HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: f33012l@puukko.hut.fi (Janne Kivel{)
Subject: Re: "democratic" Estonia
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 08:44:26 GMT

viznyuk@physics.ucla.edu (Sergei Viznyuk) writes:

>>Was Narva populated by Russians because it was part of Lenin's
>>national politics? Yes...
>
>  Very precious combination of total ignorance with nationalist
>hatred. Apparently this guy thinks that Lenin stacked Narva
>with Russians before giving it away to Estonia in 1918-1920.

Your version is hardly any better. You know very well the origins 
of the industrial policy that brought the Russians to north-east Estonia
and destroyed local environment.

>>Are Estonians who lives in Narva region interested to be with Estonia? Yes!
>
>  Maybe, if you could find any Estonians there at all.
>All other "population" of Narva region experience strong
>desire NOT to be with Estonia.

Serega, how can you detect this "strong desire"? So far there has only
been uncertainty about the future. Perhaps you could be the person to help 
Narva residents find that strong desire to unite with Mother Russia. Still, 
I think there are enough ambitious politicians in Russia capable of 
creating unrest among Russian-speaking people in Estonia, so that you 
don't have to bother. 

>S.V.

Janne Kivela"
From: dleschin@FEDS66.PRIME.COM (Dmitri Leschiner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re:
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:25:56 GMT
Reply-To: "talk.politics.soviet via ListServ" <TPS-L@indycms.iupui.edu>

>Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:45:10 PDT
>From: Adrian Moga <moga@GRINGO.USC.EDU>

> It wasn't only at the beginning of the
>19th century that Moldovans/Vallachians were helping/joining Russian
>armies in their fights against Turks. Things started more than a
>century before.

THAT was still known to Russians even in the soviet schools.

>                I think you can understand how ironic it was for
>Moldova not to loose teritories after 5 centuries of fighting alone
>against the Turks, but after one century after helping the Russians.

Well, see below.

>So, Bessarabia was always a part of the Moldavian principality until
>1812. In 1812, when the peace treaty was signed, Moldova (and
>therefore Bessarabia) was not under Turkish administration (read
>"Bessarabia was not a Turkish teritory").

Either I don't remember some lessons, either things are not cleared yet.
Has Moldova become an independent state after 1812? I was recalling, it
didn't happen until next Russo-Turkish war. So, wasn't Moldova not under
Turks in 1812 only temporarily, until treaty was signed?

>                                          More than that, Moldova
>should have been on the winners' side in this treaty, by helping the
>Russian army. So, not only international laws were broken, but a deep
>injustice was committed as well.

Of course Moldova should have been on the winner's side. Well, if the
alternatives were - to go under Russian rule, or to return under Turkish,
the latter one certainly does not seem like winner's case. Wasn't the
former the best possible at the time, at least for part of Moldovan
territory?

Of course, it's very grim, that Moldova was divided then. Actually, much
more grim is that it was not reunified, when all Moldova was finally
liberated from Turks. Of course, you'll blame Russia for it. In a logical
way, you are right. Certainly, there is grim irony, which you've noticed
above. But, again, what might be an alternative? It is - for Russia, to
give Bessarabia away to Moldova. OK, now, say me just honestly: how many
states can you name NOW, in 1992, presumably very liberal and civilised
time, who will behave in such a way? Certainly, current (East) Moldova
is not among them, neither most of its (close or distant) neighbours,
known to me...

Well, another alternative: rest of Moldova to join Russia. I'm not sure
you would support that variant of reunification.

So, actually it certainly _was_ unjustice, from historical point of view.
But, it doesn't seem to me quite justly to blame anybody for it, except
history itself...

>                                 There was no other reason for Russian
>expansionism than there is one for expansionism in general. And that
>is greed.

Still, I thought, Russian expansionism was better for Moldova than Turkish
rule. You may disagree, of course.

>Regards,

>Adrian Moga.


Dmitry
From: CMORRISO@snyescva.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: "sipas" Don't Remember Cyprus
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:35:00 GMT
Reply-To: "talk.politics.soviet via ListServ" <TPS-L@indycms.iupui.edu>

I think a lot of us supported Turkish intervention.

Chris Morrison
Xref: sparky talk.politics.soviet:7699 soc.culture.soviet:7097
From: covdy@shemesh.metaphor.com (Ivan Covdy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: Shafarevich and National Academy
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:40:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.soviet

in article <1992Sep03.133454.24256@watson.ibm.com>, oleg@watson.ibm.com (Oleg Vishnepolsky) says:
# Xref: cronos talk.politics.soviet:11475 soc.culture.soviet:8392
# News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.11 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
# Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
# Nntp-Posting-Host: oleg.watson.ibm.com
# 
#>  I say, expel the anti-semitic bastard.
# 
# If National Academy of Sciences starts judging its members on
# criterias that have nothing to do with science, it will damage its
# own image. It should keep its nose out of its members prejudices
# equally as it keeps it out of their bedrooms.
# 
# Oleg Vishnepolsky

Yeah, right!

I can see how it's happening: first, expell all antisemits;
then, all racists; then, all russophobes; then, all antiturks;
then, all who ever told a joke about Poles and Chukchis...
then, expell all anticommunists; then, expell all whose
"moral face" (shit, how to translate "moral'nyj oblik"?)
does not correspond to ... you name it.

-- 
  Ivan Covdy, covdy@shemesh.metaphor.com, METAPHOR Inc.,  CA,  USA
 *** People are looking for a Mind somewhere in the Universe,      ***
 *** because on the Earth they've been finding only the Stupidity. ***
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
From: f33012l@puukko.hut.fi (Janne Kivel{)
Subject: Re: "democratic" Estonia
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:21:55 GMT

sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:

>>The Estonian government seems to not recognize permanent residence
>>criteria and base its citizenship law solely on ethnicity which is
>>universally considered a kind of racism.
>
>Please quote relevant parts of the Estonian citizenship law which
>says that citizenship is based on ethnicity. Hint: you will have
>severe problems with finding any.

Erland or somebody else, could you possible (re)post the relevant parts of 
Estonian and Latvian citizenship laws or correct the mistakes I may make.

If I remember right Estonian law guarantees citizenship to those who
were Estonian citizens during the 'old' republic and their descendants.
I understand that the permanent residence requirement doesn't concern
these people.

If you have had permanent residence in Estonia for more than five years,
you are eligible for citizenship. In addition, you have to demonstrate
skills in Estonian language and this is the controversial part of the law.
What are the skills required? How strictly is the law enforced? In Latvia
the permanent residence requirement is 16 years.

Double citizenship is not permitted, so the ones willing to retain their
Russian passports will not get Estonian citizenship. 

>Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
>There are three sorts of Macedonians: Greek, Bulgarian and Macedonian

Janne Kivela"
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: "democratic" Estonia
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:12:10 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB


I said:
>>And no one gets expelled for not knowing Estonian. How about
>>checking up a few facts before you open your mouth? Not
>>getting citizenship does not mean "be expelled".

Yury M. Mukharsky (muh@physics11) writes:
>Who is/was expelling those Jews from Russia? Big deal, beemg deprived 
>of couple of rights, does not mean "be expelled".

That's completely right. Not being granted citizenship is not
the same as being expelled, and this *is* a big deal. If we
are not careful with our words, we could say compose about
any gross accusation from any minor fact. I don't like the
language requirement, but I don't start to write lies about
people being expelled because of that.

From: Sergei Viznyuk (viznyuk@physics.ucla.edu)
>  Only for the last year more than 13,000 people fled Estonia
>for Russia. Unfortunately I don't have exact fugure for this year,
>but by all accounts it should be even more. So far for your
>"no one gets expelled", dear Erland.

Can you please cite an authorative source which clearly proves
that these 13.000 did *flee* and not merely emmigrate?

"Emmigrate" does not mean "flee". "Flee" does not mean "to be
expelled".
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
There are three sorts of Macedonians: Greek, Bulgarian and Macedonian
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Much noise for nothing?
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:48:28 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

ryyti@jyu.fi (Jarmo Ryyti) writes:

>Are there many nations in generally in the world where the non-
>sitizens have the right to vote? I do not think very many.
>Jarmo Ryyti

The UK......well sort of, and not the way you think.

People who've left these shores 30/40/50 years ago, haven't set foot in the
UK in that time, have no intention of returning and contribute nothing to
the country can vote by proxy.
They're almost invariably Conservative party supporters.

Dave
-- 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.soviet:7885 soc.culture.soviet:7520
From: macko@pilot.njin.net (Peter C. Macko)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Dniester Communists
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:26:47 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


 In article: <01GOFQA5LIMO8ZE0DW@MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
 VIZNYUK@MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (SERGEI VIZNYUK) writes:

> From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)

>>Oh, come on don't tell me that Smirnov & co are zealous reformists
>>who despise everything stamped with communism.
>>
>> I don't know many details about Smirnov & co, except that they
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>So how do you know then that they are "old-timers who are fighting to
>preserve their power" ? Familiar style - I didn't read, I don't
>know, but they/he/she is bad... Instead, why don't you consider
>President of Moldova x-communist Snegur, who used tanks

  At least Snegur is an X-communist.  Smirnov is still a staunch
communist and communists control the "Dniester Soviet Socialistic
Republic".  Neither side is entirely blameless, but Erland is
right about "Smirnov & co".  The Dniester "republic" hasn't
been called the "first republic free of democrats" by its
supporters for nothing.

>and terrorist gangs against population of its own country,
>as that "old-timer who is fighting to preserve his power" ?

>> supported the putsch and that's serious enough. But some months
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>It could have been "serious enough" under certain
>circumstances. But TransDniestra officials allegedly "supported"
>August coup only because they hoped that strong central
>goverment would be able to defend the population from
>"democratic" Moldavian regime.

  I've heard no such statement from the "Dniester Republic Supreme 
Soviet" in general nor from Smirnov in particular.  Upon what facts 
do you base your excuse for their actions Sergei?

>> The fact that Snegur and others may have a dubious background
>> doesn't excuse Transdniestrian leaders.
>
> They don't need your excuse, Sommarskog !

  Erland isn't fabricating excuses for them Sergei, but it
certainly appears that you are.


					-PCM
-- 

  Peter C. Macko                      Internet: macko@pilot.njin.net
  LCSR/Network Research                         macko@cs.rutgers.edu
  Telecommunications/Network Services     UUCP: {backbone}!rutgers!cs!macko
  Rutgers Computing Services,  Rutgers University (Piscataway, NJ)
From: pmaster@node.rinaco.msk.su (Alexander R. Timichev)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Archives documents of Russian history for sale.
Date: 7 Sep 92 07:14:36 GMT
Reply-To: pmaster@node.rinaco.msk.su
Organization: Russian Investment Joint-Stock Company RINACO (telephone
    node)

Dear Sirs!
Our firm have got some archives documents of Russia and USSR history for
sale. There are many old interesting documents. We are waiting your proposals
with what kind of document you need, year, etc .

        Alexander.

=================== pmaster@node.rinaco.msk.su ======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: "Moldavian" language and other musings
From: verbit@coolidge.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky)
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:34:07 EDT
Organization: Sozialistische Patienten Kollektiv

In article <1992Sep8.210653.3537@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Sergei Viznyuk (viznyuk@physics.ucla.edu) writes:
>>Would you, Sommarskog, like it
>>or not, but they still consider themselves Moldovans.
>
>Well, since they since live in Moldova that is not strange!
>However, that does not exclude that they consider their
>nationality to be Roumanian. Sure, if I hear that they do
>not consider themselves to be Roumanian from realiable
>sources, I'll rest my case.
>
>>  There were no referendum in Crimea, as yet. 
>
>There were, Viznuyk. If you concentrate you might even
>remember it. Does December 1st 1991 (My God, doesn't
>seems ages ago?) ring a bell?

A little correction, Erland. In the referendum you've mentioned
participated 65% of Crimean populace, while 54% of those
answered "yes" to independency of Ukraine. Obviously, this is
not majority (the numbers could be wrong, but the percent
of people who answered "yes" is still less than 40%).

Misha.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.soviet:7765 soc.culture.soviet:7209
From: verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: Shafarevich and National Academy
Date: 8 Sep 92 08:43:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep8.044354.15455
Organization: Sozialistische Patienten Kollektiv

In article <18aq59INNgtd@agate.berkeley.edu> muh@physics1 (Yury M. Mukharsky) writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.004354.15383@husc3.harvard.edu> verbit@coolidge.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:
>>In article <Btyqyu.FG8@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:

>>Huh? I don't get it too. There are Jewish academicians? 
>>More than one? Please elaborate...

>I never was interested who is Jew and who is not, so just couple
>of almost obvious examples: now: L.P.Pitaevsky, in earlier times
>Ja.B.Zeldovich, L.D.Landau, I.M.Livshitz and E.M.Livshitz. Not that
>I think that you should matter, but you seems so sure that there are not ...

Sorry, I did not know about Pitaevsky (though I am not sure
about his ethnicity). Others you've named are dead. You
cannot name more than one :), so your claim that there
are Jewish academicians helping Academy to cure antisemitism
are not substantional (to say it mildly). Probably I misunderstood
your claim (which you have conviniently deleted :)

Misha.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.europe
From: arto@leland.Stanford.EDU (Artavazd Khachikian)
Subject: New York Times Editorial, Armenian Genocide
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
	
	The present article is copied word for word from the NYT
	editorial from April 22, 1990, E-26, buttom column.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 00:26:00 GMT

		"And it passed from memory, so much that Hitler
	remarked to his generals, on Aug.22,1939: "Who today remembers
	the Armenian extermination?" A Niagara of ink has spilled over 
	the authenticity of this quotation. The context is frequently
	garbled; Gitler was talking about his planned invasion of Poland,
	not about the Jews. But an account of the speech was secretly 
	transmitted to the British in 1939 by one of those present, 
	Adm. Wilhelm Canaris; this is a matter of record, not a concoction.

		 What adds to the sorrows of Armenia is that so much of 
	the argument concerns precise numbers, faded documents and whether or
	not Kemal Ataturk, the creator of the Turkish republic, in fact
	deplored the killings in a 1926 press interview.

		A horrible wrong occured, and Turkey would stand taller
	in the world if it ceased blaming the victims."


					Karl E. Meyer, 
					The New York Times.
From: dleschin@FEDS66.PRIME.COM (Dmitri Leschiner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Moldova
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:50:29 GMT
Reply-To: "talk.politics.soviet via ListServ" <TPS-L@indycms.iupui.edu>

>Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:21:26 GMT
>From: Alexander Mihai Popovici <mihai@SEP.STANFORD.EDU>

>In article <9209080025.AA03244@feds66.Prime.COM>, dleschin@FEDS66.PRIME.COM
> (Dmitri Leschiner) writes:
>|>
>|> Of course Moldova should have been on the winner's side. Well, if the
>|> alternatives were - to go under Russian rule, or to return under Turkish,
>|> the latter one certainly does not seem like winner's case. Wasn't the
>|> former the best possible at the time, at least for part of Moldovan
>|> territory?

>The point that you didn't get from Adrian's posting is that even
>though under Turkish suzerainty, Moldova (which included Basarabia),
>had internal autonomy.  That meant total freedom in internal
>administration and the interdiction of turkish troops to enter
>the Moldovan or Muntenian (a.k.a Tara Romaneasca or Vallachia) territory.
>After 1812 Basarabia became part of te Russian Empire and nothing
>else.

Dear Alexander, of course I did get this point. That's why I was saying
there might be disagreements on what's better for population there. What
I said there, is that return to Turkey certainly does not seem like
winner's case, and I still think it's true, because it's merely the
preservation of pre-war status quo, while war was, as I understood,
waging to change it.

What concerns status of Moldova within Turkey and within Russia:
both Turkey and Russia were "religious" states (there should be better
term for it): Turkey was Islamic, and Russia was Orthodox. It means that
state did not make any distinction between their people based on their
ethnicity, but it _did_ make distinction based on people's religion.
As such, both states did not consider ethnic minorities as separate
groups, but religious minorities were considered as such, and special
status, and sometimes even territorial autonomy (as Moldova within
Turkey, Poland and Finland within Russia) was granted. Since Moldovans
were Orthodox, there was no question of their authonomy within Russia,
as soon as no basis for them to have their separate legal system was
seen by Russian authorities. In Turkey, they were religious minority,
and were granted authonomy. The question is what is preferable: to be
minority in Turkey, or part of majority in Russia? Moldovans in 1812
had certain opinion on that subject, as it may be judged by their siding
in the war...

>After the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-1829 the two Romanian
>Principates (Moldova and Muntenia) remain under Russian occupation
>until 1834.

It seems to be Russian fault to give them to Turkey back, wasn't it?

Best wishes,
Dmitry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
From: polyakov@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Dimitri Polyakov)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Shafarevich and National Academy
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:10:58 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

And as for me,my dear friends,I must confess,that,being Jewish,
I supressed several Jews in my life.So,don't forgive KOROTKOV.
Forgive me.I'm worse than him.
         Sincerely yours,
                            Dimitri.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.soviet:7767 soc.culture.soviet:7211
From: verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: Shafarevich and National Academy
Date: 8 Sep 92 09:16:35 GMT
Organization: Sozialistische Patienten Kollektiv

In article <18c9voINNm91@agate.berkeley.edu> muh@physics1 (Yury M. Mukharsky) writes:

>>How do you think it feels for me to look in the newspapers every day and
>>read about another five year old girl found raped and dead in a garbage
>>can? What about when my mother called the police when my father was

>Sorry, but I can not help being sarcastic here. Do you really mean
>that every day at least one youngster is raped and killed. Am I 
>really that bad informed? Or you just keep reading one newspaper
>all the time?

>Yury

Yury is right: the official statistic in America says that less than 100
(63 in 1986) children were (probably) killed as a result of abuse; the numbers
of missed children who are not found included. There is a lot of
propaganda how these terrible homosexuals (sado-masochists etc.)
are abusing children; one tele-evangelist claims that there are 
30,000 missed children each year (with agenda that the sexual
criminals are responsible). This is lie.

Misha.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet
From: viznyuk@physics.ucla.edu (Sergei Viznyuk)
Subject: Re: Shafarevich and National Academy
Organization: UCLA Department of Physics
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 15:26:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.052431.22823@cco.caltech.edu> patricia@cco.caltech.edu (Patricia M. Schwarz) writes:
>
>These same police organizations also estimate that 1 out of every two American women will at some time in her life wind up in a relationship with a man
>who turns out to be violently abusive to her.
>

  It's long as I'm tortured by a question:
what you, Americans, consider as "violently abusive" ?
  If I slap my wife ocasionally below her back - am I
"violently abusive" ? Very actual question, indeed...

  Otherwise examplary husband,
  Serega

Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
From: ayr@gtech.com (Aleksey Y. Romanov)
Subject: Re: what to do with Kurils?
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich RI
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:14:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.214048.21574@watson.ibm.com> bil@burka..aix.kingston.ibm.com (Igor Belchinskiy) writes:
>your opinions, pls
>	
>	-igor

It just reminds me old _anectdot:

Pet'ka: Vasilii Ivanovich Bangladesh poyavilas'
V.I.:   Ne cheshi Pet'ka, sama proidet

And seriously:

1. I guess it may be belongs to Japan more than to the Russia
   (Just look back before 1905).

2. It is passed to xSU due to Yalta agreements.
   If it will be returned to Japan it will open gate to
   revokation of Yalta agreements including: European
   borders and denazification.

3. The Yalta agreements were a condition for Japan surrending, so
   both Japan and USA ware agree to transfer theese islands to xSU
   back in 1945

4. IMHO, it was confirmed in the Japan-USA peace treaty in 1951


It is extremely difficult question. It is not a problem of Russian-Japaneese
relations only.  I do not expect any results soon.



-- 
Aleksey Y. Romanov

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are entirely my own and do not
necessary reflect those of my employer or anyone else
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet
From: viznyuk@physics.ucla.edu (Sergei Viznyuk)
Subject: Re: Romanian language
Organization: UCLA Department of Physics
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 15:17:16 GMT


   So the original script of the language in
Bessarabia (nowdays Moldova) was Cyrillic until
it was changed to Latin in 1918 after Romanian
annexation of Bessarabia - may I suggest this
as a conclusion to this discussion ?
   After that, may I expect the official
appologies from Alex Allister Shvartsman and
Erland Sommarskog, whose statements, intermixed
with personal insults, claimed something different ?
 Regards,
Serega