotov-Ribbentrop fact is not known to you, and you do not see that when a country is occupied by Hitler, it is not a collaborator, unlike Italy or Japan ( but probably you do not see the difference).”

              Yeah, what about it? Why some countries had genuine resistance and underground fighting against occupying Nazis while your lot threw themselves unto Hitler’s bosom?

              “It is recognised internationally as occupation by the US and several other countries.”

              Which is a) Non-binding b) Happened in the Cold War and was purely politically motivated. c) Even mapmakers of the US recognized them as part of the USSR:

              Like

            • Setting facts says:

              I may provide academic sources but what is the point to do that if your main information sources is Russia Today, memes, Wikipedia and completely contradictory statements of “do the research yourself” and “I don’t understand what corporate governance is and what Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is”, “Soviets had right to do what they want in their “democratic state” and “Latvia is so undemocratic for making a referendum on a second language where they voted no”, yet “justifying Soviet terror in each sentence”, “there is not a way to determine factual and post-factual journalism” and “Echo Mosvki seems uncredible source”, “recognition of occupation of Latvia was political” and “there are so many political actions against Russian minorities” and so on. No sense of addressing these double standards forever. If Russia is your perfection of a democratic state, we clearly live in parallel information universes, so seriously no point of ever trying to land on a same page. 🙂

              Like

            • Lyttenburgh says:

              “I may provide academic sources but what is the point to do that if your main information sources is Russia Today, memes, Wikipedia”

              First thousand times this claim was funny. Not anymore though. You know nothing about where I get sources of information. I haven’t cited RT once for example. Yet you make this claim. OTOH, we have established long ago that you are a liar and full of shit.

              Academic sources mean nothing in the legal debate. When two people argue first thing they do is come to the common terms. By doing this the mere subject of the debate might disappear.

              I know the definition of the words you are using so carelessly, You think that you know them too. So, I might quote some definition and you will go “Nu-huh! I meant another one!”. So, ot avoid that – and because it is you who came here making a ballsy claim – the burden of proof lies squarely i you. A statement made without proof could be dismissed without proof.

              “I don’t understand what corporate governance is”

              You refused to provide definition. Go ahead and provide one.

              “what Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is”

              I do. I also know about all other similar pacts that the Nazi Germany had with other countries. I fail to understand why you mention it.

              “Soviets had right to do what they want in their “democratic state”

              1) States have sovereignty within their borders.

              2) Yes, the Soviets (Council) system was democratic by the definition of the word.

              Why won;t you provide your own definition of the word “democratic”?

              “Latvia is so undemocratic for making a referendum on a second language where they voted no”

              No, Latvia is undemocratic for having an apartheid system of “non-citizens” who can’t even participate in such Referenda,

              “there is not a way to determine factual and post-factual journalism”

              Be my guest – determine. I’m waiting.

              “recognition of occupation of Latvia was political”

              Yes it was.

              “justifying Soviet terror in each sentence”

              “Terror”? Someone is over zir little head here. I said that the State has monopoly on violence and that repressions, ultimately, are just the form of the State of enforcing its laws. How can you argue with that?

              Guess what – in the US people with facial tattoos can’t serve in the military or police. This is, btw, a form of repression and discrimination. So what?

              “Echo Mosvki seems uncredible source”

              There were several times when they ran fake stories. Do they qualify as “fake news”?

              “there are so many political actions against Russian minorities”

              Yes there are. And you partially admitted that. But you seem uncomfortable to be called a liar, so you appear stupid mulish instead.

              “No sense of addressing these double standards forever”

              No, Double standards is claiming that Russophonics can live “well” in Latvia despite being non-citizens damaged in rights and opportunities. Double standards is to whine about oppression and then oppress Russophonics by denying Russian language the status of the state one, despite that in other countries with mixed population (barring Butthurt Belt of Europe) this is not an issue..

              “If Russia is your perfection of a democratic state”

              What you did is called a “strawman”. I never claimed that Russia is a perfect democratic state. I claimed that Latvia is not democratic enough and hypocritical. And that you are full of shit.

              You didn’t answer several of my questions, namely the one about how would you react should the situation reverse and your language lose the status of the state one. You also said that your goodbies but came back – I knew you would. 🙂

              And I know you will keep posting, entertaining me further.

              Like

          • Setting facts says:

            Are you seriously claiming that Soviet Union was democratic by legal definition? 😀 We can, of course, have a debate that Stalin was a well-known human rights activist ( kind of same opera), but as the debate goes into arguments of “liar”, “full of shit”, that says a lot about your moral maturity, and I honestly do not want to be downgraded to that level. 🙂

            Like

            • Setting facts says:

              “the State has monopoly on violence and that repressions, ultimately, are just the form of the State of enforcing its laws. ” But such monopoly is justifiable only when exclusively owned solely by Soviet Union, right? Amazing logical fallacy.

              Like

            • Setting facts says:

              Some legislative material: re §43. NGOs and all members of society can participate in policy-making. “Consultative support for national minority NGOs has been ensured…. The Latvian authorities do not consider that granting voting rights at local level to non-citizens in Latvia would strengthen the incentive to naturalise; the contrary is much more likely. In fact, an extensive research project entitled The effect of regional aspects on tackling citizenship issues carried out by the Naturalisation Board revealed that one of the major obstacles for applying for Latvian citizenship is the lack of motivation, including the negligible differences between the rights of citizens and non-citizens. Latvia prefers having many citizens with full rights to having many non-citizens with many rights, at the same time acknowledging that any restrictions must have strong justification and shall be in accordance with international standards. Furthermore, there are no international standards on voting rights to non-citizens and at present it is not a widely accepted practice among the CoE Member States. In Latvia, it is a constitutional matter.”

              Like

            • Setting facts says:

              Even more Legislative material. “In accordance with the doctrine of state succession in national and international law, the Republic of Latvia retained the legal personality of the state that, de facto, lost its independence in 1940 as a result of occupation by the USSR, followed by Nazi Germany, and then again by the USSR in 1945. The Baltic States were the only three members of the League of Nations that did not regain independence immediately after the Second World War.
              The occupation of Latvia in contravention of international law, and the persistence of de iure independence of the Republic of Latvia throughout the Soviet occupation was recognized by our Western partners, and was accepted by other states, international organizations and tribunals, among them the European Court of Human Rights.
              On 4 May 1990, the Republic of Latvia declared the restoration of its independence with all legal consequences – restoring the body of law (including the Constitution, Civil Code, Property Law, the Law on Citizenship, etc.) and democratic institutions.
              On 17 September 1991, the Baltic States became members of the United Nations. And the USSR ceased to exist in December 1991. The Baltic States are not successor states of the USSR.
              An integral part of restoration of independence of the Republic of Latvia was the restoration of the status and rights of those persons who were recognized as Latvia’s citizens under the 1919 Law on Citizenship, as well as their descendants. 
              At the same time, Latvian authorities recognised that a group of persons, who had immigrated during the period of Soviet occupation and who lost their USSR citizenship after the dissolution of the Soviet Union but who had never been citizens of the Republic of Latvia or their descendants, were permanently residing in Latvia.
              Since these individuals were not eligible for automatic acquisition of Latvia’s citizenship, a special temporary status was established for former USSR citizens: the status of “former citizens of the
              USSR without the citizenship of the Republic of Latvia or any other country” (hereinafter “non-citizens”).
              Non-citizens of Latvia are not stateless persons. The protection provided to non-citizens in Latvia extends beyond that which is required by the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
              Non-citizens enjoy equal protection under the law both in Latvia and while living or travelling abroad, and are the only group of persons, in addition to citizens, who are granted permanent residence in Latvia ex lege. They can have permanent residence in a foreign country while retaining all rights and privileges, inter alia, to travel freely and to return back to Latvia at any time. Non-citizens have the same social guarantees as Latvian citizens including, for example, with regard to pensions and unemployment benefits. As to political rights – the only significant difference between Latvian citizens and non-citizens is the right to vote and to work in the civil service or occupy posts directly related to national security.
              Non-citizens are able to become citizens of Latvia through a simple naturalization procedure, and currently more than 142,000 persons have been granted citizenship of the Republic of Latvia in this manner. Latvia’s authorities stress that the status of non-citizens is considered temporary in nature.
               
              Naturalization
              The percentage of non-citizens has dropped to 12% (257 377) in July 2015 compared to 29% (approximately 730 000) in 1995, when the naturalization process began. 84% of Latvia’s residents are now citizens. As of 31 July 2015, 143 061 persons have been granted Latvian citizenship through the naturalization procedure.
              99% of the children born in Latvia in 2015 are Latvian citizens.
              Latvia continues to encourage non-citizens to apply for citizenship both through passage of legislation which facilitates naturalization and also by engaging in public information campaigns.
              Since their introduction, the Latvian language and history exams have been simplified. The naturalization fee has been reduced for low-income, unemployed, retired persons, and abolished for politically – repressed and disabled persons, orphans and persons from social care institutions.
              Amendments to the Citizenship Law -9 May 2013                               
              On 9 May 2013, after more than two years of meticulous work the Saeima (Parliament) adopted Amendments to the Citizenship Law (hereinafter – Amendments). The Amendments were endorsed by the President of Latvia on 23 May 2013 and came into effect on 1 October 2013.
              The overall aim of the Amendments is twofold: to adjust the Citizenship Law taking into account developments since 1998, and to further simplify citizenship acquisition and the naturalization process.
              Regarding the first aim, increased mobility of Latvia’s population after joining the EU and, consequently, the need to sustain ties with citizens all over the world determined the need to extend significantly the scope for dual citizenship.
              Regarding the second aim, several measures have been implemented.
              In accordance with the Amendments, Latvian citizenship is granted automatically to children of stateless persons and non-citizens: one parent’s consent is sufficient to register a newborn child whose parents are stateless or non-citizens as a citizen of Latvia at the time of the birth registration at the Civil Registry Office. The Amendments also eliminate a previous requirement for the parents to make a pledge of loyalty when registering citizenship of the child of a stateless person or a non-citizen.   
              According to the Amendments, a child under the age of 15 that has not been registered as a citizen of Latvia at the time of the registration of their birth can be registered as a citizen with an application submitted by one of the parents. Between 15-18 years of age, a child can themselves apply to be registered as a citizen.
              The Amendments also provide that pupils who have acquired more than half of the basic educational program in the Latvian language are exempt from all naturalization examinations and are registered as citizens upon submitting a naturalization application in accordance with the standard procedures.
              The Amendments also simplify the requirements regarding permanent residence for the naturalization applicants, removing the requirement for uninterrupted residence in Latvia. A specific paragraph of the Amendments deals with the Latvian language test and exemptions therefrom. Namely, the requirements of the Latvian language naturalisation test have been standardised and are in line with the requirements of the centralised language tests in educational institutions, be it Latvian or national minority educational institutions. As a result of the Amendments, former military personnel of USSR (Russia) who opted to remain living in Latvia after the breakup of the Soviet Union now have the possibility to acquire Latvian citizenship by completing the naturalization procedure. 
              Since restoration of independence in 1991, Latvia has engaged in a challenging long-term effort to promote societal integration. We believe that the Amendments to the Citizenship Law attest to yet another expression of Latvia’s will and interest to further consolidate and integrate its society.
              LATVIA’S LANGUAGE POLICY
              The Latvian Constitution and laws guarantee and protect the rights of persons belonging to national minorities so that they can preserve and develop their language, and their ethnic and cultural identity.
              State Language Law is aimed at preservation, protection and development of the Latvian language, but at the same time provides for the integration of national minorities in the society of Latvia by observing their rights to use their native language or any other language.
              Latvia continues to develop and finance its liberal education model: the state finances national minority education programmes in seven languages – Russian, Polish, Hebrew, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Estonian, and Lithuanian. 109 schools implementing national minority education programmes and 75 schools with both Latvian and minority language programmes are funded by the state. Secondary schools are entitled to determine which subjects are taught in Latvian, but the total should be 60% of all subjects. Primary schools have the option of choosing from five national minority education models, one of which allows schools to devise their own unique educational model.
              On 18 February 2012, a referendum was held in Latvia where a large majority of voters rejected constitutional amendments that would make Russian the second state language.
              The referendum prompted a high turnout: 71.1% of Latvia’s eligible voters participated in the referendum. Results were clear: only 17 % of eligible voters voted in favor of adopting Russian as the second state language. No substantive complaints about the conduct of referendum were received.
              Concerning Russia’s claim that part of the population (non-citizens) was not allowed to vote in referendum – the Latvian Government’s position is that the right to vote is an integral part of citizenship. Non-citizens are ensured easy access to naturalization and citizenship. 
              The referendum reaffirmed that sensitive issues can be addressed through democratic means, and that work will continue towards developing an open and consolidated society on the basis of European democratic values and Latvian as the only state language.
              SENSITIVE HISTORY RELATED ISSUES IN LATVIA
              During and after the Second World War Latvia suffered under the occupation of two totalitarian regimes – Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Using repressions and terror the occupying Nazi and Soviet powers forcibly drafted many people in Latvia to join military units on one or other side of the battle-front.
              During the Second World War more than 100,000 Latvian citizens were mobilized into various formations of German armed forces and about the same number in Soviet armed forces. 
              Nazi Germany formed the Latvian Legion in 1943 thus breaching the Hague Convention of 1907 which prohibits occupying powers to draft inhabitants of the occupied territories for military service. The conscripts were labeled “volunteers” to circumvent the Convention. Those who attempted to avoid conscription into the Legion risked imprisonment and later – death penalty.  The Latvian Legion was a frontline unit, one third of its soldiers died in the front. No member of the Legion was ever convicted of war crimes as a member of the Legion.
              Former soldiers who fought on one or other side of the battlefront during the Second World War remember their fallen comrades on different dates. 16 March is not an official day of commemoration of war dead in Latvia, however, some former soldiers, purely by their private initiative, choose to pay their respects to the fallen soldiers. They attend church services, gather in cemeteries and lay flowers at the Monument of Freedom without any ideological pretext. There is no marching in order to express support to any totalitarian ideology. No Nazi uniforms, symbols or slogans appear on this or other days in Latvia – they are banned by law.
              Latvia’s Government or any other State institution does not provide support or participate in the private activities mentioned above. Latvia honours its fallen soldiers on Lāčplēsis Day on 11 November – the Heroes’ Remembrance Day.
              In recent years some radical groups have tried to disrupt the private commemorative events to call attention to themselves and their agenda. Russian Federation has attempted to conduct a smear campaign against Latvia’s government to allege Nazi sympathies of Latvian government or Latvian population.
              Latvian authorities have consistently condemned all crimes against humanity committed by both totalitarian regimes.  Latvia categorically denounces the Holocaust, mourns its victims and is strongly committed to education, remembrance and research of it.
              Latvia is a democratic country with all the freedom guarantees provided for in the Constitution, and as a party to the European Convention for Human Rights provides the right of everyone to a peaceful assembly.” http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/society-integration/citizenship-in-latvia/citizenship-policy-in-latvia/basic-facts-about-citizenship-and-language-policy-of-latvia-and-some-sensitive-history-related-issues

              Like

            • Lyttenburgh says:

              “Are you seriously claiming that Soviet Union was democratic by legal definition? “

              Sure I am. The supreme governing body of the USSR (Verkhovny Soviet) was elected via direct elections from two or more delegtes. That’s a democracy.

              Please, provide your own definition of democracy.

              “We can, of course, have a debate that Stalin was a well-known human rights activist “

              Democracy as type of rulership has nothing to do with huma rights. Slave owning Classical Athens were democracy.

              “and I honestly do not want to be downgraded to that level.”

              Given how much you make empty claims being full by it for you would be an upgrade, actually.

              Like

            • Lyttenburgh says:

              “But such monopoly is justifiable only when exclusively owned solely by Soviet Union, right? Amazing logical fallacy.”

              The highlighted part – where I claim that?

              Like

            • Lyttenburgh says:

              “The Latvian authorities do not consider that granting voting rights at local level to non-citizens in Latvia would strengthen the incentive to naturalise; the contrary is much more likely. In fact, an extensive research project entitled… Latvia prefers having many citizens with full rights to having many non-citizens with many rights, at the same time acknowledging that any restrictions must have strong justification and shall be in accordance with international standards. “

              Thanks once again for proving my point, that Latvia is an apartheid state.

              Like

          • yalensis says:

            I just have to put in my 2 cents worth about Baryshnikov. For starters, this ballet dancer did not emigrate from Russia to Latvia. He was born in Soviet Latvia. Then he defected to the U.S., where he lived quite handsomely and was feted like a hero for many decades.
            Not to disparage his dancing talent, of which he has much.
            Then recently, the elderly Baryshnikov moved again, from the U.S. back to Latvia.
            Where he was granted Latvian citizenship.

            Baryshnikov has always had a negative attitude towards, first towards the Soviet Union; and secondly, towards Russia. This is okay, it’s his personal opinion and preference.
            It actually proves my point, since he is ethnic Russian, that ethnicity is not always a factor in these national identity issues.

            But frankly I think the Latvian government, which is a compradore NATO government, uses a person’s political views as a criterion for citizenship. Which technically isn’t really fair. Especially to those other ethnic Russians living in Latvia who are considered non-citizens. And one of the Latvian government officials even referred to them, recently, as “lice” who won’t go away. Which also is grossly unfair, to compare people to insects.

            Like

            • yalensis says:

              P.S. – also an additional 2 cents about that “Soviet political executions = Hitler Holocaust” thing.
              Lyttenburgh is absolutely correct here.
              The Nazi state never formally (nor could it) claim that executions of ordinary Jewish people(based purely on their race/religion) was a lawful act of state violence.
              In fact, the Nazis went to great lengths to conceal their genocide of Jews (and gypsies) from the world.
              Hence, “Setting facts” is wrong and duplicitous when he claims that Stalin=Hitler.
              It’s the standard propaganda talking point of Baltic governments who claim their legitimacy based on a logical fallacy.
              In reality, these governments do not possess much historical legitimacy at all, especially in light of the Nuremburg rulings, which is why they feel they have to resort to this “dual totalitarian” fallacy.

              Like

      • yalensis says:

        Dear Lyttenburgh:
        I am not sure that “Setting Facts” even read my post all the way through.
        Because at the end I made the ironic remark that the “Latvia for Latvians” movement actually contains a lot of ethnic Russians.
        In any case, my post was not directed against Latvians, per se, was just a broadside against the burgeoning fascist movement throughout Europe. Which also includes Russian nationalists. Including our beloved “Black Hundreds” Tolya. the Mayor of Karlinbridge.
        I also wanted to hammer in the “Trotskyist” point that fascism is by its nature a mass movement, and not just some fringe party for cranks.

        I also dispute that Comrade Stalin committed genocide against Latvians, but of course that claim is so ludicrous that I don’t even have time to list all the absurdities of it. One simple glance at the demographic map of Latvia should tell the whole story in that regard.

        Like

        • Setting facts says:

          Thank you for interesting article which widened my perspective on the other side! You may be interested in looking up for and against arguments in this article to widen your perspective upon why the claim has certain factual background.

          “Naimark, author of the controversial new book Stalin’s Genocides, argues that we need a much broader definition of genocide, one that includes nations killing social classes and political groups. His case in point: Stalin.”

          “I make the argument that these matters shouldn’t be seen as discrete episodes, but seen together,” said Naimark, the Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of Eastern European Studies and a respected authority on the Soviet regime. “It’s a horrific case of genocide – the purposeful elimination of all or part of a social group, a political group.”

          “In some cases, a quota was established for the number to be executed, the number to be arrested,” said Naimark. “Some officials overfulfilled as a way of showing their exuberance.”

          “In his book, he concludes that there was more similarity between Hitler and Stalin than usually acknowledged: “Both chewed up the lives of human beings in the name of a transformative vision of Utopia. Both destroyed their countries and societies, as well as vast numbers of people inside and outside their own states. Both, in the end, were genocidaires.”

          “They were called “enemies of the people,” as well as swine, dogs, cockroaches, scum, vermin, filth, garbage, half animals, apes. Activists promoted murderous slogans: “We will exile the kulak by the thousand when necessary – shoot the kulak breed.” “We will make soap of kulaks.” “Our class enemies must be wiped off the face of the earth.”

          “There’s a reason for Russian obliviousness. Every family had not only victims but perpetrators. “A vast network of state organizations had to be mobilized to seize and kill that many people,” Naimark wrote, estimating that tens of thousands were accomplices.”

          http://news.stanford.edu/2010/09/23/naimark-stalin-genocide-092310/

          Like

          • yalensis says:

            “Naimark, author of the controversial new book Stalin’s Genocides, argues that we need a much broader definition of genocide, one that includes nations killing social classes and political groups.
            The reason that Naimark is controversial, is because he is full of shit.
            Genocide means what it means, the destruction of human beings due to their ethnicity.
            What Hitler did was genocide.
            What Stalin did was political repression. NOT genocide.

            Murdering one’s political opponents may be wrong, but it’s not genocide.
            I am no apologist for Stalin, by the way. I criticize him for killing off members of Lenin’s Central Committee. For political reasons, obviously. Still NOT genocide.

            Naimark and people like him are actually dangerous. Because they want to blur all lines, all distinctions. His aim is to de-legitimize class-based actions of the oppressed classes against their oppressors. If I go on strike against my boss — why, Lordy, that’s genocide!

            Like

  2. Lyttenburgh says:

    Tl;dr – this long wall-of-text boilertape diatribe by Latvian gvoernment you quoted… is not worth the paper it’s been written on:

    “The occupation of Latvia in contravention of international law, and the persistence of de iure independence of the Republic of Latvia throughout the Soviet occupation was recognized by our Western partners, and was accepted by other states, international organizations and tribunals, among them the European Court of Human Rights.”

    Which tribunals? Which tribunals with the binding power ruled that? Western partners – you mean NATO? That’s what I was talking about when discussing the political reasons for that. And ECHR have never officially adopted a document claiming that so-called “Soviet occupation” took place. Go ahead – try as you might and you won’t find it.

    So in the end – you have nothing. Only wet sprat fantasies. How pathetic.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s