So I was reading through @sunaurus@lemm.ee 's comment about Estonian demographic history and felt intrigued by some of the claims, so I did a teeny tiny bit of digging to see what I could find. So here goes:
-
The Estonian population expanded rapidly during the industrial revolution right up to the 1910s.
-
World War 1 and the Great Depression manage to suppress population growth for the next decade.
-
Nazi occupation of Estonia (marked RKO) coincides with WW2. The vast majority of ethnic Jews flee to the USSR, and those whl stayed behind were exterminated. The nazis and their Estonian collaborators built concentration camps. This coincides with a dip in the graph.
-
After WW2, Estonia is back under the USSR. The first Estonian SSR was established in 1940-1941 when nazi occupation started. After some lag, the population begins climbing on the same curve it did before. The population of the country peaks in 1989.
-
20000 people were deported to Russia very early in the existence of the SSR
-
The nazis aimed to remove 50% of the population on paper but only had 4yrs to do so. This means using concentration camps on ethnic Estonians for germans to take their homes/land as in palestine today.
-
20k is not the same as sunaurus’s 20% claim, not even close. 20% does however match the proportion of modern estonians who are russian. The obvious conclusion one can gather from this comparison is that this is not dissimilar to Great Replacement propaganda. The assumption here is that ethnic Russians are taking up Estonian space, because the evidence points to massive population growth under the ussr rather than a contraction like the one that occurred with German occupation.
Immigration was highest during that huge growth period, so I’m curious where all those excess deaths and gulags occurred to have not slowed or stopped said growth. It sounds to me like this person is just intimidated by people they consider foreign.
Thanks for the ping, OP. I don’t expect much good to come out of commenting here - I assume if you guys see “only” 20k people being repressed as not evil, then there’s not much I can do to defend myself here. Nevertheless, I can try.
First of all, the 20k number is certainly downplaying reality a lot (which is quite typically done in Russian sources). The amount of real victims is certainly higher. Also remember that Estonia is a very small country - even if the soviets “only” deported, imprisoned and/or executed a five digit number of Estonians, then that is still something between one in every hundred to one in every ten Estonians being directly repressed (not to mention the families and close ones of victims, who were of course also indirectly affected).
As for the 20% population replacement - on the very graph you posted, you can see that the size of the Estonian population was quite similar during the 30s and the 50s (around 1.1mil). According to a 1934 census, the population was ~90% of Estonian descent. Another census in 1959 showed that demographics had changed significantly - the population was ~75% of Estonian descent. I assure you that ~165 000 people did not magically change their descent in that period of time - this change was the direct result of deportations, executions, forced drafts into dictator-led armies, etc. The occupiers straight up had an official policy of “russification” - the goal to replace Estonian people and culture with a soviet people.
Finally, let me be clear that I don’t really care what the percentage of repressed people is. It might as well be just 1% - I would still consider the soviet union evil. In fact, they took away the freedom of 100% of my nation, so arguing over percentages seems completely useless.
It’s honestly one of the weirdest experiences on Lemmy so far to have to defend my condemnation of invaders and occupiers. I have received several DMs and comments trying to tell me that in fact my sovereign country having it’s independence taken away was not such a bad thing, and really the occupation was all the west’s fault anyway. It’s the same kind of rhetoric I see used against Ukraine today. It’s messed up to see a full post about how crimes against humanity are not actually that bad, but here we are.
Another census in 1959 showed that demographics had changed significantly - the population was ~75% of Estonian descent. I assure you that ~165 000 people did not magically change their descent in that period of time - this change was the direct result of deportations, executions, forced drafts into dictator-led armies, etc.
Assuming that the migration of every single person to and from Estonia was forced and done in deliberate pursuit of russification is a pretty major flaw in this argument. Economic migration in the rest of the USSR was common. Why do you rule that out completely for Estonia?
I don’t make the assumption that every single person was forced. As I said, I think it serves no purpose to argue over what percentage was forced (even though it’s pretty clear that the majority of that number was indeed repressed).
By the way, there has been significant research and investigation done into the exact extent of losses and repression during the occupation (both by nazis and soviets). If you’re interested, have a look at this report. Quoting from the foreword:
In 1992, the Riigikogu of the Republic of Estonia established the Estonian State Commission on Examination of the Policies of Repression (ESCEPR) and set it „the final goal to publish a scientific investigation into all the losses and damages suffered by the Estonian nation during the occupation regimes”.
Only now, after twelve years of investigation work, the ESCEPR is able to publish a survey, which sums up the present state of our knowledge, in the form of eight original papers dedicated to the following fields: population, cultural life, environment and economy.
Also, if you read the report, please read it with the awareness that Estonia was a neutral country before being invaded by the soviets.
As I said, I think it serves no purpose to argue over what percentage was forced
Sure, but omitting nuance by default allows for painting a black-and-white picture of history, which helps fabricate a justification for nationalism. We hopefully all understand what that leads to and who benefits from it.
I will read it, although honestly I am not really confident about the reliability of the report so far, judging by the following (mutually unrelated) excerpts with the most interesting parts highlighted:
- THE CHARACTER OF REPRESSIVE ACTS COMMITTED IN ESTONIA BY THE SOVIET OCCUPATION
Because of their extent and severity, the repressive measures of this period can be compared to the Jewish holocaust, which is found to have caused long-term physical and/or mental disorders to nearly all the survivors.
Abortion, which had been forbidden in the Republic of Estonia and also initially in the Soviet Union, was legalised in 1955 and grew to be a serious problem, achieving its peak in the 1970s (in 1970 there were 188.7 terminations of pregnancy per 100 live births). This problem, too, has been carried over to the independent Estonia.
But the closed character of the Soviet system hindered development. In a normal and free society, the progress would have been more rapid. … The industrious work and skills of Estonian doctors had to compensate for the technical backwardness.
Besides the damage to physical environment caused by the occupation authorities, the psychological pollution of environment should also be noted. This was caused by several measures deriving from the repressive policy:
…
• polarising and splitting the nation under the false slogan of class struggle, persecuting patriotically-minded people, especially intelligentsia, establishing a totalitarian system of persecution and denunciation;
• forcing materialism and atheism, restricting church life, prohibiting and destroying religious books, physical and moral repression of the clergy and the believers;
• abolishing of all real convictions and principles, creating of a nation- less, godless and impersonal „herd human”. As a melancholy humoristic exaggeration one might say that a new subspecies of Homo sapiens developed, a Homo sovieticus.
The frequency of self-destructive behaviour, suicides and alcohol poisonings decreased (H. Noor, 1993), religious life livened up and birth rates increased sporadically. The crises of the transitional period that followed, did not bring along such positive changes any more.
Violation and plunder of the nation’s genetic fund — by destruction, forced deportation and banishment of the healthier part of the nation, — should also be considered as a far-reaching effect of Soviet repressive policy that had lasted for decades.
All in all, it reads more like fascist-leaning propaganda than a scientific report.
@trot@hexbear.net has covered the issues with that report in more detail (abortion is repression? really begs the question of repression of what, against who), but I’ll add that it was commissioned after the newly-independent Estonia repressed (declared illegal) the Communist Party of Estonia.
Finally, let me be clear that I don’t really care what the percentage of repressed people is. It might as well be just 1% - I would still consider the soviet union evil.
“I don’t care what the facts are, I’ve made up my mind.”
they took away the freedom of 100% of my nation
There was a native communist party which eventually split over the question of independence from the USSR. Did all those people who supported the Estonian SSR somehow have their freedoms taken away? At worst Estonia had a Cold War government that had some popular support, but not the support of a wide majority, which is hardly unique to Estonia.
defend my condemnation of invaders and occupiers
Maybe people would take you more seriously on this if you (1) cited your claims and (2) applied the same standard to other “invaders and occupiers.” For instance, I’m sure you don’t deny the genocide of American Indians or the fact that the U.S. stole their land and occupied it. But somehow that’s different and you don’t take down American flag emojis (or comments praising America) on sight.
“I don’t care what the facts are, I’ve made up my mind.”
How do you get from what I said to this, I have no idea.
Finally, let me be clear that I don’t really care what the percentage of repressed people is. It might as well be just 1% - I would still consider the soviet union evil.
You said you don’t care how many people were repressed. From another comment in this thread, you also don’t care how “repression” is defined (“repressed” in the report your other comment provided included “legalized abortion”).
If you are committed to characterizing the USSR as evil regardless of what they actually did, you don’t care about the facts, you’ve already made up your mind.
Because the whole point of me bringing up the 20% =/= 20k was to point out that your research was spotty or biased at best or that you’re an unreliable narrator at worst. That particular statement wasn’t a value judgement about the ethics of the USSR.
It’s funny though that you moved the goalposts as soon as you got caught being racist to an ethnic group in your own country. Is the Russian population a problem?
What do you call someone who believes people who lie to them all the time? I’d call them naive, gullible, uncurious, or maybe willfully ignorant.
- Mainstream published estimates (PDF link) of the total numbers of “victims of repression” in the 1930s have ranged from [3.5 million to 20 million]. The bases for these assessments are unclear in most cases and seem to have come from guesses, rumors, or extrapolation from isolated local observations… [From research into Soviet archives,] the documentable numbers of victims are much smaller.
- The Chinese government estimates more than 300 fatalities [in the aftermath of the Tiananmen demonstrations]… Student leader Wu’er Kaixi said he had seen 200 students cut down by gunfire, but it was later proven that he left the square several hours before the events he described allegedly occurred… A BBC reporter watching from a high floor of the Beijing Hotel said he saw soldiers shooting at students at the monument in the center of the square. But as the many journalists who tried to watch the action from that relatively safe vantage point can attest, the middle of the square is not visible from the hotel… When a journalist as careful and well-informed as Tim Russert, NBC’s Washington bureau chief, can fall prey to the most feverish versions of the fable, the sad consequences of reportorial laziness become clear. On May 31 on Meet the Press, Russert referred to “tens of thousands” of deaths in Tiananmen Square.
- Moreover, three of [The Black Book of Communism’s] main contributors (Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, and Nicolas Werth) publicly disassociated themselves from Stéphane Courtois’ statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct. Margolin and Werth felt that Courtois was “obsessed” with arriving at a total of 100 million killed which resulted in “sloppy and biased scholarship”, faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries, and rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism.
Anti-communist propaganda is full of mistakes, guesses, rumors, and outright lies. This is a fact even harsh critics of communist governments readily admit. You can’t take any of this junk at face value, even if there are grains of truth.
You also have to place the bad things communist countries have done in context. Say someone is arrested for working with a foreign government to overthrow the existing government – nearly every country on the planet arrests people for that, but it’s supposed to be some damning indictment when a communist country does it? Or compare FDR rounding up Japanese Americans (with little-to-no evidence of sabatoge) and putting them in concentration camps to Stalin deporting “unreliable” groups (some of whom actually were violently opposed to the USSR) to Siberia from the Eastern Front. Why is FDR portrayed as a great man, and his concentration camps are simply a tragic blemish, but Stalin is portrayed as a genocidal maniac, where the vast good he did (no individual was more responsible for defeating fascism) is irrelevant compared to his wrongs?
Yea, yea, I have seen the talking points before. I’m sure you just have plenty of legitimate questions about how many were killed and since the historic records arent very complete it can’t be that many, right. And even if they were killed then it was justified. I have gone through this song and dance before and it’s the same tune every time and it’s not interesting anymore.
According to a 1934 census, the population was ~90% of Estonian descent. Another census in 1959 showed that demographics had changed significantly - the population was ~75% of Estonian descent
hmmm, I wonder what happened between 1934 and 1959, it’s almost like you ignore the actual occupiers and genociders and just baseline wartime migration in favor of constructing a myth of a Russian ethnic cleansing of Estonians
This is ultranationalist drivel
You are so close. Just one more step - which two nations invaded and occupied Estonia between 1934 and 1959?
.png){kind=link}
