Should the Baltic Germans be compensated by Russia?

[Vixen]

The discussion was about whether you wanted Finland to get the Karelian Isthmus back. Then you cite numbers and a city which are located in East Karelia, which never was Finnish to begin with. Your claim about Finnish speaking peoples being rudely ejected is also unfounded.

Oh, and Petrozadovsk was founded on behest of Peter the Great:

The name of the earlier settlement, Solomennoje, sounds distinctly Russian as well.

ETA: so yes, it does mean you are an irredentist and share at least one important political goal with the Nazis. It helps to explain why you're so eager to whitewash the IKL. Fascists and Nazis mostly don't like it when you call them out on it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12337302#post12337302

 

[Vixen]

Why then the desire to conquer other countries' lands?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12337306#post12337306

 

[Craig B]

Mary was a daughter of James II / VII (*) and thus a Stuart. The reason Parliament asked William to invade England (with 20,000 Dutch troops) was that James had secretly converted to Catholicism. If Anne hadn't died childless, and William had preferred Mary's company over that of Bentinck, there still would have been Stuarts on the English/British throne.

(*) VII in Scotland, in case Craig still follows this thread

I do and I referred to him as II/VII recently if I recall correctly. His successor was William III/II; that monarch's predecessors in England being William the Conqueror and William Rufus, and in Scotland William the Lion^WP. Mary II, I like to think, should be Mary II/II, being preceded by Mary Stuart and Mary Tudor respectively. But having the same regnal number in both realms, she is only ever listed as Mary II.

 

[Pacal]

Mary was a daughter of James II / VII (*) and thus a Stuart. The reason Parliament asked William to invade England (with 20,000 Dutch troops) was that James had secretly converted to Catholicism. If Anne hadn't died childless, and William had preferred Mary's company over that of Bentinck, there still would have been Stuarts on the English/British throne.

(*) VII in Scotland, in case Craig still follows this thread

James II was no longer a secret convert to Catholicism when he acceded to the throne of England. It was well known and publically admitted that James was a Catholic. In fact that fact helped cause all sorts of plots and plans to deny James the succession during the reign of his brother Charles II, (Who converted to Catholicism on his deathbed).

 

[ddt]

James II was no longer a secret convert to Catholicism when he acceded to the throne of England. It was well known and publically admitted that James was a Catholic. In fact that fact helped cause all sorts of plots and plans to deny James the succession during the reign of his brother Charles II, (Who converted to Catholicism on his deathbed).

Thank you for correcting me. The reason for heightened apprehension was not James' own religion, but him having a Catholic son from his second marriage, who would have precedence over James' two older, protestant daughters, in the order of succession.

 

[Craig4]

Nobody's talking about displacement.

We have hardly anyone left who remembers WWI, apart from a few centenarians. It might also be true that the number of people who recall WWII are now in their eighties and nineties.

Does that mean we should stop remembering?

No but it does mean we shouldn't live in it.

 

[Craig4]

Let pretend we live in a fantasy world where Germans have the bad taste to ask for compensation. Then what? We're crippling the Russian economy with sanctions over Ukraine. The economy in turn, forces the best and brightest in Russia to seek employment elsewhere. There is no upside for Russia keeping Ukraine and yet they still do. What leverage do these Germans have to get compensation out of Russia? Russia is self-destructively hanging on territory it stole from a neighbor. What could possibly make you think Russia will pay Baltic Germans?

 

[Vixen]

Let pretend we live in a fantasy world where Germans have the bad taste to ask for compensation. Then what? We're crippling the Russian economy with sanctions over Ukraine. The economy in turn, forces the best and brightest in Russia to seek employment elsewhere. There is no upside for Russia keeping Ukraine and yet they still do. What leverage do these Germans have to get compensation out of Russia? Russia is self-destructively hanging on territory it stole from a neighbor. What could possibly make you think Russia will pay Baltic Germans?

Reform happens. Look at Peter the Great who abolished serfdom. Then there was the granting of independence to Finland and various other countries.

 

[Craig4]

Reform happens. Look at Peter the Great who abolished serfdom. Then there was the granting of independence to Finland and various other countries.

And then there were Germans killing 20 million Russians.

 

[Vixen]

And then there were Germans killing 20 million Russians.

I see. It's the 'get the Gerries' logical fallacy. [The non sequitur.]

 

[Craig4]

I see. It's the 'get the Gerries' logical fallacy. [The non sequitur.]

I doubt the Russians see it as a non sequitur and they are the ones you need to convince to open their wallets.

 

[Border Reiver]

Reform happens. Look at Peter the Great who abolished serfdom. Then there was the granting of independence to Finland and various other countries.

Alexander II abolished serfdom.

Finland wasn't granted independence by Russia (and neither were the Baltic nations), they asserted independence, fought for it, and were later recognized as being independent by Russia and other nations.

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

Reform happens. Look at Peter the Great who abolished serfdom. Then there was the granting of independence to Finland and various other countries.

Peter the Great didn't abolish Serfdom at all. Instead he intensified it. Most of Peter the Great's "reforms" were concerned with increasing the military power of Russia and thus involved a significant intensification of state power in Russia. One of Peter's "Reforms" was the establishment of a significantly more intrusive and brutal Secret Police system. Peter wanted a state system that could compete with other European powers and to do so he intensified exploitation of the Russian people. To help get the nobility to accept his draconian use of them has servants of the state he increased their ability to exploit and use their captive labour force.

In many ways Peter the Great was a bundle of contradictions. He was for example concerned about the lack of entrepreneurship in Russia and tried to encourage it by regulation, degree, coercion and terror. Which sort of defeats the purpose. Also Peter's modernization was paid for by significantly retarding and in some respects reversing the modernization of large sections of Russian society. Why because the modernization Peter got was paid for by much greater exploitation of the Russian Peasantry which benefited very little if at all from Peter's "reforms". During Peter's reign in fact the population of Russia fell, (c. 10%), much of it caused by the vicious and brutal way Peter's "reforms" were carried out.

For more see The Reforms of Peter the Great, Evgenni V. Anisimov, M. E. Sharpe, Armonk New York, 1993, and The Modernization of Russia, Simon Dixon, University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge, 1999.

 

[Vixen]

Peter the Great did the following:

Peter believed in lifelong servitude to the state, whether it was growing crops or fighting wars. Thus he offered serfs escape from their lifelong servitude on the farm in return for lifelong servitude in the army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Russian_Empire

 

[Pacal]

Peter the Great did the following:

Peter believed in lifelong servitude to the state, whether it was growing crops or fighting wars. Thus he offered serfs escape from their lifelong servitude on the farm in return for lifelong servitude in the army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Russian_Empire

You do realize that during the reign of Peter the Great and subsequent Tsars the Serfs or "Souls" were forced to contribute men to the army. The vast majority of Serfs did not want to join the army and Serf communities were forced to contribute men which they did so very reluctantly. Why? Well for one thing joining the army generally meant that the men would never see their families and friends again and the majority of those that joined the armed forces did not survive their terms of duty. (Generally 20 years.) The Russian army was notorious even at the time for its brutality towards its own men. It is unquestioned that Peter the Great strengthened Serfdom in a wide variety of ways. Including making it harder for Serfs to free themselves and by increasing the power and authority of the Serf owning nobility over their Serfs. Why because in order to get the Nobility on his side in his efforts to modernize Russia, he offered the Nobility greater power and authority over their Serfs and even turned over large number of Peasants over to the Nobility. (There were two types of Serfs in Russia. There were the so-called "State Peasants", who were Serfs who owed obligations directly to the state and not private individuals and Serfs who were "owned" along with the land by the Nobility. Generally "State Peasants" were better off than Serfs owed by the Nobility. Peter the Great gave large numbers of "State Peasants to members of the Nobility. He also decreased the ability via the law etc., for Serfs to fight the exploitation done by their owners.) Peter the Great deliberately increased the obligations and burdens of the Serfs.

Under Peter the Great and his successors the obligation of Peasant communities to provide recruits for the Armed services was regarded as curse and horror. In much of Russia Peter was regarded has evil, an Anti-Christ. During and after Peter the Great's reign Peasant communities frequently mourned the men who had been taken away, (Frequently forcibly), has in effect dead by holding funeral services. And most of the time the men did in fact end up dead. Aside from a miniscule number, who by luck or outstanding service were freed from Serfdom and achieved personal success, those that survived were still regarded has Serfs and were often sent back to their home villages were they were regarded has if they had come back from the dead. Others were sent to Hospices, were the miserable conditions insured that they died quickly.

Peter the Great fastened the chains of Serfdom more tightly, increased the power of the Nobility over their "property" and significantly increased the burdens on the peasantry, while removing a few more of the limits on the exploitation of the peasantry. The Soul tax, for which peasant communities were responsible for was a significant and often terrible burden on peasant communities.

Peter the Great may have modernized sectors of Russian society but his people paid a fearful price for it.

 

[Vixen]

You do realize that during the reign of Peter the Great and subsequent Tsars the Serfs or "Souls" were forced to contribute men to the army. The vast majority of Serfs did not want to join the army and Serf communities were forced to contribute men which they did so very reluctantly. Why? Well for one thing joining the army generally meant that the men would never see their families and friends again and the majority of those that joined the armed forces did not survive their terms of duty. (Generally 20 years.) The Russian army was notorious even at the time for its brutality towards its own men. It is unquestioned that Peter the Great strengthened Serfdom in a wide variety of ways. Including making it harder for Serfs to free themselves and by increasing the power and authority of the Serf owning nobility over their Serfs. Why because in order to get the Nobility on his side in his efforts to modernize Russia, he offered the Nobility greater power and authority over their Serfs and even turned over large number of Peasants over to the Nobility. (There were two types of Serfs in Russia. There were the so-called "State Peasants", who were Serfs who owed obligations directly to the state and not private individuals and Serfs who were "owned" along with the land by the Nobility. Generally "State Peasants" were better off than Serfs owed by the Nobility. Peter the Great gave large numbers of "State Peasants to members of the Nobility. He also decreased the ability via the law etc., for Serfs to fight the exploitation done by their owners.) Peter the Great deliberately increased the obligations and burdens of the Serfs.

Under Peter the Great and his successors the obligation of Peasant communities to provide recruits for the Armed services was regarded as curse and horror. In much of Russia Peter was regarded has evil, an Anti-Christ. During and after Peter the Great's reign Peasant communities frequently mourned the men who had been taken away, (Frequently forcibly), has in effect dead by holding funeral services. And most of the time the men did in fact end up dead. Aside from a miniscule number, who by luck or outstanding service were freed from Serfdom and achieved personal success, those that survived were still regarded has Serfs and were often sent back to their home villages were they were regarded has if they had come back from the dead. Others were sent to Hospices, were the miserable conditions insured that they died quickly.

Peter the Great fastened the chains of Serfdom more tightly, increased the power of the Nobility over their "property" and significantly increased the burdens on the peasantry, while removing a few more of the limits on the exploitation of the peasantry. The Soul tax, for which peasant communities were responsible for was a significant and often terrible burden on peasant communities.

Peter the Great may have modernized sectors of Russian society but his people paid a fearful price for it.

My bad. Peter the Great was, of course, determined to seize the Baltic States from Sweden by hook or by crook.

The serf's lot was not a happy one.