Pres. George W. Bush's Moscow Victory Celebration.
The Moscow observance of the 60th anniversary of the Allied victory in Europe had evidently been meant to be the major event of the occasion; presumably in recognition of the determined defense of Russian cities like Leningrad and Stalingrad and the huge sacrifices in the subsequent, most decisive, battles up to that of Berlin. Many heads of governments or state had been invited and attended (including those of the former enemies). At least in the North American media, attention was focused on the European trip of US Pres. George W. Bush, with Moscow just one stopover between other events. Was that intended?
The Netherlands visit may have been in recognition of their having joined the coalition in his current war. But then there was a visit to Latvia's capital Riga before, and to Georgia's Tbilisi right after Moscow. At least the Latvian coverage was dominated by anti-Russian rhetoric, aided by some loose play with the historical record. I can't believe that I was the only one to notice that all reports spoke of the Russians having occupied Latvia (and the other Baltic republics) immediately after liberating it from German occupation. As a matter of fact, Soviet bases had to be accepted soon after the beginning of WWII. A little later in 1940 (shortly after I spent a couple of days in Riga waiting to fly from there to Stockholm), the Baltic republics all "voted" to become Soviet republics as part of the Soviet Union, and thus continued following the German occupation.
If anyone believed that vote to be real, the US president at the time certainly did not, nor recognize the resulting annexation. That president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, died 60 years ago, just before the victory that might not have been possible without him. FDR differed in many ways from George W. Bush, who, let's hope, does not intend to start a new cold war with his buddy Vladimir. We sure have come a long way since "that man" did his thing in the 30-40s.
It is hard to believe that Latvian President Vike-Freiberga would have challenged Russia on this occasion the way she did, with George W standing next to her, without having obtained his assent beforehand. Russia's Pres. Putin then came back with a sharp rejoinder about Latvian collaboration with the Nazis. There really was collaboration everywhere. At least from a Jewish perspective, there is little doubt that some Latvian collaborators were among the most vicious. How widespread the collaboration was, compared to others, I neither know nor regard as especially significant now. I do recall a more recent news item, after the Baltic countries regained their independence, about former Latvian SS marching freely, proudly on the streets of Riga, something probably allowed nowhere else, certainly not in Germany. So I can't fault Putin's reaction.
It looks unlikely that only Russians made up the Soviet troops that liberated / occupied Latvia in 1944, rather than also Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Byelorussians et al; Latvians?. Nor can there be legitimate complaints about the Russians having imposed communism on the subject nations of the Tsarist empire, like Latvia, which became independent for the first time following the 1917 Bolshevik takeover. Latvian troops had served in the imperial Russian army. But more than most subject nationalities, Latvians had supported the Bolsheviks hoping to escape the subjection to tsarist autocracy. Latvian troops apparently were the most effective of the early Red Army, and the trusted guards of Lenin and the Bolshevik headquaters were picked from them. Nonetheless, I am not aware of anyone in post Bolshevik Russia expressing anti-Latvian prejudice on that basis.
Moreover, the autocrat in charge of the Soviet Union at the time of the 1940 Baltic takeover and of the 1944 reconquest was not a Russian. Stalin (Djugashvili) was a Georgian, as was Beria, his secret police chief at the time. And Georgia is where George W. Bush had scheduled the visit immediately after the Moscow victory celebration, where many other heads of state attended. Lesser ones? Surely not if judged by this George W performance.
And any comparison with World War II victor FDR is laughable; even if the religious right and neo-con men manage to utilize his administration to further erode the achievements of the New Deal.
The Netherlands visit may have been in recognition of their having joined the coalition in his current war. But then there was a visit to Latvia's capital Riga before, and to Georgia's Tbilisi right after Moscow. At least the Latvian coverage was dominated by anti-Russian rhetoric, aided by some loose play with the historical record. I can't believe that I was the only one to notice that all reports spoke of the Russians having occupied Latvia (and the other Baltic republics) immediately after liberating it from German occupation. As a matter of fact, Soviet bases had to be accepted soon after the beginning of WWII. A little later in 1940 (shortly after I spent a couple of days in Riga waiting to fly from there to Stockholm), the Baltic republics all "voted" to become Soviet republics as part of the Soviet Union, and thus continued following the German occupation.
If anyone believed that vote to be real, the US president at the time certainly did not, nor recognize the resulting annexation. That president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, died 60 years ago, just before the victory that might not have been possible without him. FDR differed in many ways from George W. Bush, who, let's hope, does not intend to start a new cold war with his buddy Vladimir. We sure have come a long way since "that man" did his thing in the 30-40s.
It is hard to believe that Latvian President Vike-Freiberga would have challenged Russia on this occasion the way she did, with George W standing next to her, without having obtained his assent beforehand. Russia's Pres. Putin then came back with a sharp rejoinder about Latvian collaboration with the Nazis. There really was collaboration everywhere. At least from a Jewish perspective, there is little doubt that some Latvian collaborators were among the most vicious. How widespread the collaboration was, compared to others, I neither know nor regard as especially significant now. I do recall a more recent news item, after the Baltic countries regained their independence, about former Latvian SS marching freely, proudly on the streets of Riga, something probably allowed nowhere else, certainly not in Germany. So I can't fault Putin's reaction.
It looks unlikely that only Russians made up the Soviet troops that liberated / occupied Latvia in 1944, rather than also Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Byelorussians et al; Latvians?. Nor can there be legitimate complaints about the Russians having imposed communism on the subject nations of the Tsarist empire, like Latvia, which became independent for the first time following the 1917 Bolshevik takeover. Latvian troops had served in the imperial Russian army. But more than most subject nationalities, Latvians had supported the Bolsheviks hoping to escape the subjection to tsarist autocracy. Latvian troops apparently were the most effective of the early Red Army, and the trusted guards of Lenin and the Bolshevik headquaters were picked from them. Nonetheless, I am not aware of anyone in post Bolshevik Russia expressing anti-Latvian prejudice on that basis.
Moreover, the autocrat in charge of the Soviet Union at the time of the 1940 Baltic takeover and of the 1944 reconquest was not a Russian. Stalin (Djugashvili) was a Georgian, as was Beria, his secret police chief at the time. And Georgia is where George W. Bush had scheduled the visit immediately after the Moscow victory celebration, where many other heads of state attended. Lesser ones? Surely not if judged by this George W performance.
And any comparison with World War II victor FDR is laughable; even if the religious right and neo-con men manage to utilize his administration to further erode the achievements of the New Deal.
posted by solar_sol | 11:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home