Occupation or voluntary accession?
Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
VanemadUuemad
Urmas Rattur15 Jul 2005 20:58
I searched the Internet for information on Estonia. A webpage attached to the Russian Embassy in Denmark eloquently presents their perception of Estonians according to a Marxist analysis. What's is that it is a current Russian state site.It argues that self-determination and natioalism are moral stains on the human condition. As we know historical events have shown that Marxism, Communism etc are bakrupt, failed ideologies. My question is why does the current Russian government sponsor this website, if they profess to want good relations with their neighbour states.
Maxim.17 Jul 2005 10:28
We all have every reason to agree with the substance of the article as well as the above comment. However, I for one will not let the US get away so lightly for agreeing-if only in technical terms-with the conditions for Peace surrounding the Molotov-Ribbnetrop pact. The US agreed in every technical criteria to the carving up of Europe between the Germans and the Russians, and unfortunately this moot point cannot be forgotten alongside the already well known sins of Russia. We are often too smug to let the US off the hook, and instead throw all the criticism possible against Russia. I had hoped we had already learnt something from past arguments about all this, but the same keeps spinning round and round...
Sõber18 Jul 2005 06:21
Maxim makes an interesting poimt. But when did the USA know about the seceret protocols of the MRP for it to be in agreement with Europe being divided between Nazi germany and the Soviet Union? Who are the aggressors setting off WWII? Non other than the USSR and the Third Reich. What other countries invaded and occupied foreign territory in Europe at the time. We acknowledge Japan's and Italy's aggression, but eleswhere geographically.
Maxim.18 Jul 2005 13:41
The language was agreed upon there and then; Russia and Germany are not that stupid to have not sought the initial "in pronciple" agreement of the USA-this is the crucial point-and the very same point which provides and safety valve for the USA. The US can say and do whatever it likes after that, but I very much doubt if her position was as rigorously fought out on that crucial day when the deal was done. It's the very same stuff that "sell-outs" are made of. England is another case in point, but that is a slightly different subject.
urmas Rattur30 Jul 2005 20:25
I read an article on Interfax and the argument ran along the lines used by the whites after Worl War I, namely that Estonia was part of Russia, that had been removed against the wishes of its indigenous people by the nationalist usurpers.

I am reminded that the present post-colonial states of Vietnam, Algeria, Korea and Cuba asserted their right to self-determination by force of arms.

All of these states declared their sole reason for their struggles to be their right to self-determination.

By the same Marxist dialectic it is logical for the Estonian people to have a right to self-determination from the Russian imperialists.

How can the Russian government permit these slurs if it professes to want friendly relations with the Northern borders of the EU, whose passport Estonians now carry.
Kommentaarid sellele artiklile on suletud.
SÜNDMUSED LÄHIAJAL

Vaata veel ...

Lisa uus sündmus