Estonian war crimes, minority rights, Russian moral ambiguities, and the way forward
Occasionally I get comments to my previous post that are not hate speech or propaganda but instead try to further a meaningful discussion. I figured I’ll answer shorter things amid the comments, but I’ll answer more interesting and longer ones that require some more research and thinking in separate posts such as this one.
So here are the relevant bits from the comment of Mikhail with my responses.
There are facts related to the period of German occupation which are hard to deny. Like the fact that Estonia was one of the few Judenfrei (Jew-free) areas in Reich. The support of extermination of Jews and other “untermenschen” cannot be justified by the atrocities of Soviet regime. Not only the Soviet regime was a tragedy for estonian people, but also the support they have provided to Nazi Germany in that dark time. This fact does not support your idea of long history of tolerance.
It is indeed a documented historic fact that under Nazi occupation, some Estonians participated in crimes against Jews, that can be classified as either war crimes or crimes against humanity under international law. The most recent authoritative non-biased historic work that I know of about this subject is the work of Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes against Humanity convened by the late President of Estonia Lennart Meri and featuring undeniable international experts and dignitaries. The reports of this commission are readily available on their site and are well-researched interesting reading.
The people who participated in such acts were war criminals and must be prosecuted accordingly. Many of them have passed away by now, many were tried and mostly executed during the Soviet occupation that followed. I am sure that if there are any people remaining whose guilt can be proven and who can be tried and convicted, our legal system will do that.
BUT: it is the classic propaganda/conflict-fueling tactic that both the Nazi Germany and Soviet Union practiced en masse, to take a few people of a group who committed some crimes, and extrapolate these crimes to the whole group. “All Jews/men/homosexuals/mentally-ill/better-educated/those-who-think-otherwise are criminals/pigs/kulaks/enemies-of-state.” Under a democratic European legal system, guilt is individual. Therefore, while I acknowledge that some Estonians were war criminals, I refuse to make any connection or generalization or conclusion about Estonians as a whole supporting the goals and tools of Nazi regime. (“Estonian” here could mean either Estonian citizens during the First Republic or ethnic Estonians, the meaning doesn’t change.)
I especially do not believe that Estonians were en masse in support of crimes against humanity against the Jews. This is for a simple practical reason. I’m by far no expert, but I’ve studied the subject a bit, and I understand that the Nazi extermination system tried to operate at least under some camouflage. Death camps were set up in remote areas so that few people would find out about them, and the whole operation tried to maintain at least some level of secrecy both in Nazi Germany and in the occupied areas. Most people in Germany did not find out about the “final solution” until the war was long over, and I believe the same is true for Estonia.
The report of the History Commission ends with the words:
It is unjust that an entire nation should be criminalized because of the actions of some of its citizens; but it is equally unjust that its criminals should be able to shelter behind a cloak of victimhood.
This sums it up briefly and precisely. There have always been collaborators who have worked with/for the occupiers, and in Estonia it happened both during the Nazi and Soviet periods. It is unjust to make decisions about entire nations based on these collaborators.
I do not support the annexation of Estonia to the USSR, but the pre-war politics that lead to what some people call 1st occupation was quite compicated.
Indeed it was, both internationally and within Estonia itself. But no ambiguities can justify occupation and crimes.
On the issue of Russian minority - I’m sure you have read the articles by Amnesty International. They are not quite favourable towards Estonian policy in language and citizenship. Why should Russians in Estonia be treated differently than, lets say, Catalunyans in Spain, or Welsh in the UK or Russains in Lithuania?
Russian Federation is winning some propaganda battles here. Amnesty and other similar groups sometimes tend to base its reports on Russian Federation propaganda instead of facts. They use biased and outdated information. Also, the concepts of “human rights” and “political rights” are sometimes confused. Russians in Estonia have their human rights far better guaranteed than they have in current Russian Federation (such as, say, freedom of speech? Or how about the right to life and not getting gassed to death by your own government?). Amnesty only talks about human rights, not political rights.
There have been no documented cases of violation of human rights in modern Estonia as witnessed by numerous international studies and commissions. All that I hear is generic complaining about “discrimination”, which when translated from “newspeak” to plain language, means “Estonia and its people are not willing to act like a Soviet colony and do everything on old Soviet terms any more”. When rights have been violated, there’s a legal system to counter that — and if you’re not happy with the Estonian legal system, you can go all the way to the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by Catalunyans or Welsh, but I believe you are talking about political rights and citizenship. In this respect, the situation of Russians in Lithuania was much different from Estonia and Latvia. In Lithuania by the end of the Soviet occupation, more than 80% of the population was Lithuanian and only around 6% or so was Russian. I’m not sure how they managed to pull that off, but that’s how it was. So Lithuania could give citizenship to all these people without risking too much. In Estonia, the proportion was something like 60/40, and in Latvia it was even worse. And to give citizenship to this many people who have zero respect for your language or constitution would have been a real risk to national security.
You can enjoy all political rights in Estonia by obtaining citizenship, whereby you’ll be getting fully equal rights to other Estonian citizens. (The only thing you can’t obtain with citizenship by naturalization is being elected President of the Republic. That right is reserved to those who are Estonian citizens by birth. All other rights are fully equal.) There are exactly two prerequisites to this: you have to know the basic level of Estonian language, and you have to be loyal to the state and respect the Estonian constitution. These conditions are exactly the same as in any other European country. There are many ethnic Russians in Estonia who have chosen to do exactly this and are fully using all their rights and don’t complain — because there’s nothing to complain about.
Much (but not all) of the current Russian population has been brought to your country by Soviet regime, which did not discriminate Estonian or Russian when it was about sending to Siberia. Relatives of many of these people suffered not less than yours.
This is an interesting point that illustrates the ambiguous moral position that I imagine some Russians living in Estonia are currently in. And I don’t envy them — it must be pretty difficult and confusing to deal with some of this, getting two mixed messages. Bear with me while I try to illustrate.
So, on one hand you (not Mikhail personally, but more generally anyone in this group) have all this history/propaganda that was taught during the Soviet period, about how great everything Soviet is, and there weren’t any occupations or crimes against humanity or any other silly things like that. Instead, Soviet state was the largest promoter of peace in the world and had to put up first with Nazis and later with all those imperialist capitalist scums but it would endure and end up in a happy communist utopia, and how all the “socialist republics” begged to be incorporated into the Soviet Union voluntarily on their knees, and indeed, uncle Stalin was so generous that he graciously accepted them all and even let them keep their “republics”. And for most of the world this propaganda lives now in the past, but as I said, Russian Federation has chosen to construct its current identity on this and this view continues to be pushed through their mass media and international political scene and such.
And now on the other hand, you have these people like me coming and saying hey now, things were a bit different and there was a lot of bad stuff going on during those times and at the end of the day, the Soviet regime was simply criminal and brought suffering to all.
And so, being in the Russian media space, and being countered with these conflicting views, you are in a difficult position. It is one of the most humanly difficult things in the world to “unlearn” things — that something that was ultimate truth before may not be so any more. And so people sometimes come up with these artificial weird justifications like above which, if I paraphrase, sound like “The Soviet regime didn’t only persecute Estonians. It persecuted us Russians too, so it can’t possibly have been that bad.”
Whether it persecuted Russians too or not doesn’t change the fact that it persecuted Estonians and committed many crimes against humanity here. I know very well it did the same things against Russians and other nations, and if anything, it just makes things worse as it adds to the crime count. And yes, the Red Army soldiers of this regime did noble things on the battleground such as beating the Nazis, but this doesn’t make the regime any less evil. (And the soldiers themselves didn’t really behave that nobly after the victories.)
The way out of here is to recognize that being an ethnic Russian and being a Soviet person are two entirely different things. You don’t have to justify what the Soviets did, and you don’t have to act like you were one of them and are now trying to smooth things. All we have to do is to together jointly recognize that the Soviet regime was a criminal one whose days are over. This is why I never call any ethnic Russians “occupiers” or something else derogatory like this, and I oppose others doing this as well, as it only incites conflict and is unjust (you cannot make current people responsible for past crimes committed long before they were even born). The glorious Russian nation is much greater and has a much broader history and culture than the Soviet period, and hopefully a brighter future too, so it would make sense to disengage from the Soviet thing.
I honestly don’t know how the above would be possible for someone living in current Russia, but I’m quite sure that it’s possible for someone living in Estonia where the free world and free press are much more accessible and you don’t have to keep acting like a Soviet person. That such reconciliation is possible is shown by none other than Germany itself, who I think has by now dealt with the lessons of its past. They are not glorifying anything that happened — instead, they are going to museums to study past crimes against humanity of the criminal Nazi regime that happened to rule their country for a while, but apart from recognizing and respecting this, they are a modern European democratic nation that can live side by side and peacefully work together with its former foes.
What I think is missing in your text is the look into the future, because so far the concentration seems to be on the past. Estonian and Russian communities (and other communities which already there or will come) do not have other choice but to co-exist. Looking at Estonia as a mono-ethnic and mono-cultural state is not realistic. And the reconciliation will come when all the parties involved accept this.
This is the most important part of this comment and I agree fully. The way to the future is very simple: to think about what everyone personally wants. And I’ve done some experiments and incited some funny dialogs about this with random taxi drivers all over the world, and no matter who or where, we always come back to the same thing:
People simply want to go about their daily work and live a happy, prosperous life.
Estonians and Russians and other nations are currently doing this just fine in Estonia. I think that Estonia with its modern, democratic, peaceful and increasingly wealthy society provides you every opportunity to live a happy life, do domestic or international business and engage in any sort of other legal and peaceful activity. If you choose Estonia as the place to live, you just have to recognize that the main purpose of Estonia is to preserve its culture and language. Other cultures and languages are welcome and indeed I think everyone in Estonia only benefits from the influx of new people, cultures and ideas. No one talks about mono-ethnic, but we do talk about the Estonian state language. And “multi-culture” indeed means “multi-culture” — but I’m very wary about this term because under “newspeak”, some Russian activists sometimes say “multi-culture” but they actually mean “Russian/non-Estonian”. Russian culture belongs in Estonia exactly as Finnish, Swedish, Latvian, German, American, Indian, Jewish and many others we are happy to have here.
12 Comments
Leave a comment
I would like to emphasize just half a sentence from this legthy post for further commentary: “the main purpose of Estonia is to preserve its culture and language.”
And that’s it, there’s just too few of us around and the count or ours is decresing. Anything is discussable and negotiable, but we will do everything to preserve our language and culture. Nobody should blame us for doing that.
Dear Jaanus,
Thank you very much for your answer.
We may agree or disagree on some things, but I guess the good thing is that such dialogues may trigger interest among readers, who may be interested in deeper exploration of past events and find their own meaning.
There is one thing you wrote regarding providing the citizenship to Russians in Estonia, that is not fully understandable to me. You wrote:
“Lithuania could give citizenship to all these people without risking too much. … To give citizenship to this many people who have zero respect for your language or constitution would have been a real risk to national security”
I’m very surprised with this! In fact it sounds like at least too big generalisation. And what kind of risks are you talking about?
I obviously wasn’t in Estonia in the beginning of 90’s and do not have all the information, but as far as I understand at that time lots of people across the whole USSR were supporting Estonian bid for independence, including Russians living in Estonia. More than that, that time russian president Eltsin supported Estonia in its fight with communist central government.
Your saying means that there was no trust towards Russian population already at that time. One may argue that it is all because Estonian population felt opressed during Soviet time, but can it justify such suspicious attitude “by default”? It sounds more like a soft form of revenge to me.
You were quoting the History Commission that nation cannot be criminalized because of some of its representatives. How does it combine with your claims that Russians had zero tolerance to Estonian language and consitution?
Regards, Mikhail
Mikhail,
I’m glad that we agree about one thing, and that is the need for further learning and understanding. Maybe indeed, as you say, these recent events will prompt more people to think about and study the related questions.
Now, about your question about citizenship to non-Estonians in the early 1990s and the risk to national security:
There was indeed a brief period of democracy in Russia in the early 1990s. As I said before, Yeltsin was a great statesman to whom Estonians will forever be thankful for defeating the communist coup in 1991, and we could re-establish our independence. I have no illusions — I believe things may very well have turned out otherwise then, but it was a fortunate outcome of the turmoil of events that things ended the way they did.
As for Russians and other nations that were “imported” during the Soviet times in the early 1990s, I don’t think they were a homogenous group. There were many who believed that their future should be together with Russia, and they chose to depart back to Russia as soon as they could, and we wished them bon voyage and all the best.
But then there was a large contingent of Russians left in Estonia whose future was uncertain. And Russian Federation is always happy to see such contingents of people in other countries as a tool to represent its own interests. Had all these people been granted citizenship and full political rights, they could very well have been persuaded by Russia to elect a Russian-friendly parliament who could then have done things like establish Russian as a state language (and possibly discontinue using Estonian) and change the course of direction of the country from west back to east, so that Estonia could eventually have been incorporated back into the neo-Soviet empire.
Instead, Estonia chose to require the people who wanted full political rights to demonstrate at least some basic level of understanding about what country they are living in, and that it’s no longer called Soviet Union and that there’s no longer a Russian supremacy that was predominant during the Soviet times language- and culture-wise. And many Russians chose to become Estonian citizens this way and this process hopefully continues.
There’s yet another group of people who have chosen to become Russian Federation citizens but remain living in Estonia. I think everyone in Estonia is fine with this, as we also have citizens of many other states living here, but usually these people realize they’re in the country as guests and not as its owners, “hozjains”.
And then there’s yet another group of people who remain “aliens” and whose citizenship is “undetermined”, which is quite a weird situation internationally. Eventually this group will disappear, as eventually the people and their offsprings will adopt either Estonian or some other citizenship.
So, to answer your question, yes, I think there was a high level of mistrust towards Russians in Estonia in the early 1990s. But as people made their choices about citizenship, their preferences and loyalties became more clear and I think this clarity has actually helped to reduce the mistrust.
You are right to point out that I have made some wild generalizations here which are unjust according to my own standards. But as I discussed above, Russians weren’t a homogenous group: there are many groups with different fates. And here’s another thing: respect is always a two-way street. This applies in relations between individual people and it also applies in relations between people and states. If the Russians truly care about the state they live in and want to be its citizens, they have every opportunity to gain it with showing just a minimal level of respect. All the talk about how difficult the exams are etc falls apart when you look at, say, foreign ambassadors to Estonia who have been able to learn the Estonian language needed for daily communication in just a few months. So it’s an active demonstration of disrespect and distrust that the Russian people living here for years and decades refuse to do this, and also I don’t imagine the Russian Federation ambassador to Estonia ever speaking in Estonian. And in this atmosphere of disrespect and distrust, I don’t see why these people should have Estonian citizenship “just like that” simply because they or their parents happened to be moved here during the Soviet campaigns. (And none of this applies to historic Russians who were in Estonia already before 1940 — they were probably Estonian citizens already then, which means that their children are automatically the citizens of modern Estonia.)
I would like to add a (quite real actuallay) possibility of separating eastern parts of Estonia from the rest of the Republic and promplty joining Soviet Union/Russia. There’s wast majority of russian speaking people in east (Narva for example).
Dear Jaanus,
Thanks again for the answer.
I agree that Russian population was not homogenious and there were various groups - some of them wanted to leave (and left) some wanted to stay. I think that in regards to those who stayed you forgot to mention those Russians (and members of other minority groups), who saw their future in Estonia and they were commited to the country, demonstrating it by participation in the movement for independence. If we exclude from total non-Estonian population those who left and those who have not obtained citizenship by now we end up with quite a substantial group of people. And instead of accepting them as equals the state sent them to a language courses (which weren’t free - compare it with West European countries which subsudize them). I suspect that this is the reason for talks about alienation of this group of Estonian society.
Now, we both agree that soviet regime was opressive and lots of people of different nationalities suffered from it. This regime produces a strange breed of people, who were happy to be a part of this regime in exchange for material benefits and status. I believe that such types, especially if they reached success in soviet system, cannot be trusted. To prevent such people from coming into politics many East European coutries (but not Estonia) introduced lustration laws. I might be wrong, but I believe that such move is one of the best ways to condemn the authoritarian communist regimes of the past.
Coming back to Estonia now and a question: what makes a democratically minded Russian more dangerous for Estonian state, than Estonian, who was a successful member of the communist party in the USSR times? Don’t you think that the latter is the first candidate to demonstrate her/his loyalty in some way (not language exam obviously) to be allowed to participate fully in political life?
You argue that “Russian Federation is always happy to see such contingents of people [Russian population] in other countries as a tool to represent its own interests”. I think that such statements require some proof, especially if you say ‘always’. You picture some kind of ‘worst case scenario’, but isn’t there too many maybe’s involved?
I tend to agree with those who say that had the Russian (and largely speaking non-Estonians) population been granted the same rights as Estonians from the very beginning, they would have become the best guarantee from any imaginable provocation against Estonian state from Russia to succeed.
Regards
Mikhail -
about this statement - “Russian Federation is always happy to see such contingents of people [Russian population] in other countries as a tool to represent its own interests” - there’s some drama here, sorry, I exaggerate to make things more clear sometimes
replace “always” with “currently”. There have been periods where this has not been a tense topic, but if you want proof for their current stance, just look at the daily flow of news coming from that country about politics. They continue to fuel conflict and hatred among communities and countries, instead of trying to show some empathy, respect and building bridges.
About people in party: these people were not a homogeneous group. There were many people who did not fall under lustration laws, yet were at fairly high positions. (And contrary to what you say, Estonia actually DOES have lustration laws, restricting certain people in high communist positions and especially security organizations from assuming state positions.) Notably this includes our current prime minister Ansip who was in a fairly high local party executive position in the 80s, yet in strange twists of events has now been put in a position where he has to count a Russian Federation aggression. As I’ve said about ethnic Russians, I also say about Estonians in the communist party, that everyone should be considered on their individual merits.
When talking about ethnic Russians and citizenship, I do agree with you in one thing. If people want to become Estonian citizens, they shouldn’t have to pay excessively for it. Learning things and the language may be difficult enough and the state should pay for it. Some Estonians may view it as “giving up” too much and would rather still have people pay for it fully themselves. I don’t share this view: practically speaking, this wouldn’t be too much money for the state and it would be a gesture of goodwill. But then again, I don’t have facts about how much these things currently cost and how much, if any, of those, are already subsidized.
Just a quick notice in the middle of heavy discussion
In this respect, the situation of Russians in Lithuania was much different from Estonia and Latvia. In Lithuania by the end of the Soviet occupation, more than 80% of the population was Lithuanian and only around 6% or so was Russian. I’m not sure how they managed to pull that off, but that’s how it was. So Lithuania could give citizenship to all these people without risking too much.
During history lessons back at the high school I was tought this has happened due to the vigorous armed resistance, whereas many incomming russians, in fact, found that still the war was not finished so far. Right after the soviets annexed Lithuania, the guerrilla warfare started against occupation, and the intimidation of newcommer russians was among one of its primary targets. Consequently, most of russians left Lithuania for Kalinigrad (former Königsberg) or moved to Latvia and Belarus.
These days, as usually there are two sides of the information battle - Estonian (Western) and Russian. As we say now in Estonia - two information fields.
The main characteristics of both fields is such that reading just one article would be enough - all the rest do say the same.
There is the third side though, and this side is always forgotten - the Estonian Russian ethnic minority.
Ironically, all the buzz around the fact of moving the monument just distracts the attention from the real problem appeared now in Estonia.
The problem is that there is no relief for deeply hurt feelings of the minority. Both Russian Federation and Estonian official standings are alien for this group of people.
We have been deeply hurt and now left alone by our beloved country! The worst is that there is no hope that anybody would understand it ever!
Hearing Russian Federation propaganda is very painful. They are just using us in their dirty game. Estonian propaganda inherited best practices of Soviet period as well. The Estonian information field is by no means more fair. From both sides, there is the same ignorance of our position and our feelings and the same overexposing some facts while hiding others.
When your own country ignores you as well as the voices of another 30% of country’s population - what would you do? Where to search for understanding? The whole world is deaf…
For us, the monument turned into something like a voodoo doll. Treating it in a certain way means treating us in the same way. The situation around the monument symbolizes the tolerance of Estonian society. The zero-tolerance.
Let’s ask Estonians - do they feel easier about the Stalin repressions now - when the monument have been moved? I doubt. The pain is still in the hearts. Nothing changed.
If you ask Estonian Russians if they feel the same about the government and Estonians who fully support it? No - we lost our friends. They betrayed us… Everything changed.
I have never followed the politics, never voted (although favored Reformierakond), never ever visited the monument before (to put flowers for May 9 celebration, for instance). But when the square got covered by the huge tent - I felt like the communism is back… in a new form. From our history, we knew all these methods very well: ignorance, brute force, and propaganda. They are the leitmotif of everything that happened around the Bronze Soldier this spring.
So far, deeply in the heart I believed that Estonians and Estonian Russians are friends and there is nothing left to dispute about. Not anymore. The next time I will vote. This is for sure. I’ve got my personal civic position now. And this position is not in favor of current government, neither it supports the standpoint of Russian Federation.
I believe, we have to fight for our most basic right - to be heard and understood.
I’ve read quite many columns and posts by Estonian russians. There are some who claim that monument meant nothing for them but relocation deeply hurted them. For me it was clearly: does not compute. Need more information.
I don’t expect my government to be one big dr. Phil who comes to my doorsteps, pats me on the shoulder and asks “Hey Urmo, how are you feeling today?”. I prefer to be left alone, i prefer as transparent state as possible. But all those posts and columns I read make me wonder if all that russians really want just a pat on the shoulder? Or could it be a some sort of national awakening combined with the fact that ethnic russians have no political superstars here? If that is the case, i’m truely happy relocation took place and Artur goes to vote next time.
If not, I’m just happy (opposed to Arturs’ rethorical question) that the statue got relocated. I was never too comfy with walking on the graves.
A country, a society a culture makes conscious choices. The soldier criminals that operate with-in them are at the consent of the many, however secret kept the crime. I am rather sure many more than those who committed the atrocities were accessories and more than they conscious of the brutality they traded in. What surprises me, as an American, is not so much the moving of a monument as the erecting of one to the SS. It then comes as no surprise that you would use “saving your culture” as an excuse for disenfranchising 30 % of your population. It only shows you still haven’t come to grips with what is wrong in Estonian thinking. I’m an American that fought to come to grips with our own inequalities in the 1960’s and see the changing face of our demographics in this new century. Our culture will change and our heritage good or bad will remain written on the walls of history. Because enough of us have read them accurately, history will not be repeated, and what is written will hopefully treat us well. I am a contemporary of today’s history. What your doing is wrong. If enough of us say it, and mean it, it won’t go on. Only a few Germans (and one American of German descent) in a bar in Denver, after a few beers would dare to sing “Deutchland Uber Alles” much less erect a monument to the SS. I felt foolish and stupid the next morning. Thank You God!
Mike - I’m not exactly sure what you are talking about. In any case, there is no monument to the SS. There was one unauthorized monument erected in 2005 that featured an Estonian soldier in the SS uniform, but the government had it dismantled shortly, so it does not exist.
Jaanus,
Yes; you are correct to a point (the history as I know it is below). I wouldn’t be proud of the episode or dismiss it with a few words however. The point is monuments should not divide. If “public” space has value, use it wisely. How about a monument to the Jews and Gypsies that died in Estonian labor and extermination camps, one each for Auvere, Aseri, Dorpat, Ereda, Goldfields, Idu-Virumaa, Illinurme, Jagala, Johvi, Kalevi-Liiva, Kivioli, Klooga, Kukruse, Kunda, Kuremae, Lagedi, Narva, Narva-Joesuu, Petschur, Putki, Saka, Stara Gradiska, Sonda, Soski, Tartu, Vaivara, Viivikonna and Wesenburg. It’s a small country. How many knew and forgot? A monument to remember each would be in order; if you understood the gravity of what happened. Unifying monuments are admissions of error and dedicated to those who suffered innocently because anyone can identify with them. Misplaced valor can be anyone’s mistake. Glorifying it compounds the error. We are all brothers in affliction and have a lot in common when it comes to error. How about a monument to new beginnings; contemporary soldiers of German, Russian and Estonian uniforms in front of a crowd of people, all nationalities, saluting the flag and freedom of Estonia today. Use it to replace the Russian monument. The way forward is not looking back for excuses. Celebrate what you’ve become. History is being written is my point. On Estonian Independence Day enfranchise all of your citizens that want it and celebrate the daylights out of it! All of Europe and the free world would celebrate with you. Russia just might, just celebrate with you and who knows a new era of friendship might just make it possible to help each other out of the darkness of an era that needs to be past.
I left out the history of the monument, no need, counterproductive.
all the best, Mike