Proud soldiers of the red star.
Posted on 05/07/2005 3:20:28 PM PDT by neverdem
Filed at 1:34 p.m. ET
RIGA (Reuters) - President Bush denounced Soviet Cold War rule of eastern Europe as ``one of the greatest wrongs of history'' on Saturday in a jab at Moscow two days before celebrations of the 1945 victory over Hitler.
Bush, visiting Latvia before the ceremonies in Moscow marking 60 years since the end of World War II in Europe, also held up the three Baltic states as examples of democratic reform since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
He said the end of the war brought liberty from fascism for many in Germany but meant the ``iron rule of another empire'' for the Baltic states -- Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia -- and nations from Poland to Romania.
Bush admitted the United States shared some responsibility for the Cold War division of Europe after the 1945 Yalta accord between Russia, the United States and Britain.
``Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable,'' he said. ``Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable.
``The captivity of millions in central and eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history,'' he said in a speech at Riga's guildhall.
The three Baltic states joined both NATO and the European Union last year.
Bush's visit to Riga has angered Russia by reviving tensions about the Soviet occupation when Moscow is focusing on celebrating the end of World War II, a conflict that cost 27 million Soviet lives.
Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed calls by the Baltic states for an apology for Soviet rule and accused them on Saturday of trying to cover up past Nazi collaboration.
BUSH MEETS PUTIN
The differing versions of history may make for frictions when Bush meets Putin in Moscow on Sunday and Monday.
Putin insists the Red Army was a liberator, not an oppressor, of Eastern Europe.
``Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries,'' Putin said on Saturday after laying a wreath at a monument to Russia's war dead.
In a recent state of the nation speech he bemoaned the demise of the Soviet Union as ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'' He has also said Washington should not try to export its own brand of democracy.
Bush said Russia's leaders had made ``great progress'' in the past 15 years.
``In the long run it is the strength of Russian democracy that will determine the greatness of Russia and I believe the Russian people value their freedom and will settle for no less,'' he said.
``As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox. For much of Germany, defeat led to freedom. For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire.''
He also held up the Baltics as examples of successful shifts to democracy, a theme he stressed for nations including Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Belarus.
``These are extraordinary times that we're living in and the three Baltic countries are capable of helping Russia and other countries in this part of the world see the benefits of what it means to live in a free society,'' Bush told a news conference.
But Bush did not back pleas by the Baltic countries for an apology from Russia. ``My hope is that we are able to move on,'' he said.
He later flew to the Netherlands where he will spend Saturday night.
The presidents of Lithuania and Estonia will boycott the May 9 ceremonies in Moscow. Georgia's president will also stay away, but Latvia's president will attend.
All three Baltic nations, whose combined population is now about 6 million, were occupied by the Soviet Union in June 1940 after a pact between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia which divided up spheres of influence in East Europe.
In 1941, German troops occupied the Baltics and remained there until the end of the war when Soviet troops returned and ruled with an iron fist. The collapse of communism enabled the Baltic states to win their independence in 1991.
Bush also urged free elections in Belarus, which shares borders with Lithuania and Latvia, and ruled out any secret U.S deal with Moscow allowing President Alexander Lukashenko to remain in power. ``We don't make secret deals,'' he said.
Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga wrote in the Washington Post on Saturday: ``Russia would gain immensely by ... expressing its genuine regret for the crimes of the Soviet regime.
``Until Russia does so ... its relations with its immediate neighbors will remain uneasy at best.''
But writing in the French daily Le Figaro, Putin dismissed calls for an apology and accused the Baltic countries of trying to justify their own government's ``discriminatory and reprehensible policy'' toward their Russian-speaking populations.
Police detained about 20 protesters from Latvia's big Russian minority after they hurled smoke bombs in a demonstration against Bush.
``Bush is a horror,'' said protest leader Beness Aija. Posters in another demonstration said: ``Stop the war in Iraq.''
But many Latvians welcome Bush. ``It's important to recognize the struggle that our fathers had against communists and the Soviet Union,'' said Ugis Senbergs, a 50-year-old architect.
You stock like stocking fish in a lake.?.
-or- stock like in stocking game in a hunt.?.
OR BOTH..
LoL...
I know...
I took liberties.. as I usually do...
to make my point(S)... LoL.. d;-)~
Only on your part. I have never posted anything anti-semitic, no matter how much you and your co-psychopath Tailgunner try to spread that lie. You even operate like soviet.
Well, while neutral at the beginning of WW2, these three countries were already ruled by autocratic regimes whose political models were Hitler and Mussolini. Their economies had been integrated to Germany's, first because of theese governments' decisions and then because economic integration has a gravitational attraction of its own.
Still, I wouldn't say these governments did not make a choice to side with Hitler. They had a choice, some of them (Rumania most notably) had had strong ties zith France and Great Britain after WW1, and they could have helped keeping Nazi Germany in check.
But they didn't. It's true they had territorial disputes with Russia - but even though Nazi Germany often forced them to accept Russian demands during the Nazi-Soviet honeymoon, they made a conscious choice. So, I wouldn't put them in the same lot as Vichy France, Rexist Belgium, or the Quisling government in Norway, where pro-Nazi governments only took root after a militray defeat and an German occupation.
But I think you're right to point out that their people were liberated, from the Nazis and from their own brand of fascists, and that it was right for these nations to keep their independence.
I suppose that the 20th century death tolls in some sense are unknown.
Here is the problem. Stalin had punishment battalions whose job was to clear minefields (laid by Germans) by linking hands and walking over them. Over and over.
Were the deaths of those poor men (many just cut off by the maneuvers of the German Army, or the cowardice of other Russian units) the fault of Hitler, who started the war, or Stalin, whose policies sent them to their death?
In like manner, Mao's bloodiest toll was from the famines of the "Great Leap Forward" and the foolishness of the "Cultural Revolution". Was that his fault, or the fault of the frightened minions who followed and exaggerated his orders far to excess?
Yes. All are guilty. Certainly Hitler and Stalin had much more in common, in ideology and means, than you would get by reading the history books in highschool now.
Now Chang Kai Check was a thug who made good. He was once a small time enforcer for a drug dealer "Big Eared Tu". After Chang made good, the US pressured him to cut back on the drug trade. Big Eared Tu was, as a small irony, appointed as the Chinese Nationalist official responsible for stopping the drug trade.
Then throw in the people that died when Stalin and Hitler combined to make war on Poland and Finland.
AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm
Question: Who was the Bloodiest Tyrant of the 20th Century?
Answer: We don't know.
That's probably the saddest fact of the Twentieth Century. There are so many candidates for the award of top monster that we can't decide between them. Whether it's Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong or Iosif Stalin is, quite frankly, anybody's guess.
So? The Soviets did not ask the Poles to rise up - and tehy were not about to help their rivals in a mess they made by rebeling too quickly. The Poles rose up because the exiled Polish govt in London knew they were betrayed by the British (what else is new? Brits have always been ace betrayers) so decided tehy needed to take Poland before teh Soviets arrived - it was a gamble that failed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.