Kerensky, left, who bore a striking resemblance to British comedian Peter Sellers, has been reinterpreted by the post-Gorbachev Russian Federation liberals in a positive light. Medvedev has put himself on the side of Kerensky in his speeches, though a portrait of Nicholas II hangs in his office (Peter the Great hangs on Putin's wall).
It can be said that Estonia benefited as well from the February Revolution. In April 1917, Georgy Lvov, who became the first minister chairman of the Russian provisional government following the tsar's abdication, granted Estonia -- then bisected by two Baltic guberniyas, Estlandskaja and Livlandskaja -- autonomy within the Russian Empire. This followed a mass demonstration in St. Petersburg by 40,000 Estonians, half of whom were armed.
The Autonomous Governate of Estonia was headed by Tallinn's mayor Jaan Poska. It elected a diet, the Maapäev, which, following the October Revolution, proclaimed itself the sole authority in Estonia in November 1917, and later issued the declaration of independence in February 1918.
Contemporary Russian historians like to paint the emergence of Estonia on the political map as some kind of dirty deal between Lenin and the Estonian elite.What they don't realize is that it was the Lvov-Kerensky government that set the whole move in motion from guberniya to autonomous governate to independent republic in less than a year.
Anyway, if you are truly bored, here's an interesting piece on how Russian succession is determined by hair-envy. Enjoy.
17 kommentaari:
"The Russian people, burdened by numerous good choices in their presidential election, finally settled on Dmitri Medvedev yesterday"
Justin, you are kidding, aren't you? The malignant little troll settled on a puppet. The "Russian people" weren't consulted.
I forgot to mention that I frequently employ sarcasm in my blog posts. Maybe I should put up a disclaimer?
While it's true that Medvedev was appointed, to think that he would be Putin's puppet is laughable. You've settled on a premise of Evil Poo, and now you're merely rationalizing.
I just wish we had more smart and funny people like you. Keep writing
I've noted that Medvedev resembles Dave Matthews.
Good piece from the Hindu, while I'm not sure if you can really use "hairy" as the opposite of "bald", this sort of conjecture will appeal to those Estonians who are still working on a grand unified theory of moustaches and politicians (Kallas, Pihl et al).
I just wish we had more smart and funny people like you. Keep writing.
Click on the links to Nicholas II and Peter "the Great" for additional laughs.
Click on the links to Nicholas II and Peter "the Great" for additional laughs
Check out this
Nice remarks about the - although limited - role of the previous government of Russia in the emergence of Estonian own powers, but I wouldn't hope that the legitimacy of this Russian government and it's decisions are much higher in the eyes of the radicals. A "well-known fact" is that governments of Kerenski and Lvov were anti-Russian-people, either as handpicks of western imperialism (left-leaning view) or as a judeomasonic conspiracy
(national-patriotic view).
And as in the last years the popularity of any "democrats" is
been very much down, historical figures do not much better: in the end of 2005 a WCIOM study about peoples attitudes towards leading figures of 1917 placed the ones representing at least some level some liberalism and democracy - right after ill-famous pogromist Nestor Mahno and equal to Lev Trotski as the most unpopular; while both communists and monarchists were having more support and less opponents. If the link works:
http://wciom.ru/arkhiv/tematicheskii-arkhiv/item/single/1977.html?
cHash=19f6b96da3&print=1&no_cache=1
To those not reading Russian: Lenin is the one with 50% support and 32% opponents, followed by Dzherzhinski (! direct organizer of the red terror) 44-28 and Nicolai II (killed by the one's of the previous two) with 42-28. Stalin has got 37-47; leading white generals Denikin 26-39 and Kolchak 20-41. On the other hand: Mahno 13-55, Kerenski 14-44, Trotski 16-45 and Milyukov 7-32.
I can see that state legitimacy has been a problem for Russians over the past century.
But, the problem is that Yeltsin was elected, with 57 percent of the vote. Lvov and Kerensky were legitimate, and the world recognized Lenin's revolution. Besides, by 1922, when the USSR was recognized the tsar and his family were dead and Kerensky and Lvov were in Paris.
So it's kind of hard to argue with the legitimacy of those decisions. I mean I don't like a lot of George W. Bush's decisions, but the guy was elected in 2004 and he is the legitimate authority of the US.
Mhmh, if only rational approach would be so popular amongst those, who still regret the loss of empire. More usual is, however, to find something, supporting their line (as in the case of 1991 references to the Soviet referendum in 1991 spring or something similar) and ignore everything else.
However, thanks for picking up this
thematics in english, there are definitely also those, who will think.
The Russian people were too consulted, just as much as any nation in this day and age.
Unfortunately they probably have the lowest political IQ in the more or less Western world.
What's ridiculous as the amount of overkill on campaign spending. Why make it look like a fixed vote, if he would have won anyway?
Well, here's a comparison. Estonians correctly view the Soviet anschluss in Estonia in 1940 as illegitimate.
Why? Because the elected authorities of that time all deemed it so. Konstantin Päts obviously didn't support it; his last proposal as president was to unite Estonia and Finland into a single state.
Prime Minister Jüri Uluots didn't support it. His first action after the Soviet withdrawal in 1941 was to petition the Nazi occupation troops to restore Estonian sovereignty.
The Estonian popular fronts in the 1941-44 period certainly didn't support it. Their primary objective was the restoration of independence, which is what they tried to accomplish the minute the Germans pulled out.
AND, the Estonian people didn't support it. A guerrilla war continued on Estonia's territory until the mid-1950s.
So most people today view it as illegitimate: involuntary. What are the arguments against Kerensky or Yeltsin's legitimacy?
langust ütles...
- "right after ill-famous pogromist Nestor Mahno and equal to Lev Trotski as the most unpopular;"
Where on earth did you get this slanderous description of Makhno as a pogromist? I can only imagine that is was from some dusty Soviet-era text book. In reality, Makhno, a Ukrainian peasant, who was an admirer of both Bakunin and Kropotkin, is generally acknowledged by historians today as an anarchist who worked as a significant counterforce against both Bolshevist and Nationalist forces in that era. There is simply nothing in the historical record that would support a claim that Makhnovist forces engaged in pogramist activities. In fact, there were of good many Jewish anarchists within the ranks of the Makhnovschina and Makhno himself took a harsh view against anti-semites.
There is a good deal that has been written about Mahkno and his movement and I would encourage anyone with an interest to learn more about him as I think he represents one great "what ifs" from that revolutionary period.
I have not fully vetted this website but from what I've seen it looks like a good starting point:
http://www.nestormakhno.info/
Apologies for being a little off topic.
Well, anarchist bias is sometimes only a little better than bolschevist one. From Estonian perspective, Mahno was a good guy, though.
Dima-Bear - our Prezident http://litemoney.blogspot.com/
Пеленгатор
Одноночники
Однотрахники
Аудио наркотики
Postita kommentaar