Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
VanemadUuemad
Reading this article makes me feel good because it's yet another confirmation of something that I've believed all of my life -- Estonians are decent to the core and others recognize this quality in us. Solzhenitsyn, for example, has described Estonians in terms that have made me blush.
That's not to say that each and every Estonian can be held up as an example for the balance of humanity. We have Peter, the holocaust denier, and the myopic Peeter who confuses a gang of anti-semites for conservative nationalists; but even they, I believe, are restrained by their basic decency from acting on their beliefs.
Being Estonian is a good thing.
That's not to say that each and every Estonian can be held up as an example for the balance of humanity. We have Peter, the holocaust denier, and the myopic Peeter who confuses a gang of anti-semites for conservative nationalists; but even they, I believe, are restrained by their basic decency from acting on their beliefs.
Being Estonian is a good thing.
0
0To Mrs. Cilja Laud
I think your views are perhaps a little too jewish-centered.
I am a citizen of three countries:
Estonia - because I was born in pre-war Estonian Republic
European Union (EU) - because I am a citizen of a EU member nation
USA - because of my free choice, Therefore I would like to give you a picture of Estonia and its problems from a wider perspective:
MY QUESTION TO ESTONIA
As a citizen of Estonia, I have a right to question, why the Estonian Parliament, long after Estonia had joined the European Union and NATO, still has not declared Estonia a legitimate internationally recognizable successor country to the prewar Estonian Republic?
Without this declaration,
1. Estonia has no legal means of protecting itself and its citizens against the claims of the Russian Federation that the USSR had
· a legitimate right to populate 1/3 of the illegally occupied region of the Republic of Estonia (Estonian SSR) with Russian nationals and justify this state-initiated migration as a legal immigration into the territory of the present-day Republic of Estonia,
· a legitimate right to claim that the Estonian SSR (now Russian Federation) was (is) a legitimate successor-state to the pre-war Republic of Estonia, and
· liberated, instead of illegally occupied and annexed, the pre-war Republic of Estonia in 1940 and in 1944.
2. Estonia separates itself from following the example of the many West-European members of the EU and NATO who had already declared their succession to their pre-occupational form of statehood.
Because Estonia has kept its internal policies separated from its external policies, I have no to me available means of finding out which arguments our diplomats use, for example, to fight accusations of Russia against Estonia on grounds of being a “little Nazi country"? I have newspaper-published evidence hinting, that all they did was to declare a war of propaganda against Russia to justify this policy-decision by the argument, that Estonia was neutral and therefore not a participating country in WW-II. This of course is a valid statement, but useless and inadequate facing up to the “small Nazi country” accusation by the Russians, which could not have been levelled against the current rulers of Estonia, but rather only against the Estonian combatants who fought the Stalins’ Red Army outside the context of WW II, in a limited-objective warfare, that is only against the “Bolsheviks” (the Stalins’ Red Army), according to the wording of the soldiers’ oath administered to them before they started their combat duty. Why the basic human rights of individuals and dignity of war veterans who had performed their soldiers’ duty in strict accordance with internationally mandated rules of warfare, cannot today be protected by laws inside Estonia and by its diplomats abroad? I do not know and ask European Union whether they know or can do something to remedy this deplorable situation in Estonia. The answer to this question could well be hidden in this little story:
For the “godfather” who gave Estonia the humiliating name of “a little Nazi country” you don’t have to look abroad or farther back in time than Nov. 23 2003. On that day Estonian ex-president Arnold Rüütel, not only spurned an offer, but also used his presidental authority to
prohibit any member of his huge number of subserviants (including the members of the Estonian National Guard), to attend in Pärnu, the opening ceremony of the government-supported stone marker (the first such one ever erected in post-occupation Estonia) to honor those, who (according to the words of the law) “participated in armed combat attempting to restore the pre-war independence of Estonia“. I am a (government-issue) card-carrying member of this group of Estonian war-veterans whose military service can be proven to have no blemish of involvement in any kind of activity ohter than this which was approved by the internationally accepted rules of warfare. These rules also protect war-veterans against their maltreatment after the war, but apparently not in Estonia today. Over several years, based on the above-mentioned kind of aberration of justice, I have presented to law-agencies of Estonia a well-documented case of written evidence against the executive branch of the Estonian government. From the responses that I have received, I can deduce, that there is no place in Estonia where war-veterans can turn to with such evidence against the authorities of the ruling government.
I think your views are perhaps a little too jewish-centered.
I am a citizen of three countries:
Estonia - because I was born in pre-war Estonian Republic
European Union (EU) - because I am a citizen of a EU member nation
USA - because of my free choice, Therefore I would like to give you a picture of Estonia and its problems from a wider perspective:
MY QUESTION TO ESTONIA
As a citizen of Estonia, I have a right to question, why the Estonian Parliament, long after Estonia had joined the European Union and NATO, still has not declared Estonia a legitimate internationally recognizable successor country to the prewar Estonian Republic?
Without this declaration,
1. Estonia has no legal means of protecting itself and its citizens against the claims of the Russian Federation that the USSR had
· a legitimate right to populate 1/3 of the illegally occupied region of the Republic of Estonia (Estonian SSR) with Russian nationals and justify this state-initiated migration as a legal immigration into the territory of the present-day Republic of Estonia,
· a legitimate right to claim that the Estonian SSR (now Russian Federation) was (is) a legitimate successor-state to the pre-war Republic of Estonia, and
· liberated, instead of illegally occupied and annexed, the pre-war Republic of Estonia in 1940 and in 1944.
2. Estonia separates itself from following the example of the many West-European members of the EU and NATO who had already declared their succession to their pre-occupational form of statehood.
Because Estonia has kept its internal policies separated from its external policies, I have no to me available means of finding out which arguments our diplomats use, for example, to fight accusations of Russia against Estonia on grounds of being a “little Nazi country"? I have newspaper-published evidence hinting, that all they did was to declare a war of propaganda against Russia to justify this policy-decision by the argument, that Estonia was neutral and therefore not a participating country in WW-II. This of course is a valid statement, but useless and inadequate facing up to the “small Nazi country” accusation by the Russians, which could not have been levelled against the current rulers of Estonia, but rather only against the Estonian combatants who fought the Stalins’ Red Army outside the context of WW II, in a limited-objective warfare, that is only against the “Bolsheviks” (the Stalins’ Red Army), according to the wording of the soldiers’ oath administered to them before they started their combat duty. Why the basic human rights of individuals and dignity of war veterans who had performed their soldiers’ duty in strict accordance with internationally mandated rules of warfare, cannot today be protected by laws inside Estonia and by its diplomats abroad? I do not know and ask European Union whether they know or can do something to remedy this deplorable situation in Estonia. The answer to this question could well be hidden in this little story:
For the “godfather” who gave Estonia the humiliating name of “a little Nazi country” you don’t have to look abroad or farther back in time than Nov. 23 2003. On that day Estonian ex-president Arnold Rüütel, not only spurned an offer, but also used his presidental authority to
prohibit any member of his huge number of subserviants (including the members of the Estonian National Guard), to attend in Pärnu, the opening ceremony of the government-supported stone marker (the first such one ever erected in post-occupation Estonia) to honor those, who (according to the words of the law) “participated in armed combat attempting to restore the pre-war independence of Estonia“. I am a (government-issue) card-carrying member of this group of Estonian war-veterans whose military service can be proven to have no blemish of involvement in any kind of activity ohter than this which was approved by the internationally accepted rules of warfare. These rules also protect war-veterans against their maltreatment after the war, but apparently not in Estonia today. Over several years, based on the above-mentioned kind of aberration of justice, I have presented to law-agencies of Estonia a well-documented case of written evidence against the executive branch of the Estonian government. From the responses that I have received, I can deduce, that there is no place in Estonia where war-veterans can turn to with such evidence against the authorities of the ruling government.
0
0I agree with your first point, because there is no validation of Estonia's international recognition, initially, as an independent state in 1991, because there is no documented evidence anywhere in the world, that both the Presidents of Estonia and Russia underwrote Estonia's independence in a manner similar to that of the Tartu Peace Treaty. For this very same reason, Uno Raudkivi's point simply cannot be legitimately answered.
0
0Cilja Laud, an Estonian of the Jewish faith, has publicly declared that there has never been any anti-semitism in Estonia at the state level. By that, I believe she means that there have been no laws or or public policies singling out Jews for differentiated treatment; nor has there been any tacit tolerance, on the part of the government, for acts of anti-semitism.
By an ineffable logic, you state that this is too Jewish-centred. (I doubt that the God of Abraham or our Lord Jesus Christ could figure out what you mean by that.)
Then, you proceed to strut about like the deposed King of Estonia indignantly demanding answers from the current elected Government about the terms our current independence, as if it owes you an explanation.
Two questions: who are you? who do you think you are?
By an ineffable logic, you state that this is too Jewish-centred. (I doubt that the God of Abraham or our Lord Jesus Christ could figure out what you mean by that.)
Then, you proceed to strut about like the deposed King of Estonia indignantly demanding answers from the current elected Government about the terms our current independence, as if it owes you an explanation.
Two questions: who are you? who do you think you are?
0
0Just for your information you are a citizen of the Republic of Estonia by birth; a citizen of the EU by extension; a citizen of the U.S.A. because your parents applied for the right to immigrate on your behalf and, subsequently, applied for citizenship. Lucky for you, the application was accepted.
0
0Are you related to Adu Raudivi, the Liberal shill who doesn't know the difference between a news report and calumny?
0
0Looks like Cilja Laud made a big mistake in writing about a topic of her choice instead of consulting with with Mr. Raudkivi to find out what's on his mind at the moment. So, he says, an article about anti-semitism in Estonia is too Jewish-centred. What are the options, I wonder?
Looks like we've got another Maxim on our hands; another megalomaniac who thinks that "I'm always right and the only thing that matters."
Looks like we've got another Maxim on our hands; another megalomaniac who thinks that "I'm always right and the only thing that matters."
0
0Maxim and Raudkivi could get a sympathetic hearing if they went to the effort of composing an article that meets the standards of conventional journalism and, then, submitting it to the editor. For some reason, they seem to think that otherwise sensible standards should be waived in their case as they sidestep them by piggybacking on other people's work. Their attitude common among children and criminals. I can hear them saying, "it's the reader's problem if they can't understand my logic" with the conviction that "it's all about me."
Grow up, guys!
Grow up, guys!
0
0Vastus "Maxim"-ile
Taasiseseisvuse Deklaratsioon
Eesti Vabariigi Ülemnõukogu otsus Eesti Riiklikust iseseisvusest
20. august kell 23.02 Eesti Vabariigi Ülemnõukogu teeb otsuse Eesti riiklikust iseseisvusest ja Põhiseadusliku Assamblee moodustamisest. Otsuses on kirjas:
Eesti Vabariigi Ülemnõukogu otsustab:
1. Kinnitada Eesti Vabariigi riiklikku iseseisvust ja taotleda Eesti Vabariigi diplomaatiliste suhete taastamist;
2. Eesti Vabariigi põhiseaduse väljatöötamiseks ning rahvahääletusele esitamiseks moodustada Põhiseaduslik Assamblee, mille koosseis kujundatakse delegeerimise teel Eesti Vabariigi kõrgeima seadusandliku riigivõimuorgani Eesti Vabariigi Ülemnõukogu ning Eesti Vabariigi kodanikkonna esinduskogu Eesti Kongressi poolt;
3. Viia läbi Eesti Vabariigi uue põhiseaduse järgi Eesti Vabariigi parlamendivalimised 1992. a. jooksul.
Kus on siin kirjutatud, et "taasiseseisvumine" deklareerib Eestit öigusjärgseks sõjaeelsele Eesti Vabariigile?
Taasiseseisvuse Deklaratsioon
Eesti Vabariigi Ülemnõukogu otsus Eesti Riiklikust iseseisvusest
20. august kell 23.02 Eesti Vabariigi Ülemnõukogu teeb otsuse Eesti riiklikust iseseisvusest ja Põhiseadusliku Assamblee moodustamisest. Otsuses on kirjas:
Eesti Vabariigi Ülemnõukogu otsustab:
1. Kinnitada Eesti Vabariigi riiklikku iseseisvust ja taotleda Eesti Vabariigi diplomaatiliste suhete taastamist;
2. Eesti Vabariigi põhiseaduse väljatöötamiseks ning rahvahääletusele esitamiseks moodustada Põhiseaduslik Assamblee, mille koosseis kujundatakse delegeerimise teel Eesti Vabariigi kõrgeima seadusandliku riigivõimuorgani Eesti Vabariigi Ülemnõukogu ning Eesti Vabariigi kodanikkonna esinduskogu Eesti Kongressi poolt;
3. Viia läbi Eesti Vabariigi uue põhiseaduse järgi Eesti Vabariigi parlamendivalimised 1992. a. jooksul.
Kus on siin kirjutatud, et "taasiseseisvumine" deklareerib Eestit öigusjärgseks sõjaeelsele Eesti Vabariigile?
0
0Answer to “anonymous”
First -who am I and who I think I am?
Always the same as is written on this commentary.
I have never felt any need to write anything under “anonymous” nime all.
I am proud of my citizenships to both, the pre-war Republic of Estonia and the United States
The curent rulers of Estonia have not yet given me the opportunity to feel the same way towards the present-day Estonia because they find unacceptable the words of the document under which terms I immigrated into and became later the citizen of the Unites States.
Vt. A letter from
DISPLACED PERSONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON 25 D.C.
September 13, 1950 , to
Mr. Johannes Kaiv
Acting Consul General of Estonia N REPLY, REFER TO:
In charge of Legation DPC- 320
9 Rockefeller Plaza SAADUD
New York, New York
in http://si.kongress.ee/?a=page&...
First -who am I and who I think I am?
Always the same as is written on this commentary.
I have never felt any need to write anything under “anonymous” nime all.
I am proud of my citizenships to both, the pre-war Republic of Estonia and the United States
The curent rulers of Estonia have not yet given me the opportunity to feel the same way towards the present-day Estonia because they find unacceptable the words of the document under which terms I immigrated into and became later the citizen of the Unites States.
Vt. A letter from
DISPLACED PERSONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON 25 D.C.
September 13, 1950 , to
Mr. Johannes Kaiv
Acting Consul General of Estonia N REPLY, REFER TO:
In charge of Legation DPC- 320
9 Rockefeller Plaza SAADUD
New York, New York
in http://si.kongress.ee/?a=page&...
0
0Vasuseks
"to Mr. Raudkivi 30 Mar 2007 03:58" ja
". 29 Mar 2007 03:58
Vt. "Uno Raudkivi 30 Mar 2007 06:23"
Vastuseks to "Toomas 30 Mar 2007 06:25"
I am sorry, I don't know what "Thomas standards" are.
Saatke mulle koopia nendest.
"to Mr. Raudkivi 30 Mar 2007 03:58" ja
". 29 Mar 2007 03:58
Vt. "Uno Raudkivi 30 Mar 2007 06:23"
Vastuseks to "Toomas 30 Mar 2007 06:25"
I am sorry, I don't know what "Thomas standards" are.
Saatke mulle koopia nendest.
0
0Uno Raudkivi asking for a lot.
One can only wonder why he thinks that the EU should interrupt its daily business to contemplate an incoherent and seemingly pointless request regarding someone's status as a non-anti-Semite and to affirm an imaginary principle: "precedence-of-innocence"? If the word "precedence" doesn't exist in the English language, then it's certain that such a principle doesn't exist in law. If diplomats must try to respond to irrational inquiries from people with their knickers on a knot about something incomprehensible, I'd say that they aren't paid enough money.
Mr. Raudkivi, if you are a combat veteran of the 20th Division, as you seem to imply, then I respectfully bow before you. That said, your complaint remains incoherent.
One can only wonder why he thinks that the EU should interrupt its daily business to contemplate an incoherent and seemingly pointless request regarding someone's status as a non-anti-Semite and to affirm an imaginary principle: "precedence-of-innocence"? If the word "precedence" doesn't exist in the English language, then it's certain that such a principle doesn't exist in law. If diplomats must try to respond to irrational inquiries from people with their knickers on a knot about something incomprehensible, I'd say that they aren't paid enough money.
Mr. Raudkivi, if you are a combat veteran of the 20th Division, as you seem to imply, then I respectfully bow before you. That said, your complaint remains incoherent.
0
0[i]That said, your complaint remains incoherent.[i]
Indeed. I re-read his post 3 times and I still can't figure out exactly what he wants.
Indeed. I re-read his post 3 times and I still can't figure out exactly what he wants.
0
0[i]That said, your complaint remains incoherent.[i]
Indeed. I re-read his post 3 times and I still can't figure out exactly what he wants.
Indeed. I re-read his post 3 times and I still can't figure out exactly what he wants.
0
0Indeed I made a spelling terror, writing “precedence” instead of “presumption” in my letter to Mr. Franco Frattini. I do not think though, that this little error made the rest of my long letter “irrational” and “inconprehensible”. If anyting in this letter or in my current commentaries lacks “logic” or “clarity”, Thomas has to give me at least one example where.
Letting me know why EU left my letter unanswered does not help me either.
I have lately found out that EU does respond to inqueries from its citizens if you know exactly how to ask. After several years of failed attempts to get that far in Estonia, has made me wonder if I am dealing with brain-washed or brain-dead individuals in authority.
Letting me know why EU left my letter unanswered does not help me either.
I have lately found out that EU does respond to inqueries from its citizens if you know exactly how to ask. After several years of failed attempts to get that far in Estonia, has made me wonder if I am dealing with brain-washed or brain-dead individuals in authority.
0
0[i]I have no to me available means of finding out which arguments our diplomats use, for example, to fight accusations of Russia against Estonia on grounds of being a “little Nazi country"?[i]
[i]I do not know and ask European Union whether they know or can do something to remedy this deplorable situation in Estonia.[i]
Sentences like this are what make your post incoherent and undermines any rational thought that may be included in the text.
[i]I do not know and ask European Union whether they know or can do something to remedy this deplorable situation in Estonia.[i]
Sentences like this are what make your post incoherent and undermines any rational thought that may be included in the text.
0
0Thanks for answering on my behalf, Maximus. I'm presuming that you picked the samples randomly.
You might have specified that such messages fail to communicate on the basis of their poor grammar and in their many tacit assumptions. What we, the reader, can see is only the tip of the iceberg or, more aptly, the grass over the cesspool. If Raudkivi and Maxim could possibly understand that clear communication presupposes clear thinking, they might think before they write.
I knew that we were in trouble when Raudkivi said that Cilja Laud's statement on anti-Semitism was too Jewish centred. He's technically correct because she failed to mention the Phoenicians, Arabs and Assyrians who are equally Semites. Nonetheless, Raudkivi sounds like somebody criticizing Einstein's theory of relativity because it's too physics centred while he's upset about global warming. In the mind of a megalomaniac, that is very serious.
I predict that he's going to gnaw on this for a long time.
You might have specified that such messages fail to communicate on the basis of their poor grammar and in their many tacit assumptions. What we, the reader, can see is only the tip of the iceberg or, more aptly, the grass over the cesspool. If Raudkivi and Maxim could possibly understand that clear communication presupposes clear thinking, they might think before they write.
I knew that we were in trouble when Raudkivi said that Cilja Laud's statement on anti-Semitism was too Jewish centred. He's technically correct because she failed to mention the Phoenicians, Arabs and Assyrians who are equally Semites. Nonetheless, Raudkivi sounds like somebody criticizing Einstein's theory of relativity because it's too physics centred while he's upset about global warming. In the mind of a megalomaniac, that is very serious.
I predict that he's going to gnaw on this for a long time.
0
0Anti-semitism can not exist in Estonia because Estonian Jews are not Semites. There are 3 distinct ethnic groups who practice the religion of Judaism. Middle-Eastern Jews (Shepardim) are Semites who are related to Arabs. Falashas are black Africans who converted to Judaism and most European Jews (Ashkenazim) are decendants of converts from Southern Russia (Khazars) who also adopted the Jewish faith. There were even Chinese Jews at one time.
0
0There's no doubt about it-Pete knows his History!! I can't see anything remotely anti-Semitic in this or in any of his previous comments concerning the subject of Jews, and I suspect that his critics would move heaven and earth to prove otherwise. However, Peter being the intellectual that his is, puts a very good finishing touch to the case. Slander will always be and remain slander, and unfortunately the intelligent ones must suffer at the hands of fools who should know better. My thanks to Peter...
0
0Literally, the term "semite" refers to a linguistic category. In common parlance, by contrast, it's used to refer to Jews -- as in "anti-semitism", which even Peter understands as "hatred for Jews".
0
0Answering Toomas and Maximus
I attempt to explain what I mean by writing the following sentence.
(the problem seems to be that you left the first half of the quoted sentence out, i.e.,
Because Estonia has kept its internal polices separaed from its external policies,
I have no to me available means of finding out which arguments our diplomats use, for example, to fight accusations of Russia against Estonia on grounds of being a “little Nazi country"?
Also you did not pay any attention to what I wrote next:
I have newspaper-published evidence ....
Here it is:
Here are two excerpts (my translation) taken from an (Estonian language) artikle “Vene esindaja ÜROs ässitab natsikütte” (DELFI, Nov.18., 2006)
http://www.delfi.ee/archive/ar...
/.../ The permanent member of Russia in UN Vitali Tšurkin disclosed hope that, that in EU and USA will be noticed how in Estonia and Latvia memorial-rites for Waffen-SS kombatants take place.
/.../ Russia started the resolution deploring the glorification of Nazism. 107 nations voted YES to this resolution, USA voted NO and the EU members stayed neutral on this issue.
What bothers me, why EU members did not vote like the Unite States did? For already stated reasons I have no way of knowing, I can only guess:
. Estonia has not yet declared itself internationally recognizably successor-country to the pre-war Republic of Estonia. Without this declatation, EU members cannot be sure that in some future day it may decide to declare itself a successor country to the Russian Federation. As a matter of fact, it is close to doing this already.
Do you, Toomas and Maximus, have any other questions to ask?
I attempt to explain what I mean by writing the following sentence.
(the problem seems to be that you left the first half of the quoted sentence out, i.e.,
Because Estonia has kept its internal polices separaed from its external policies,
I have no to me available means of finding out which arguments our diplomats use, for example, to fight accusations of Russia against Estonia on grounds of being a “little Nazi country"?
Also you did not pay any attention to what I wrote next:
I have newspaper-published evidence ....
Here it is:
Here are two excerpts (my translation) taken from an (Estonian language) artikle “Vene esindaja ÜROs ässitab natsikütte” (DELFI, Nov.18., 2006)
http://www.delfi.ee/archive/ar...
/.../ The permanent member of Russia in UN Vitali Tšurkin disclosed hope that, that in EU and USA will be noticed how in Estonia and Latvia memorial-rites for Waffen-SS kombatants take place.
/.../ Russia started the resolution deploring the glorification of Nazism. 107 nations voted YES to this resolution, USA voted NO and the EU members stayed neutral on this issue.
What bothers me, why EU members did not vote like the Unite States did? For already stated reasons I have no way of knowing, I can only guess:
. Estonia has not yet declared itself internationally recognizably successor-country to the pre-war Republic of Estonia. Without this declatation, EU members cannot be sure that in some future day it may decide to declare itself a successor country to the Russian Federation. As a matter of fact, it is close to doing this already.
Do you, Toomas and Maximus, have any other questions to ask?
0
0Looks like you've been able to stuff up this particular line of commentary without any help from me...better luck next time.
0
0It's great that Estonia could achieve its independence after decades under the Soviet jackboot. Nonetheless, it's a pity that this couldn't be done in a manner that suits everyone and, you, in particular.
Now that you've carped about this with the Government of Estonia, the European Union and, now, Cilja Laud via her statement on anti-Semitism in Eesti Elu, we can see that you're convinced that the guilty parties owe you an explanation, an apology and, most of all, a remedy.
Cilja Laud and the random reader of Eesti Elu can't do much for you here; not even commiserate. Possibly, you could discuss this with Maxim. You'll at least get a sympathetic hearing since you two have some qualities in common.
Now that you've carped about this with the Government of Estonia, the European Union and, now, Cilja Laud via her statement on anti-Semitism in Eesti Elu, we can see that you're convinced that the guilty parties owe you an explanation, an apology and, most of all, a remedy.
Cilja Laud and the random reader of Eesti Elu can't do much for you here; not even commiserate. Possibly, you could discuss this with Maxim. You'll at least get a sympathetic hearing since you two have some qualities in common.
0
0What exactly is the point of posting a letter almost 2 year old (8 and 9 June 2005) to the front page of Eesti Elu???
0
0I never noticed!
What exactly was the point of posting this since it is clearly not news?
What exactly was the point of posting this since it is clearly not news?
0
0The point is that some of you outside Estonia need to be reminded to get off your butts and get yourselves the heck over here in May when the new Synagogue in Tallinn is officially opened! Whoever is too lazy to make the trip is nothing short of anti-semitic.
0
0Hard to believe you'd missed the line about President Rüütel.
0
0To Toomas
and also to your other favourite "bull %@!#$& " commentators (Maxim, Maximus, Anonymous, etc.)
Thank you for asking one question that I could easily answer. In the rest of the garbage I could not find anything which deservs an answer. If it bothers that much who I am and what inspires me to write commentaries and articles (in Maxims words “What I want“ - believe me, nothing from any of you. )
Vt.“SS-sümbol stalinistide teenistuses", Uno Raudkivi, K&E 2/2005, Ik. 20 - 22
http://kultuur.elu.ee/ke480_SS...
“Nüüd üles, keda mundrineedus rõhub” , Uno Raudkivi, K&E 3/2005, Ik 14 - 17
http://kultuur.elu.ee/ke481_ra...
“Kas sõjaveteranid tohivad ‘väärtushinnata’ parteipoliitikuid?”, Uno Raudkivi, K&E 1/2007, lk 42 - 45
( this last article is not yet available Interneti vahendusel until K&E 2/2007 number tuleb välja.)
This problem of people losing capacity to think rationally when they happen to see an SS symbol or hear it mentioned, is, of course, not new. In Estonia, however, the stupefying effect of this emotion is magnified, because its society was programmed by the 40 years of stagnation-time(stalinist)-schooling (1950 -1990), to accept the necessity to perform the sacrficing rites of Estonian war-veterans who had been in combat-situations against the Red Army. Why?
1. Because many of these combatants had sworn to fight only the bolševiks (the Stalin’s Red Army).
2. Some into Stalinist-faith-turned politicians who still wield power in Estonia today may believe these rites would appease the supposedly “evel beast” of Putin’s Russian Federation.
Does anybody have a better idea which explains why they perform these sacrificing rites?
and also to your other favourite "bull %@!#$& " commentators (Maxim, Maximus, Anonymous, etc.)
Thank you for asking one question that I could easily answer. In the rest of the garbage I could not find anything which deservs an answer. If it bothers that much who I am and what inspires me to write commentaries and articles (in Maxims words “What I want“ - believe me, nothing from any of you. )
Vt.“SS-sümbol stalinistide teenistuses", Uno Raudkivi, K&E 2/2005, Ik. 20 - 22
http://kultuur.elu.ee/ke480_SS...
“Nüüd üles, keda mundrineedus rõhub” , Uno Raudkivi, K&E 3/2005, Ik 14 - 17
http://kultuur.elu.ee/ke481_ra...
“Kas sõjaveteranid tohivad ‘väärtushinnata’ parteipoliitikuid?”, Uno Raudkivi, K&E 1/2007, lk 42 - 45
( this last article is not yet available Interneti vahendusel until K&E 2/2007 number tuleb välja.)
This problem of people losing capacity to think rationally when they happen to see an SS symbol or hear it mentioned, is, of course, not new. In Estonia, however, the stupefying effect of this emotion is magnified, because its society was programmed by the 40 years of stagnation-time(stalinist)-schooling (1950 -1990), to accept the necessity to perform the sacrficing rites of Estonian war-veterans who had been in combat-situations against the Red Army. Why?
1. Because many of these combatants had sworn to fight only the bolševiks (the Stalin’s Red Army).
2. Some into Stalinist-faith-turned politicians who still wield power in Estonia today may believe these rites would appease the supposedly “evel beast” of Putin’s Russian Federation.
Does anybody have a better idea which explains why they perform these sacrificing rites?
0
0Uno, there's just one little problem with the German uniform; in the eyes of the world, it's never been considered to be a good look, nor is it likely to be so in the future. If you put the Bolshevik and Nazi symbols together, and did a random questionnaire as to what people considered to be the more antagonistic, then I think you would find the Bolshevik symbols come off second best. It's just the way the free world has taught it's children to appreciate ideological values, and it's fairly difficult to change this way of thinking.
0
0Kommentaarid sellele artiklile on suletud.
