From: avg@rodan.UU.NET (Vadim Antonov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Koenigsberg/Kaliningrad
Date: 4 Sep 1992 14:37:46 -0400
Organization: Berkeley Software Design
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net

In article <1992Sep4.081930.26242@nntp.hut.fi> f33012l@puukko.hut.fi (Janne Kivel{) writes:
>>Well, historical claims are double-edged things.
>>Shouldn't we consider returning Finland to Russia instead?
>
>That's exactly what a Russian politician called Zhirinovsky used to be
>after.

Don't mix me with that shit. If you didn't get it, it was an
illustration of the very same approach the respectful Jarmo was
suggesting.

>>Seriously, Finland's government is better than its citizens in
>>understanding that territorial claims in the modern world will
>>practically inevitably lead to bloodshed. Don't you consider
>>the experience of Yugoslavia, Abkhazia, Karabakh, South Ossetia,
>>Gaza Strip, Penjab et al sufficient enough to never make the
>>same mistake again? 
>
>Who are you to tell what Finnish citizens think of returning Karelia 
>to us?

At least one of the Finland citizens proposed exactly that.

>Russians willingly blended with other nationalities in the Baltics, for
>example, without asking the permission of Baltic nationals.

They did never issue yellow passports for minorities, though.
Blending basically means accepting alien culture by means of
coexisting and intermarriage. As for repressions -- need i to remind
that many top-level VChK officials were Baltic nationals?
Totalitarism does no ethnic distinctions -- they're used only as a cover to
repress opposition. Any organized religious or social group (like Jewish
community) which does not bow to totaltarian regime is a subject to
repressions. Russians paid much more for the Bolshevism than Balitic
nations did.

>Nationalism can lead to very bloody results if the nation is very big
>(like the Russians or Germans).

C'mon. Don't mix nationalism and totalitarism. That's different things,
although quite similar in consequences.

Indeed, though the small nation's nationalism can have only limited
impact it didn't become less repulsive or less dangerous. Please
note that all bloody ethnic conflicts are small nation's. A big
country cannot be involved in an ethnic conflict as an entity
simply because it has too many ethnic groups. It does not exclude
local ethnic conflicts inside (like LA riots this year in US or 
anti-Jewish riots in Russia in the previous century), though.
Again, a big nation does not care about its ethnic identity.

>Estonian ultra-nationalism (if such a thing
>exists) can hardly be regarded as dangerous, except to Estonians themselves.

That's what i was saying; though the so-called ultra-nationalism
does indeed exist. I wouldn't believe myself if I'd never was in
Estonia, never saw those new-day equivalents of yellow spots. Unlike
you i have a first-hand experience.

>Your claim that Russians are the least nationalistic people in Europe
>makes me think that you are a true 'homo sovieticus'.

You're not the first to call me such. Others had apologized, though.
If you like to replace the lack of arguments by personal insults --
you're welcome to show your own, well, imperfection.

>There is evidence that this bear can be dangerous, especially since it's
>usually ruled by blood-thirsty tyrants, degenerated despots or senile old
>men. It's the nations that have to live close to that bear that would like
>to see a sane leader guiding that bear towards prosperity.

And what? Now we should feel guilty simply because we're the big nation?
As for "degenerated despots" and "blood-thirsty tyrants" -- you're
obviously ignorant in the history of Russian royal families. Their
grim deeds were quite mild comparing with that of "civilized" European
nations. Get a picture of the last tzar and try to write your words
underneath.

>>I guess it's not much better for Estonians. Fascist government
>>separating citizens by blood will eventually start seprating them
>>by political attitudes. Hitler's example is well-known.
>
>The government looks fascist only in Russian propaganda.

Yeah? Really? I bet the modern Russian media is much more accurate
and unbiased than Western. I've got a plenty of chances to compare.
It's really hard to fool people who perfected the art of reading
between lines under decades of lies.

>>You'd better think of the future of a small country which has
>>no natural resources or high-technology and is going to aggravate
>>the neighbor country (which basically is their only reliable
>>market and source of supplies) by their mindless ethnic policy.
>
>And whose environment has been polluted by a careless industrial policy
>practised in a country that does not exist any more.

As well as many other places.

>It was the mindless
>policy of USSR that brought ethnic Russians to Estonia and it was 
>the mindless politicians in Moscow that built factories in Estonia that
>local economy didn't need and has no use of now.

And mindless local authorities who tried hard to get their region more
"developed" to satisfy their selfish interests. If you don't know
how the so-called administrative system worked -- the local authorities
were always literally begging central bureaucrats to provide more
building funds because it was the only way to develop social
infrastructure and improve supplies. It also was a matter of personal
ambitions of local officials and a way to climb up the ladder.
In fact, central bureaucrats often were opposed to industrializing
the Baltic region becuse it was considered a prestigeous recreation
area and they used it for themselves.

Totalitarism deforms minds, sure, but itself it is a quite logical
and rigid system. If some aspects like desire of local authorities to
develop more and more industry in their regions looks illogical
then you simply do not know their motives and the ways the system
was working.

>And Russia is the one that should take care of its own citizens abroad,
>since it's recognized as the heir of Soviet Union.

It does. At least it provided *unconditional* citizenship to all 
its residents and routinely acceps thousands refugees.

>>As for Finns -- your example seems to support the popular in Russia
>>opinion of Finns being, well, dumb. "Chukhna" is the word.
>
>If Finns were as dumb as you suggest, today's Finland would probably be a newly
>independent ex-Soviet republic.

I didn't mean offence to all Finns -- i simply applied the argument of
respectful Jarmo to himself to outline the stupidity of "YFEG considered
dumb/mischevious/whatever". There's an idiom in Russian which sounds
in English rendition as "yourself's fool". Used as a reply to personal
of ethnic insult.

--vadim
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet