Posted on 02/18/2007 4:18:05 PM PST by kawaii
16 February 2007, 16:42 ROCOR criticizes the Constantinople Patriarchate for ‘perpetual interference’ in the Russian Orthodox Church’s affaires
Paris, February 16, Interfax - The problems in relationships between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Constantinople arise because of the latter, Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) said.
He said he meant Constantinople’s ‘perpetual interference in Russian affaires.’
‘Their interference has become large-scale since 1917, the year of the Bolshevik revolution, when they started meddling with the Russian matters, and it goes on in Estonia and Ukraine,’ the archbishop told the participants of the conference held earlier this week in Paris and engaged with issues of re-union of the Russian Orthodox Church’s two parts.
The archbishop expressed his hope that ‘those who were responsible for that would come to their senses and find in themselves enough strength to correct this untrue way.’
Well, K, Moscow and the ROCOR people always have the option of a schism; they're well practiced at that.
For another Russian Church attitude, this is an interesting article from the same website:
"Tallinn’s review of liberation from Nazis is a measure of hatred USA has for Russia – Andrey Kurayev"
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2614
The Russians are just using an old Soviet tactic: Make all those who oppose them look like fascists.
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2606
The Estonian Orthodox are better off under the EP than under the MP. Sad, but true.
K Orthodoxy had mentioned in council that bishops don't interfere into the matters of other local bishops in council almost before constaninople jumped 3 patriarchates to be called new rome...
greece has a huge pro communist movement btw.
sad but true.
i mean its not like the government is bowing to the greek church though and arresting whole monastaries for disagreeing with him.
"The Russians are just using an old Soviet tactic: Make all those who oppose them look like fascists."
The Cold War may be ramping up again. Aside from the Soviet period, and even then in part and probably for understandable if not laudable reasons, the Russian Church has always been closely connected with the Russian government and worked in tandem with those various governments. The same I suppose can be said about all state churches, at least in the past. This cuts both ways, though. On the one hand, a powerful state church, assuming it is truly Christian, can have a positive effect on state civil policy. On the other hand, it can also become a tool of distinctly secular state policy, to the detriment of the Faith and the particular church involved.
I must say I am concerned with what I am seeing from the Russian Church. It is increasingly identified with Putin and its pronouncements about the reunion with ROCOR all speak of a uniting of the Russian people with the Mother Church. That is of course true, but there are very, very large numbers of non Russians in ROCOR these days. One wonders what their position will be in a reconstituted "Russian club". It has taken Greek Orthodoxy and Antiochian Orthodoxy 100 years to begin, and I say again, begin, to move away from that sort of ethno-phyletism. The future of what are now ROCOR parishes in the West could become uncomfortable if they are seen as outposts of a resurgent, antagonistic Russia. Elsewhere I suppose there could be places where this would be attractive, maybe some places in the Middle East, but certainly not in Eastern Europe. Even the Serbs, who have the most to lose on account of the West right now and are looking to Russian support in the UN, voted with the the rest of the Orthodox in support of the EP's position as first among equals among the Orthodox and against the Russians at the Belgrade session of the Catholic/Orthodox dialogs. Likely that had more to do with keeping faith with the ancient canons than anything else, but decades under Russian lead/imposed communism may have had at least a little to do with it.
i'm increasingly concerned how the church of constainiple seems more inclined to prostelize foreign parishes and interfere in local matters of other patriarchs than to convert muslims (content with a few blocks in a muslim capital that used be an orthodox bastion).
btw the OCA is completly aligned with the MP and calling them ethnic is laughable K.
don't think that the Antiochians and other patriarchates are going to put up with the EP forever. The EP is aligning with the Pope, and the churhes splitting from the MP ARE MOURING THE NAZIS DEFEAT.
Wow I mean how papist can you get?
Americans, Englishmen, Serbs and Russians, allied against a patriarchate over a few city blocks which has professed papism for over 100 years interfering wily nilly over local patriachates?
keep in mind that the ecumenical patriarchate saw 1917 as an oppurunity to introduce the new calendar by WORKING WITH THE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT TO MANDATE THE RUSSIANS FOLLOW SUIT.
here's some Englishmen's thoughts
MOSCOW THE THIRD ROME?
Russia's inner meaning and calling, the very purpose of her existence, her God-given destiny, is to gather the peoples of the world together, each with its own personality and particularity and culture, into the Church of Christ...The Soviet State exported its faith to the four corners of the earth. We might suppose that had Russia remained faithful to Christ, she would have exported another faith to those four corners. Instead of sending kalashnikovs to Africa and India, China and Central America, to Afghanistan and Vietnam, to Cuba and Korea, she would have sent Orthodox missionaries. She would not have translated the works of Lenin into a hundred tongues, but the service-books of the Church of Christ.
From 'The Saints of Russia and the Universality of Orthodoxy', November 1993, Pp. 267 and 272 in 'Orthodox Christianity and the English Tradition'.
Talks on the official restoration of communion are afoot between the Russian Orthodox Patriarchal Church in Moscow and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR). The November visit to Moscow of an episcopal delegation from the Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), the Conference of 150 selected ROCOR clergy in the USA and the subsequent Council of ROCOR Bishops dedicated to this question indicate that both parts of the Russian Church are moving together. These events appear to have taken place with conciliatory declarations by both sides, each side asking for forgiveness for rash and ill-thought-out words and actions in the recent past.
Personal experience with the old Russian emigration in England and with Orthodoxy in Greece and France (1974-1983) and again in France (1983-1997), then as priest-in-charge of the only all-new Russian immigrant parish outside Russia in Lisbon (1992-97), and then since 1997 experience with a small multinational parish in England, has led me as an observer of these events to a number of thoughts.
First of all, it is clear that the hackneyed Cold War language of 'return to the Mother Church', 'absorption', 'liquidation', 'reunion with the Patriarchate' are irrelevant. (See the Declaration of Archbishop Mark at www.synod.com). We are talking about both parts of the Russian Church coming together in mutual repentance without politicking of any sort, their unity refound in Church Tradition.
Other terms have also been defined. The 2000 Statement by the Patriarchate clearly means that the erastian position of the Patriarchal Church, known by the name of Sergianism, has been dropped. The interference of the Russian State in the internal affairs of the Russian Church is no longer acceptable. The canonisation by the Patriarchate in 2000 of New Martyrs who condemned Sergianism and died for the Orthodox Faith makes this clear. Perhaps it still needs to be made even clearer by some even more formal statement from Moscow, so that doubters can understand this.
Perhaps also some statement on Ecumenism also needs to be issued by the Patriarchate. The word Ecumenism itself is notoriously difficult to define. Having anathematised the absurd Branch theory in 1983, ROCOR needs a clear statement from the Patriarchate on Ecumenism. The Patriarchal statement on Ecumenism that the Orthodox Church is the One True Church and that its ecumenical witness is purely missionary should reassure many. Its recent decision to cut off relations with Anglicans who justify the practice of homosexuality (See: www.mospat.ru) is also equally clear, as is the desire to continue to talk to orthodox Anglicans. But here there are doubts, for example with the recent actions of the heirs of the late Metropolitan Nikodim. But perhaps the errors of one particular bishop could be overlooked, if a clear statement against intercommunion were to be issued by the Patrairchate once and for all.
The recent letter of Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk to the Greek Metropolitan Meliton against the secular position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople concerning the proposed anti-Christian EU Constitution suggest a very healthy appreciation by the Patriarchate of the situation in the Non-Orthodox Western denominations. His statement that we need to witness to Christ in order to save the last vestiges of Christian Faith in the West are very welcome and are in accord with the historic mission of the Russian Church. It is exactly what ROCOR has been doing for decades (See this site: 'An Alternative Constitution for the EU'). This ties in with the declaration of Patriarch Alexis himself that in Russia there is no such thing as a 'post-Christian society' (See www.radonezh.ru). Russia has been in a post-Christian society, it is now coming out of it: let the West which is entering a post-Christian society, learn from Russia (See our article on this site: 'Church, State and Society in Russia in the Twentieth Century').
On the other hand, it is also clear that the situation of the Patriarchate in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious State such as the Russian Federation must also be understood. It is inevitable that the Patriarchate has to deal with questions concerning relations with Islam, Judaism, Catholicism etc in a way that ROCOR simply does not. Perhaps a solution acceptable to both sides would be that the Patriarchate relinquish full membership of the World Council of Churches and adopt observer status, as other Local Orthodox Church have done. The advantages of membership of the WCC must now be virtually non-existent and the disadvantages overwhelming.
Then there is the question of more or less well-known controversies surrounding certain personalities within the Patriarchate. The fact is that during the Cold War and for many years after it, certain personalities both inside and outside Russia were allowed to commit immoral deeds. Many of us are all too painfully aware of the pastoral disasters within the Patriarchate as a result and have suffered hugely personally. Although now many of the personalities involved have either been removed or else have died, surely something better must be done than simply ignoring the consequences of these problems. There must be some in the Patriarchate who fear that the scandals will come out and be spattered across the pages of the Western media. This would do a disservice to all Orthodox. Apologies to all concerned, made in a Christian manner, would perhaps be enough and nobody would demand payment for damages. Let the Patriarchate everywhere behave as a mother, not as a stepmother, taking responsibility for its wayward children of the Cold War.
On the other hand, it is also true that the Patriarchate seems to be returning to the Tradition and canonical practices. The recent statement by Metropolitan Kirill that there would be no unthinkable change from the Orthodox to the Catholic calendar or change to using Russian in services are welcome (See www.radonezh.ru). The recent plea for a stavropegic parish from Patriarchal faithful in London has been dealt with a certain understanding (See this site: 'Old Problems Surface Anew at the Patriarchal Cathedral'). Orthodox souls have indeed not been understood. The recent and forthcoming Conferences in Moscow on Ecclesiology, gathering together serious representatives of other Local Orthodox Churches, indicates that the Patriarchate is taking up again its historic role as leader of World Orthodoxy, as before the Revolution (See www.mospat.ru, in particular regarding the Conference 'Russia and the Orthodox World' in February 2004). If we could all see an end to uncanonical practices and ordinations, weddings on Saturdays, cremations, the restoration of fasting, confession and the veneration of the New Martyrs and Confessors (as in the Patriarchal church in Dublin), this would further reinforce ROCOR confidence in the Patriarchate. It is difficult to take seriously Patriarchal churches outside Russia which refuse to have icons of the New Martyrs or sell the works of the ever-memorable Fr Seraphim Rose, works which are bestsellers inside Russia.
Perhaps the two parts of the Russian Church are indeed going to come together in the next few months or years. There seems to be common ground that ROCOR should for the present time remain a single Autonomous Metropolia of the Russian Church outside the Russian Federation, the model for this being the Autonomous Ukranian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in the Ukraine (See www.russian-church.de). Possible in the distant future this would turn into different Metropolia (See our article on this site: 'The Path to R.O.M.E., R.O.M.A. and R.O.M.A.N.Z.'). The main difference would be that sacramental communion and concelebration would be restored. We can think back to ROCOR bishops like the ever-memorable Archbishop Antony of Geneva and Bishop Mitrofan of Boston and many others who sadly did not live long enough in this world to see this day that they would so much have wanted.
As mere observers, it is not possible to predict what will actually happen. Indeed the participants themselves do not know exactly the timescales ahead. But perhaps it is already possible to see that the Russian Orthodox Church is now at last beginning to start again where it was forced to leave off in 1917. After a tragic interruption of some three generations owing to savage atheist persecution, new worldwide perspectives are now opening up. Moscow is becoming a global Church, the dream of Moscow the Third Rome and Second Jerusalem is perhaps now less unreal. We await further events, but we must never forget the fates of both the First Rome and the Second Rome.
The First Rome lost its way because it forgot its martyrs and turned itself into a Caesaropapist State. The Second Rome lost its way because it forgot its Confessors and was willing to exchange its destiny of humility for a betrayal of the Faith. The Third Rome must do neither. In the long term it must found new Local Churches outside Russia, strengthening the Confederal, Trinitarian nature of the Family of Local Orthodox Churches, Unity in Diversity. A unified Russian Church of the Martyrs (inside Russia) and of the Confessors (outside Russia), a Church of Martyrdom and Confessordom, may be now the only bulwark in this world against the coming of Anti-Christ.
And now ye know what witholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work. (2 Thess. 2, 6-7).
Priest Andrew Phillips,
Seekings House,
Felixstowe,
England
30 Nov/13 December
Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called
Yup, OK. When the rest of the Orthodox world is ready to accept the embrace of the Russain bear, then I'll worry. I don't see much point in continuing this conversation, K. Please don't ping me again on this or any other topic.
not at all they want to be under the yoke of muslims like the greeks.
i mean orthodox are just jumping to have to ask muslim rules when they can come and go right?
i'm waiting to see how world orthodoxy acts after the EP plants their flag in kosovo. i mean it's a perfect fit. if anyone knows how to go about the muslims' beck and call it's the EP.
They are not mourning the Nazis defeat. They are mourning a Soviet re-conquest of a once independent Estonia. They should mourn.
The Soviets were scum. Do you doubt that? The Nazis were scum too, of course, but they were the scum that chased out the Soviet scum and were thought of as allies against the much more frightening Soviet scum. Get the picture?
the growing pro nazi positions in estonia are no secret.
you'll note btw more Russian Christians were killed by Stalin than were Jews by the Nazis btw.
Calling ROCOR socialists would be laughable if it weren't vile.
the fact is that the EP is power grabbing and inviting every schismatic group that sends him a letter autocephaly.
How pathetic that a nation wanting to mourn its forced subservience under Communism is accused of celebrating Naziism.
acdtually it was estonians wearing swastikas in parades that helped promote that impression.
Mainstream Estonian Newspaper Accused of Inciting Antisemitism
http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/030905Estonia.shtml
The article is biased enough from the false statement that: "Nazi Germany occupied Estonia and its Baltic neighbors at the start of World War II, and the three countries were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union at the close of the war, in 1945."
When in reality, it was the Soviets who occupied Estonia and its Baltic neighbors at the start of World War II, and it was Nazi Germany who chased the Soviets out and gave them back a measure of self-governance until the Soviets again came back in 1945.
So you favor censorship for all because of the actions of a few nuts?
Oh boy! Better hang that guy, eh? (/sarcasm)
Estonia's rehabilitation of it's SS soldiers, defense of the Swastika, consideration of Jews who fought the Nazis as 'occupiers', parades features SS Swastika wearing solderis, and mourning of the Nazi loss speak to one thing; they support the Nazis.
Where do we dra the line on what constitutes a 'healthy dislike for the soviets'? Is it okay if they round up Jews or dress up in SS atire and invade their neighbors okay because 'well they just dont like the communists'.
ROCOR has been anti-communism for 100 years, and worked to get religious materials into Russia throughout the soviet occupation. They never needed to glorify Nazi SS troops to accomplish that.
Kawaii,
I knew some Estonians who had served with the German forces in WWII. They were not Nazis. They hated the Soviet Union and long during the war considered the Germans liberators and the Soviets oppressors.
You wrote: "you'll note btw more Russian Christians were killed by Stalin than were Jews by the Nazis btw."
Yes, I know. That just proves that the Estonians had more to fear from the Soviets than the Germans doesn't it?
"Calling ROCOR socialists would be laughable if it weren't vile."
Thankfully I never did that.
"the fact is that the EP is power grabbing and inviting every schismatic group that sends him a letter autocephaly."
Maybe. I think his motives are purer than that. Also, it seems to me that ROCOR could be called a schismatic group.
You wrote:
"How pathetic that a nation wanting to mourn its forced subservience under Communism is accused of celebrating Naziism."
Amen!!! I am not denying that there were German supporters in Estonia. Of course there were. There were among the Russians too. To call them Nazis, however, is a distortion.
Honoring men who choose to fight the Soviets, even in an SS uniform, is not the same thing as honoring Nazis. The Nazis were evil. So were the Communists. One group was sometimes considered better than the other however, depending on time, place, and the group that believed they needed them or hated them. That's just reality.
A Nazi is someone who is a member of the Nazi Party. Fighting in the uniform of Germany under the Nazi government doesn't make you a Nazi (was Vlasov a Nazi?). Saying a member of the Estonian Army who joined the Wehrmacht or SS during WWII to fight the Soviets was a Nazi, is like saying that a Mexican immigrant who joins the US Army to fight in Iraq is therefore a Republican because the Republican Party is in power.
The Tories weren't British but it's clear who benefitted from their efforts.
If they weren't British, what were they then? They were of British ancestory and citizenship, loyal to the British crown, and fled to British jurisdiction after the war. I hardly see them as American.
How is the following argument incorrect? The Soviets wished to continue their genocide of the Estonian people begun in 1940-1941. Estonian troops wearing SS uniforms were Estonian patriots. Their fighting prolonged Estonia's freedom from Communism.
That is what they are arguing. What is the logical flaw in that arguement according to you?
your argument might hold if that's all that was going but the same folks standing up for the swastika are the ones saying that the jews who fought the nazis were an occupying force.
your argument if true works the same in reverse. if you think all the folks who fought the nazis in red army uniforms were communists you're crazy; most were jews and estonians who stood up to get rid of the nazis.
these folks were heroic in their cause. if it's fine to celebrate the ss troops who you aledge fought for estonia it should be fine to celebrate the estonians who joined the incoming red army to give the nazis the boot. (the estonian president btw agreed and veto'ed the bill to nix the statues).
at the time folks were happy to see the reds (then part of the allies!) coming on in! and joined up in droves to liberate themselves from the Nazis, in the process fighting the estonian SS troops who were siding with Nazi Germany over their countrymen btw.
the fact is the folks who're creating the its okay to remember the ss troops (swastikas and all) and who defend the swastika yet denounce the hammer and sickle and the red army folks who fought the nazis are not doing so out of patriotisim their doing so because of anti-jew pro-fascist leanings long dormant in estonia and their just trying to dup regular minded folks with their phony patriotism.
so how does that justify denouncing the estonians who joined ranks with the red army hoping to save estonia from the Nazis?
vlasov changed sides so often it's hard to think he was much more than a mercenary really. not really comparable here. he fought for the red army, he fought for the nazis, at points he fought against the white army. he changed sides every time he thought someone else was going to win.
You wrote:
"so how does that justify denouncing the estonians who joined ranks with the red army hoping to save estonia from the Nazis?"
No one could save Estonia by handing it to the Soviets. The Nazis were LESS destructive to the Estonians than the Soviets.
I thought the Russian Jews held it as a badge of courage and honor that they made up such a large proportion of the Partisan forces? Are you claiming the Russian Jews were not among the Partisans? Or are you claiming that Russian Jews didn't fight against the Nazis? I'm confused at what your point is.
And the Russian Army itself certainly had many Jewish Commisars. The behavior of these Commisars in the newly occupied areas of Galacia and the Baltic Countries in 1940-1941 certainly provides a good motive account for the unbelieveable and indescriminate slaughter of the local Jewish male population carried out by the Ukranians and Balts immediately after the arrival of the vanguard of the Wehrmacht, and quite before any "Naziism" was imposed on them. There certainly was nothing like this in 1917-1918 when these areas also gained independence, despite the history of pogroms by the Cossacks in Russia proper, so whatever caused the local male population to suddenly want to slaughter every Jewish male in their midst in mid-1941 had to be something that happened before June 22, 1941.
How do you, as a supposed Christian, claim it is heroic to fight side-by-side with the legions of anti-Christ?
Whatever you want to think of the Nazis, they certainly were not the ones closing down the Orthodox Churches and killing their priests and faithful. Quite the contrary, when the Wehrmacht arrived in town, one of the first things they did was to go and find any priests in hiding, or supply newly trained ones from the west, and get them to reopen the parishes.
in the process fighting the estonian SS troops who were siding with Nazi Germany over their countrymen btw
You really have a strange way of putting things. The Estonian SS were not against their own countrymen. It wasn't like the Germans were going about killing Estonians and deporting them to Siberia. Rather, it was the partisans of the Soviets who were traitors to Estonia, since they were fighting against Estonian independence, and for the opressors of their own people, who were bent on their genocide through deportation, ethnic cleansing, repopulation, russification, and supression. Lets not forget, it was the Soviets who "liberated" Estonia by carpetbombing Narva and Tallin. God save us from such "liberation"!
anti-jew pro-fascist leanings long dormant in estonia
When did anyone accuse the Estonians of being "anti-jew" before 1940? There were barely a couple thousand Jews in the whole country! How could such "leanings" be "long dormant" as you say, when it is doubtful most people in Estonia had ever even seen or met a Jew outside of the Bible?
I'd like to know how many Estonians who were not members of the Communist Party of Estonia actually did any of this "volunteering"?
And how was Russian occupation and the continued destruction of the Estonian nation going to "save" the country from the Nazis? This sounds like Communists platitudes about "peace". It wasn't as though the Nazis were persecuting the Estonians - quite the contrary!
You wrote:
"You need to go rent the Czech Film 'Divided we Fall'. The Nazis were no less destructive than the Soviets, and when the Soviets came into East Europe they enjoyed popular support especially amoung the Jews who'd been being shipped off to camps to be gassed. That's who the soldiers in these statues were built to honor."
I prefer to rely on historical fact. I was, years ago, a member of the AABS (Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies). Yes, there really is such an organization. I met many, many Balts, including Estonians. They definitely prefered the Germans to the Soviets. The Germans WERE NOT AS DESTRUCTIVE to Estonia as the Soviets. When the Germans invaded Estonia how many Estonians ran into the Russia? None except the communists. When the Soviets came back in 1944-45 how many Estonians fled? Tens of thousands - including one of my professors from college who escaped with his father who had been a judge and had been denied work under the Soviets.
"Mourning this would be like mourning DDay because the Japanese were still in the fight."
Nonsense. There is simply no reason to celebrate being occupied by the Soviets if you didn't mind the previous occupation so much. Please think. I am not defending the Nazis or even the Germans in general, but you sure are making a case for the Soviet scum as good guys when they really weren't. I make no such mistake. They were our allies. We needed them to win. They were still scum. It would have been better if the Nazis and Communists wiped each other out!
"Not to mention that without the Red Army hitting the Nazis from the East the allies would have had a lot harder time than they did."
True. They were valuable, murderous, communist scum. But they were still murderous communist scum. Do you deny that they were murderous scum?
"If the Nazis had managed to capture Moscow Europe might well be speaking German today."
I have nothing against Europe speaking German. I do have something against Europe speaking it with a Nazi affectation.
"So what they're really mourning is that more allies didn't perish, and that Hitler wasn't able to carry out his plans."
Nope. You can twist this anyway you like -- since you live in a free society which is not under the same communist style government you seem to think was right for the Estonians.
"Europe wanted to ban both symbols (the hammer and sickle AND the swastika) yet there were only folks in Estonia who stood up for the Swastika."
They stood up for the symbol THEY identified as a symbol of liberators. Strange isn't it? Southerners sometimes think of the Stars and Bars as a symbol of freedom. Do you see it that way? I bet you wouldn't if you were black. See how politics can turn the world upside down?
"I might buy an idealistic 'but they only wanted freedom of speech' argument if they defended both, but it's clear they had a dog in the fight."
I certainly hope they had a dog in the fight. The hammer and sickle was a symbol of oppression, cultural oppression, conquest, murder, rape, theft, lies, atheism and Russification. The swastika represented NONE of that to the average Estonian. That was the reality of things in 1941-1945.
I always accept reality. It makes no sense to do otherwise.
Can you name a single city the Nazis destroyed and depopulated during their invasions? You know, like the Soviets (and the Allies) destroyed all manner of European cities through aerial bombardment from Brest to Narva? And how they affected the depopulation of huge swaths of land between the Oder and the Dnieper?
when the Soviets came into East Europe they enjoyed popular support especially amoung the Jews who'd been being shipped off to camps to be gassed.
You are very confused on your history. When the Soviets came in the first time in 1939-1940, there hadn't been any persecution of the Jews and no one was being gassed, but they certainly did enjoy some local Jewish support among the non-Orthodox segment of the Jewish population. It was in early 1941 that many Jews, along with other many other people in the swath of the newly expanded Soviet Union from Moldova to Estonia were evacatued/fled/moved to the Ural Mountain areas, Moscow, and even Siberia in Stalin's vast industrial removal program to protect vital war industires from falling into German hands.
Now when the Soviets came back in 1944-1945, outside of Hungary and Rumania, there weren't many Jews in Eastern Europe to celebrate their arrival, because they were either dead, or had already fled behind Soviet lines in 1939-1941. Moreover, transportation to camps was a strictly western phenomena to hide the killing of western Jews. The Jews who were killed in the East were killed on the spot by guns or by being worked to death.
Not to mention that without the Red Army hitting the Nazis from the East the allies would have had a lot harder time than they did.
This is such a bunch of baloney. A tremendous amount of Allied war material was being shipped directly to Vladivostok, Murmansk, and Arkhangelsk for the benefit fo the Reds, and without which they would have lost no later than the fall of 1942. Had the Red Army been defeated, or not been fighting, there is no reason to think that the Allies could not have either defeated Hitler, or made a suitable peace with anti-Hitler German groups. Hitler was obviously a one-man band cult of personality who wouldn't have made it alive to 1950 with his quack personal doctors. The Anglosphere had twice the population resources of Hitler, an essentially unlimited supply of strategic materials, the atomic bomb, and long-range bombers. With a defeated Russia, most of Hitler's armed forces would have still been tied up attempting to pacify 100 million Russians. Even had Hitler destroyed the Soviet State by 1942, by 1945, Berlin and the Ruhr would have been even more of a smoldering rubble heap like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By the time Hitler would have been able to rectify his error in not pursuing atomic power, if he survived the initial attack on Berlin, America would have the capability to wipe Germany off the map. Quite possibly, we would have by then harnassed the awesome poer of the hydrogen bomb by 1947 and been capable of even greater acts of annhilation against any last ditch resistors among the Nazis.
The Soviets did nothing for the Allied cause in Europe, or against Japan. All they did was invade and occupy innocent nations we were allegedly fighting the Nazis to protect the independence of. They should go down as the most worthless, duplicitous, and self-dealing "Ally" of recent history.
If the Nazis had managed to capture Moscow Europe might well be speaking German today.
Apparently such a prospect greatly saddens you, while 50-80 years of Central and Eastern Europe speaking Russian is something to be celebrated.
Churches splitting from the MP are mourning the Nazis defeat? Sir, that is probably one of the most ridiculous utterances I have ever come across! NO ONE, I think, “mourns the Nazis defeat.” If you sincerely beleive that they dom I would suggest that you get your head out of whatever nonsense it is in, and look at the cutrrent news, etc. Things are not good-as usual with this world. Which is taught by Christ btw! And, your beloved Russia is not doing much to make things better either-possibly, before Russia goes crying and whining and moaning again that some “enemy” has offended it, maybe Russia should ATTEMPT to gain a positive perspective, and offer some tangibe positives to the world, rather than continue unendingly whining about imagined enemies! I think there is a medicine to take for paranoia! It might help!
There is NO “Third Rome,” and if there was, it would certainly not be Putin the Tyrant’s Moscow! The thought is downright laughable!
there were supporters of the Germans in Estonia (and Lithuania and Latvia) because they did not want to be subjected to what they saw as a RUSSIAN tyranny under the most cruel and unjust regime ever in power on this earth-the bolsheviks!
Yes, Hitler was bad indeed but even today, when Stalins record of murdering many more millions than Hitler did is well known, Russians still insist that the Communist regime uner Stalin was some sort of heroic wonderful benificent government! The Commuinsts were hundreds of timew worse than the Nazis! The heores are those who helped lift this curse from mankind! Death to communism!
Check out what happened in Estonia and what the Estonian Nationalists ‘Orthodox’ are doing; celebrating the Nazis. You should get out more.
They are phyletists and split from their canonical Bishop in support of nationalism and they’re the same folks dressing in full SS attire in parades.
Moscow has been reffered to by the church as the Third Rome for Centuries.
It was before communism and it remains so after communism’s short lived tyrrany over the church.
You’re responding to a post from four months ago?
“On the whole I don’t think the average Red Army soldier was a ‘murderous communist scum’...”
I’m not so sure. Would you also say that on the whole they weren’t rapists? Remember what happened when the Soviet thugs got into Germany?
“... most fought to avoid speaking german when the Nazi’s were on the verge of taking Moscow.”
Most fought because they had been programmed to do so by their Communict Party masters. These same masters told them NOT TO FIGHT THE GERMANS when they jointly invaded Poland in 1939.
“Stalin sold the people a pack of lies.”
Agreed.
“If he hadn’t reopened the churches he’d never have managed to fend off the Nazis as communism never enjoyed much support among the average folks;”
I’m not sure it mattered as much as you think.
“... they weren’t going to die for an athiest state or Joe Stalin (Who was a bloodthirsty communist scumbag).”
But they were dying for that atheist state and continued to do so for 50 more years.
Whatever it is that the Estonians are doing now that bothers you so very much amounts to what? It amounts to absolutely nothing! Is a “Nazi” government going to take over Estonia? No. Is a “resurgent Nazi Estonia” going to conquer Russia, Europe, and begin a new killing spree? No. Are some Estonians going somewhat kookoo with all this Nazi stuff? Yes. Why are they going kookoo with this Nazi stuff? To prove the point that the Soviets were murderous tyrants who deprived Estonia of its freedom for decades. Estonians equate Soviet Communism, Soviet Tyranny, and Soviet Murder with Russians. Is this a wonder? No. Due to the horrible treatment the Estonians received at the hands of the “fraternal Russian and Soviet peoples,” is it a wonder that many Estonians hate the Russians? No. So-basically-what is your point? That the Estonians should bend their knees to thank the Glorious Socialist Motherland for its years of tyranny over Estonia? Or what? I dont get out much? hahaha-yeh right! Sounds like you dont either!
“Russia has been referred to as the Third Rome for years bla bla bla-” yes, I know that. It has been referred to the Third Rome by those who support that conclusion, which is HARDLY a universal conclusion. And I repeat-the fact that ANYONE could consider Russia under banana dictator Putin the KGB Man as the Third Rome is completely LAUGHABLE! A BAD JOKE! The Third Rome? When did “the Third Rome” theorists ever contemplate a Russian “Ruler” who bowed before Hindu Idols as did Putin on a visit to India? Maybe you should change it to the “Third Bombay” or the “New Hindustan”!!
“26-27 million Soviet citizens died helping put a stop to Nazism.”
Yes, I know that, too. Many of those 26-27 million, in the rear, behind the battle lines, WOULD HAVE DIED ANYWAY under Stalin had they refused to fight the Germans. The battle in the Soviet Union was not one of complete self sacrifice to save the world from fascism-it was also to save Stalin’s ass from his former ally, Hitler, and to spread bolshevism. (Oh yes-what about that? WHY did the Soviet Russians ALLY themsleves to Hitler, the Nazis, the Fascists???? Did they like the Nazis too? HHHMMMMMMM???) And, how many Russians were OVERJOYED at the arrival of German troops, greeting them with Bread and Salt? How many of those Russian troops who fought the Germans, and had the misfortune to be captured as prisoners of war ALSO lost their lives as “unreliables” after the war, at the hand of Stalin?? How many Russians and Soviet citizens PUT TO DEATH by Stalin are included in this figure of 26-27 million??? Remeber, lease, Soviet figures and “histories” are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable!
Soviet DEJA VU: I read recently that the Moscow Patriarchate in Estonia has been allowing the FSB to conduct espionage in Estonia under the guise of the Church! Gee, just like the Soviet Union Dyadya Volodya!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.