Dear comrade Ruben,
I thought that you're keeping the neutral position in our discussion, but I was disappointed. Seems you was also brainwashed recently (I'll explain what I mean).
The statement that Eastern European countries (EEC) were military occupied by USSR was started to spead amond politics and historians after the USSR came apart. This statement was repeated and still is repeated each time when the discussion regards the relations between USSR and EEC. It's repeated so many times that noone on the West calls it in question. Famous Dr. Goebells (the PR-director of Nazist Germany) said once: "If you repeat the lie several times, it becomes the truth". Great idea, eh?
Let's look at the facts.
The conventional definition of the "military occupation" is given in the
Hague Conventions of 1907 (Section III) .
Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
The fact is that every EEC has its
own authorities. There were no Soviet representatives in their governments at all. The only participation of USSR was the military bases, situated on their territory. If you consider that this was the "occupation" you must agree, that Germany and Japan are still occupied by USA (because USA has its military bases on the territories of Germany and Japan), and soon Bulgaria, Romania and Poland will be occupied by USA too (their goverments agreed to place the US bases on their territory). Moreover, in the case of Yugoslavia, USSR did not have the military bases there at all.
Also if you will take a look on the list of military occupations (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations) you'll see that there is not a word about "Occupation of the EEC by USSR".
As to the "puppet secret police regimes" - this is also the "modern brainwashing statement". Firstly, all regimes in EEC were
their own regimes. The people of that countries elected their regimes. The only claim of Soviet "big brother" is that this regime must be loyal to USSR. And they were loyal.
As an example, I offer to recall the events in Prague 1968. Everybody knows that this uprising was stiffled by Soviet Army. But this everybody doesn't know or prefers to forget the fact that together with Soviet tanks, there were also Polish, German and Hungarian tanks on the streets of Prague. And all these armies of the "USSR occupied" countries actively participated in the stiffling of the Czechs' rebellion.
Your sentence about Chechenians I won't comment at all. I just invite you to visit Chechnya and live among "friendly" Chechenians for a some time. If you're lucky man, you'll keep your head on your shoulders. If you're not so lucky, you'll be cut into pieces and sent to your motherland in several packages. BTW, I'm 50% Tatar
😛
You know, I'm tired to prove that the views of people from West that USSR was the "real evil empire" are wrong in most cases. Unfortunately, such views become the religion of some kind and as a religion they couldn't be destroyed even by facts. :bang:
ruben said:
In this specific context, comes comrade Evgeny implying comrade nzeeman was brainwashed about the fate of his own family, following with another obscure argument of the like of are you speaking about family suffering? Mine suffered more! As if one contradicts the other.
Yes comrade Evgeny your tone is harsh, and highly evassive of the circumstance that your country has military occupyied Eastern Europe for almost four decades, through a system of puppet secret police regimes, very much alike the one Stalin erected in the USSR itself.
True, this occupation was very much due to the cold war unleashed against the Soviet Union. But if a Serb, or a Tatar, or a Chechenian, rises and tells you we have suffered from Your mighty country - better you listen with care, caution and curiosity and show perhaps true symphaty to his case, instead of telling him You have brought his people the light. Otherwise, by your heavy-handed, inquisitorial-style of rethorical question-and-dismissal, you are just comfirming the legitimacy of his claim.
Ruben
