![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe introductory paragraph of the Economist's recent article on the subject of the Baltic States' attendance at the Victory in Europe ceremonies in Moscow this coming May says it all.
Back in June, I wrote about the specific case of Estonia during the 1940s. For the vast majority of Estonians, Nazi German occupation and rule was--if far from benevolent--at least significant less malevolent than the Stalinist Soviet Union's rule, as the Baltic Times observed:
In a year and a half, the Soviet Union--in the 1940-1941 occupation--managed to kill half again as many Estonians as in three years of Nazi occupation. It's no wonder that Estonia, like the other two Baltic States of Latvia and Lithuania, differs from the rest of the European Union in its interpretation of the Soviet role. Poland might share these views in part, given the de facto Soviet alliance with Nazi Germany in the partition of northeastern Europe, but the exceptional brutality of Nazi Germany seems to have made Soviet cruelties pale in comparison. It doesn't help that, as the Economist notes, the Putin regime is trying to entice Baltic leaders to attend the the 60th anniversary celebrations in Moscow of the Soviet victory, an uncritical celebration of the Soviet role in the Second World War as it would be, promising to sign the oft-delayed border treaties if only the heads of state attend (and in so doing, consent to the Russian interpretation of the annexation of the Baltic States as anything but a massive crime).
Earlier this month, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, president of Latvia and former Canadian citizen, announced in a announced that she'll be attending.
Googling, the Russian official media seems to have been rather upset by this statement. Good for them, and good for President Vike-Friberga.
Stalin's ghost must have smirked at the dilemma facing the three Baltic presidents. Should they accept President Vladimir Putin's invitation to join the 60th anniversary celebrations, in Moscow on May 9th, of the Soviet victory in the “Great Patriotic War” against Hitler—even though it cleared the way for the Soviet Union to occupy and oppress the Baltics for the next 45 years? Or should they stay away and risk accusations that they were soft on Nazi Germany, for which many of their citizens fought?
Back in June, I wrote about the specific case of Estonia during the 1940s. For the vast majority of Estonians, Nazi German occupation and rule was--if far from benevolent--at least significant less malevolent than the Stalinist Soviet Union's rule, as the Baltic Times observed:
During the first Soviet occupation from 1940 to 1941, Estonia lost about 48,000 people. The three years of German occupation resulted in the death of about 32,000 citizens of various nationalities, including 929 Jews and 243 Gypsies who were either killed in concentration camps or in battle. During the second Soviet occupation, which lasted from 1944 to 1994, Estonia lost nearly 121,000 people. In all, the country lost about 180,000 people, or nearly 18 percent of the population.
In a year and a half, the Soviet Union--in the 1940-1941 occupation--managed to kill half again as many Estonians as in three years of Nazi occupation. It's no wonder that Estonia, like the other two Baltic States of Latvia and Lithuania, differs from the rest of the European Union in its interpretation of the Soviet role. Poland might share these views in part, given the de facto Soviet alliance with Nazi Germany in the partition of northeastern Europe, but the exceptional brutality of Nazi Germany seems to have made Soviet cruelties pale in comparison. It doesn't help that, as the Economist notes, the Putin regime is trying to entice Baltic leaders to attend the the 60th anniversary celebrations in Moscow of the Soviet victory, an uncritical celebration of the Soviet role in the Second World War as it would be, promising to sign the oft-delayed border treaties if only the heads of state attend (and in so doing, consent to the Russian interpretation of the annexation of the Baltic States as anything but a massive crime).
Earlier this month, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, president of Latvia and former Canadian citizen, announced in a announced that she'll be attending.
As the President of a country that subsequently suffered greatly under the Soviet rule, I feel obliged to remind the world at large that humanity's most devastating conflict might not have occurred, had the two totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union not agreed to secretly divide the territories of Eastern Europe amongst themselves. I am referring to the shameful agreement signed on August 23rd of 1939 by the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, Vyatcheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop.
A week-and-a-half later, as a direct result of this disgraceful pact's secret supplementary protocols, Hitler invaded Poland and started the Second World War. The Soviet Union then occupied the eastern half of Poland, with Hitler's full compliance, and invaded Finland later that year. Then, in June of 1940, the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. These invasions and occupations had been foreseen and agreed to in advance by Hitler and Stalin.
It is precisely these two dictators who bear the brunt of the blame for the immense human loss and suffering that resulted during the war that ensued. In commemorating those who lost their lives during the Second World War, we must not fail to commemorate the crimes against humanity committed by both Hitler and Stalin. We must not fail to mention these two totalitarian tyrants by name, lest the world forget the responsibility that they bear for beginning that war.
Googling, the Russian official media seems to have been rather upset by this statement. Good for them, and good for President Vike-Friberga.
