PDA

View Full Version : "Moscow dossier embarrasses US and Britain ahead of Riga summit"



M4ko
11-24-2006, 11:19 AM
· File shows that UK backed Russia's Baltic occupation
· Kremlin seeks to open rift among Nato members

Tom Parfitt in Moscow
Friday November 24, 2006
The Guardian


In a move likely to inflame tensions ahead of next week's Nato summit in Latvia, Russia's foreign intelligence service, the SVR, yesterday declassified documents claiming that Britain and the US had approved of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states a year before Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union.
Received wisdom has it that the British prime minister, Winston Churchill, was deeply ambivalent about Moscow taking control of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940. But the editor of the 400-page dossier, Major General Lev Sotskov, told the Guardian it demonstrated that the UK and US "perfectly understood" that the region was needed as a buffer zone for the inevitable moment when Nazi Germany would break its non-aggression pact with Moscow and attack the Soviet Union.

Gen Sotskov said the documents proved that American and British leaders were often divided over their position on Soviet troop movements and their "public declarations clashed with internal assessments". But Soviet intelligence showed that Churchill decided it was a pragmatic move not to confront Moscow's occupation of neighbouring territory, which ended with the Nazi invasion of the Baltics in 1941. "Churchill realised this was the only way," he said. "He saw it as a not very pleasant but necessary step to prevent Germany from further intrigues and advance."
The fact that Germany's strike at the Soviet Union ran out of steam later in the war was partly because it had to cross the Baltics, thus justifying Churchill's reasoning, Gen Sotskov said.

Publication of the NKVD documents - almost certainly compiled with material uncovered by spies such as Donald MacLean and Kim Philby - was given wide play in the Russian media.

Moscow says its army saved the Baltic states from Nazism. The Baltic states have always bitterly argued that they were illegally occupied and then forcibly assimilated into the Soviet Union at the end of the second world war. Latvia's president, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, yesterday told the Financial Times that Nato's first summit in Riga would "remove the very last traces of the iron curtain" from the Baltics.

The dossier was commissioned by the lower house of the Russian parliament and the timing of its release hints at a desire by Moscow to sow dissent between western Europe and the Baltic states which recently joined Nato and the EU. The Kremlin has tense relations with all three Baltic states and is incensed at Estonia's plans to remove a monument to Soviet soldiers who "liberated" the city in 1944 after three years of Nazi occupation, during which some men from the Baltic countries joined Waffen SS units.

Gen Sotskov said he accepted that the dossier would be controversial, but the documents were incontrovertible. "Sober-minded people should say, 'Yes, that's how it was'," he said.

Churchill is on record as saying in 1939 that it was in Britain's interests "that the USSR should increase their strength in the Baltic, thereby limiting the risk of German domination in that area". However, he said two years later that no territorial change made during the war should stand without the "free consent and goodwill of the parties involved". He was said to be furious at the treatment that Soviet troops meted out to civilians in the Baltics in 1940 and he later refused to recognise the countries as part of the Soviet Union.

The Baltic states remained in Moscow's grasp until the Soviet break-up in 1991.

Asked what reaction he expected to the dossier in the Baltics, Gen Sotskov said: "That's their problem. All I can say is that the SS was recognised as a fascist organisation at Nuremberg, but in those countries people still march under its flag."

Sergei Ivanov, a spokesman for the SVR, said the dossier was not published to coincide with the Riga summit but was "probably connected with the fact that monuments are being taken down in the Baltics".

Flamming_Python
11-24-2006, 11:29 AM
Interesting that the Kremlin would pick now as the time to release these documents.

2Sheds_Jackson
11-24-2006, 12:17 PM
I really don't see what this is supposed to mean. I would think that being the one turn a blind eye to occupation is not as bad as being the one who did the occupying...so why bring it up? Hope they don't think about it too hard? Considering the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the Nazi-Soviet Trade Agreement - I'd think that keeping quiet about the whole mess would be the best strategy.

Flamming_Python
11-24-2006, 12:26 PM
One thing it does show, is that the USSR, US and UK were expecting Germany to attack the USSR, despite the non-agression pact. Another thing is that several of these documents, show that there was indeed a danger of Nazi precense in the Baltic:

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061123/55932837.html

However, of course it's all open to interpretation, but it does damage the arguements that the Baltics were fighting for their independence, if they were planning to invite Germany to incorporate their countries, due to existing fascist leaders there.

I would like to hear the Baltic side of the story on this, and i'm saying that in all seriousness.

themacedonian
11-24-2006, 11:23 PM
One thing it does show, is that the USSR, US and UK were expecting Germany to attack the USSR, despite the non-agression pact. Another thing is that several of these documents, show that there was indeed a danger of Nazi precense in the Baltic:

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061123/55932837.html

However, of course it's all open to interpretation, but it does damage the arguements that the Baltics were fighting for their independence, if they were planning to invite Germany to incorporate their countries, due to existing fascist leaders there.

I would like to hear the Baltic side of the story on this, and i'm saying that in all seriousness.


Well it seems to be the normal western modus operandi. Making an agreement then complaining about the results of the agreement.

Even after WWII it was decided that Germany was to be divided into 4 zones out of which 3 later united to form Western Germany. Then USSR was the bad guy for keeping the Eastern part out of that union.

Similar with Eastern Europe. In Yalta Churchill and Stalin had negotiated the spheres of influence with Yugoslavia and Greece 50-50. Then compained about it.

Alan
11-25-2006, 01:48 AM
I really don't see what this is supposed to mean. I would think that being the one turn a blind eye to occupation is not as bad as being the one who did the occupying...so why bring it up? Hope they don't think about it too hard? Considering the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the Nazi-Soviet Trade Agreement - I'd think that keeping quiet about the whole mess would be the best strategy.


Yeah, but we're already the bad guys, so we don't care.
But now... you guys are the bad guys too.

Join us dear brothers, join the club, yessss, join the dark side, muwahahahahaha!

Jobu
11-25-2006, 08:54 PM
Why is this any more embarassing than actually allying with the USSR during the war?

Sometimes you must choose to side with the lesser of two evils. WWII proved it.

kosse
11-25-2006, 09:11 PM
I don't want to bash the Russians but in my opinion it's quite understandable that the Baltic people don't want the liberation statues around.

As for the main piece of news it does not seem a big surprise calculations like this were made by the UK and US.

ostius
11-28-2006, 12:00 PM
It seems strange, but I like Russia said that. Psychiatrists have proven, that you cannot solve problems through denying them. First step of therapy is admitting the problem. Since this statement Russia described situation in Baltic states 1940/1944 as uprising of working class, liberation from capitalism, re-union with big brother, liberation from fascism or incorporation in workers paradise. But now I see clear statement: “Soviet annexation of Baltic states”.

I am neither ironic nor sarcastic. More statements like this and relationships between Baltic states and Russia will be based on truth. Better nasty truth than beautiful lie.

Unfortunately I still must remind: “Umi mel, ibi fel” Story as Baltic states were planning to invite Germany to incorporate our countries is pure propaganda. All Baltic states had bad relationships with Germans. Lithuanians took after WWI piece of East-Prussia, Estonians and Latvians confiscated during land reform estates of German landlords. Also is questionable “fascist leaders”. I have to admit, that Baltic states had problems with democracy, but neither Päts, Ulmanis nor Smetona were fascist. Controversially, some historians are trying to prove, that Päts had good relationship with communists and sold whole Estonia to Soviet Union.

Without any doubt this “game” was too big for us and empires used small nations as pennies. They still do. All justifications and propaganda are ridiculous. V Pravdu net izvestii, i v Izvestii net pravdu.

Banko
11-28-2006, 02:29 PM
Amazing that Estonia and Latvia are the ones with the most hatred for Russia and they are also the ones with the least amount of money.

While people in Lithuania don't care and are much better off.

kosse
11-28-2006, 02:41 PM
Amazing that Estonia and Latvia are the ones with the most hatred for Russia and they are also the ones with the least amount of money.

While people in Lithuania don't care and are much better off.

Check your facts. Estonia has higher GDP per capita and is also ahead of Lithuania in HDI index.

Flamming_Python
11-28-2006, 02:53 PM
It seems strange, but I like Russia said that. Psychiatrists have proven, that you cannot solve problems through denying them. First step of therapy is admitting the problem. Since this statement Russia described situation in Baltic states 1940/1944 as uprising of working class, liberation from capitalism, re-union with big brother, liberation from fascism or incorporation in workers paradise. But now I see clear statement: “Soviet annexation of Baltic states”.

I am neither ironic nor sarcastic. More statements like this and relationships between Baltic states and Russia will be based on truth. Better nasty truth than beautiful lie.

Unfortunately I still must remind: “Umi mel, ibi fel” Story as Baltic states were planning to invite Germany to incorporate our countries is pure propaganda. All Baltic states had bad relationships with Germans. Lithuanians took after WWI piece of East-Prussia, Estonians and Latvians confiscated during land reform estates of German landlords. Also is questionable “fascist leaders”. I have to admit, that Baltic states had problems with democracy, but neither Päts, Ulmanis nor Smetona were fascist. Controversially, some historians are trying to prove, that Päts had good relationship with communists and sold whole Estonia to Soviet Union.

Without any doubt this “game” was too big for us and empires used small nations as pennies. They still do. All justifications and propaganda are ridiculous. V Pravdu net izvestii, i v Izvestii net pravdu.

You have your version of history, we have ours (I mean Russian, not Soviet). My point of view, is that they probably both have their share of proparganda.

Hukatus
11-29-2006, 06:43 PM
Amazing that Estonia and Latvia are the ones with the most hatred for Russia and they are also the ones with the least amount of money.

While people in Lithuania don't care and are much better off.shut yer trap before more **** comes out from it

The economy, once a basket case, is now one of Europe's most dynamic, racing along at a 12% growth clip — faster than China. Estonia is one of only two new European Union members to have a budget surplus, and its national debt will have all but disappeared by the end of the decade. Naturally, there are growing pains: the unemployment rate has fallen so sharply, from 14% in 2000 to about 4% today, that businesses are scrambling to find workers. But even if growth slows a little to a more sustainable rate, Estonia could catch up with Portugal and Greece on a per-capita basis in about a decade. "This is the best time in our history," says Sten Tamkivi, Skype's Estonian head of operations.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901061009-1540428,00.html