QuoteGeorgia destroys Soviet monument, offends Russia
Published: Friday 18 December 2009
Diggers tore into a Soviet World War Two memorial in Georgia on 17 December to make way for a new parliament in the former Soviet republic, angering Russia and opponents of pro-Western President Mikheil Saakashvili.
Saakashvili wants parliament sessions to be relocated to Georgia's second city of Kutaisi under an initiative to revitalise the former industrial hub.
But the demolition of a 46-metre-high concrete and bronze war memorial at the proposed construction site has been criticised by Georgia's opposition and Russia, which fought a brief war with US ally Georgia last year.
The Russian Defence Ministry issued a statement saying it was "concerned", and Duma deputy and former prime minister Sergei Stepashin said it was "sacrilege".
Critics said the move reflected an indifference to public opinion by authorities under Saakashvili, whose rejection of Georgia's Soviet past has been his signature policy since taking power on the back of the 2003 'Rose Revolution'.
Some 300,000 Georgians died fighting for the Soviet army during World War Two. "The decision to dismantle this memorial without asking the people and without asking the author of this memorial is a very good example of how our leadership ignores public opinion," said Georgy Akhvlediani of the opposition Christian Democrats.
Naked horseman
One part of the monument, a statue of a naked Georgian horseman in front of the main concrete structure, has already been removed. Authorities said it would be relocated within Kutaisi, 236 km (147 miles) west of the capital Tbilisi.
Municipal construction official Jemal Tsuladze told Reuters the bronze sections of the monument, built in 1982, would be kept in storage, but the main structure was too big to move.
"It was a government decision and we are just implementing it," he said. Kutaisi city officials could not confirm Russian media reports that the main structure - designed by Georgian sculptor Merab Berdzenishvili - would be blown up on 21 December, the birthday of Saakashvili which he shares with Josef Stalin.
A spokeswoman for Saakashvili declined to comment when contacted by Reuters. Russian officials said it was a crime. "The [...] criminal nature of such evil acts must be raised at all international events," Alexei Ostrovsky, a committee chairman in the Duma, the lower house of Russia's parliament, told RIA Novosti.
Relations between Russia and Georgia show no sign of improving since they fought a five-day war in August last year, when Russia crushed an assault by US ally Georgia on the breakaway pro-Russian region of South Ossetia.
The monument dispute has echoes of Estonia in 2007, when Russia reacted furiously to the removal of a statue of a Soviet Red Army soldier in the capital Tallinn.
(EurActiv with Reuters.)
Clearly not a good move, diplomatically, but I wanted to use this as a basis for a broader question - when does destroying monuments stop being an expression of people's fight with oppression and starts being an act of barbarism? On one hand you have Iraqis toppling Saddam's statue, on the other you have the Taleban blowing up the Buddha statutes. This case is somewhere in between. What do Languishistas think?
It bears mentioning that the thing was fugly:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbi.gazeta.pl%2Fim%2F2%2F7383%2Fz7383492X%2CRobotnicy-przygotowuja-pomnik-w-Kutaisi-do-rozbiorki-.jpg&hash=41f6bfc45254b66295bb892b0f36d23c4a4bf619)
I think that Russians are at least pretending to be as easy to offend as muslims.
If they hadn't murdered so many people, perhaps others wouldn't be so quick to tear down their memorials.
I guess the Russian argument is that many Georgians died in the war too. But yeah I know, they are doing the Arab/Israel shtick - which, actually, is quite effective in the Civilization of Victimhood era.
Incidentally, Georgians apparently managed to bring the thing down on a woman with a 8 y.o. daughter who was walking by or something. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2009, 04:21:30 AM
Incidentally, Georgians apparently managed to bring the thing down on a woman with a 8 y.o. daughter who was walking by or something. :rolleyes:
:face:
It is always OK to offend Russia, up to and including by bombing them back to the Jazz Age.
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2009, 04:21:30 AM
Incidentally, Georgians apparently managed to bring the thing down on a woman with a 8 y.o. daughter who was walking by or something. :rolleyes:
...
Now I know how you guys must feel when you read about conflicts in Eastern Europe: cripple fight. :face:
Considering that a memorial to WW2 soldiers is distinctly different from a memorial to communism, this is stupid. It'd be like Democrats tearing down the Lincoln memorial because he was a Republican.
Awesome. Diplomatic insult CB. :menace:
Quote from: Solmyr on December 20, 2009, 06:59:49 AM
Considering that a memorial to WW2 soldiers is distinctly different from a memorial to communism, this is stupid. It'd be like Democrats tearing down the Lincoln memorial because he was a Republican.
Yes. I quite like your comparison of the Republican party to a foreign occupier.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 20, 2009, 06:59:49 AM
Considering that a memorial to WW2 soldiers is distinctly different from a memorial to communism, this is stupid. It'd be like Democrats tearing down the Lincoln memorial because he was a Republican.
Yeah I agree. The fact that it's a war memorial makes me rather more dubious about tearing it down.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 20, 2009, 06:59:49 AM
Considering that a memorial to WW2 soldiers is distinctly different from a memorial to communism
Yeah Russian WW2 soldiers didn't spread Communism like crazy. No Sir.
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2009, 07:28:02 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 20, 2009, 06:59:49 AM
Considering that a memorial to WW2 soldiers is distinctly different from a memorial to communism
Yeah Russian WW2 soldiers didn't spread Communism like crazy. No Sir.
They also happened to do that little thing about fighting Nazis. So did Georgian soldiers, and soldiers of pretty much every other nationality in the Soviet Union at the time. Which is what the memorial in question is about.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 20, 2009, 07:31:37 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2009, 07:28:02 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 20, 2009, 06:59:49 AM
Considering that a memorial to WW2 soldiers is distinctly different from a memorial to communism
Yeah Russian WW2 soldiers didn't spread Communism like crazy. No Sir.
They also happened to do that little thing about fighting Nazis. So did Georgian soldiers, and soldiers of pretty much every other nationality in the Soviet Union at the time. Which is what the memorial in question is about.
If the poor Russians didn't want WW2 maybe they shouldn't have co-started it? Just a thought. Karma's a bitch.
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2009, 08:04:32 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 20, 2009, 07:31:37 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2009, 07:28:02 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 20, 2009, 06:59:49 AM
Considering that a memorial to WW2 soldiers is distinctly different from a memorial to communism
Yeah Russian WW2 soldiers didn't spread Communism like crazy. No Sir.
They also happened to do that little thing about fighting Nazis. So did Georgian soldiers, and soldiers of pretty much every other nationality in the Soviet Union at the time. Which is what the memorial in question is about.
If the poor Russians didn't want WW2 maybe they shouldn't have co-started it? Just a thought. Karma's a bitch.
Says the Swede whose country's only achievement in the last 300 years is collaborating with Nazis.
Next month:
"Russia destroys Georgia"
Quote from: Solmyr on December 20, 2009, 08:09:37 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2009, 08:04:32 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 20, 2009, 07:31:37 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2009, 07:28:02 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 20, 2009, 06:59:49 AM
Considering that a memorial to WW2 soldiers is distinctly different from a memorial to communism
Yeah Russian WW2 soldiers didn't spread Communism like crazy. No Sir.
They also happened to do that little thing about fighting Nazis. So did Georgian soldiers, and soldiers of pretty much every other nationality in the Soviet Union at the time. Which is what the memorial in question is about.
If the poor Russians didn't want WW2 maybe they shouldn't have co-started it? Just a thought. Karma's a bitch.
Says the Swede whose country's only achievement in the last 300 years is collaborating with Nazis.
Not my fault that we didn't go through with our atomic bomb program.
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2009, 06:07:50 AM
It is always OK to offend Russia, up to and including by bombing them back to the Jazz Age.
I have no idea how you keep coming up with fresh funny stuff after so long. Kudos, sir.
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2009, 09:06:14 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2009, 06:07:50 AM
It is always OK to offend Russia, up to and including by bombing them back to the Jazz Age.
I have no idea how you keep coming up with fresh funny stuff after so long. Kudos, sir.
I think it's the second time I've used that joke. :blush:
I was hoping to see some epic bronze or marble statuary when I opened this, but that thing is ugly as sin.
Still, tearing down a monument dedicated to the soldiers killed fighting Nazism is a bit dodgy.
I was thinking about hijacking this and taking it to a debate on simbology from a previous undemocratic regime on public grounds, but finally decided against it. If anyone fancies that debate, I'm all for it.
On the current issue, bad form, I'd say. Similar to what Estonia did a couple of years ago.
Quote from: The Larch on December 20, 2009, 09:36:25 PM
I was thinking about hijacking this and taking it to a debate on simbology from a previous undemocratic regime on public grounds, but finally decided against it. If anyone fancies that debate, I'm all for it.
On the current issue, bad form, I'd say. Similar to what Estonia did a couple of years ago.
Could be interesting. I think it would depend on what exactly the symbol represents or what the monument is specifically dedicated to.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2009, 09:38:23 PM
Could be interesting. I think it would depend on what exactly the symbol represents or what the monument is specifically dedicated to.
But those two aren't always the same. What a monument is dedicated to and what it represents to the people of that country can be very different things, which makes it difficult.
What I had in mind were specifically public symbols (street names, statues, etc.) of Francoist Spain in present day Spain. Over the last few years the few symbols remaining are being removed, and there's always some feather ruffling attached.
We have been having the same thing with removal of communist symbols and stuff like street name changes. However, there is imho a fine line between, say, changing the name of a street named after some communist government apparatchik, and one named after some pre-WW2 Polish communist activist who was killed by the nazis.
I think the problem when dealing with remnants of the old regime (especially non-occupant ones - like in Spain or, arguably, Poland) is do you limit yourself to removing stuff memorizing the really bad people, or do you also go after imagery that memorizes people who were not, in themselves, evil but whose names were used to further the regime's cause. This applies both to "retroactive heroes" the regime adopted as its "founding fathers" (people like Wagner for nazis, for example or Marx for communism), and for people like some worker in Poland who got a street named after him because he worked hard or something.
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2009, 04:59:40 AM
We have been having the same thing with removal of communist symbols and stuff like street name changes. However, there is imho a fine line between, say, changing the name of a street named after some communist government apparatchik, and one named after some pre-WW2 Polish communist activist who was killed by the nazis.
I think the problem when dealing with remnants of the old regime (especially non-occupant ones - like in Spain or, arguably, Poland) is do you limit yourself to removing stuff memorizing the really bad people, or do you also go after imagery that memorizes people who were not, in themselves, evil but whose names were used to further the regime's cause. This applies both to "retroactive heroes" the regime adopted as its "founding fathers" (people like Wagner for nazis, for example or Marx for communism), and for people like some worker in Poland who got a street named after him because he worked hard or something.
I don't think it's reasonable to go after the latter category on a rational level, but if these people's names evoke enough ill feeling, then it's certainly justifiable.
It's stupid, but people can do very stupid things when they feel reason for feigning slight.
Considering that Russia just fought a war against Georgia only a year and a half ago, and still now threatens to wipe it off the map, I'd say it's pretty fucking understandable.
That's one way in which the situation is different from, say, Poland or Spain, where the old oppressors have already been vanquished forever. It allows for a different, and perhaps more nuanced, analysis.
Quote from: The Larch on December 20, 2009, 09:36:25 PM
I was thinking about hijacking this and taking it to a debate on simbology from a previous undemocratic regime on public grounds, but finally decided against it. If anyone fancies that debate, I'm all for it.
On the current issue, bad form, I'd say. Similar to what Estonia did a couple of years ago.
Worse than what Estonia did. Estonia had the argument that they got zapped by Stalin during WWII, Georgia not so much.
Now if Georgia had blown up a monument to the Russian Civil War I would be more understanding.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2009, 08:59:59 PM
I was hoping to see some epic bronze or marble statuary when I opened this, but that thing is ugly as sin.
Still, tearing down a monument dedicated to the soldiers killed fighting Nazism is a bit dodgy.
Not really. Fighting Russia's imperial wars isn't something that the Georgians would necessarily want to honour. Especially since the Russians are going to murder them all at some point in the next few years.
You would think getting a Georgian in supreme power in Russia where he could murder millions of Russians would have been enough revenge for the Georgians.
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2009, 04:59:40 AM
We have been having the same thing with removal of communist symbols and stuff like street name changes. However, there is imho a fine line between, say, changing the name of a street named after some communist government apparatchik, and one named after some pre-WW2 Polish communist activist who was killed by the nazis.
you'd be surprised how often I see Russian addresses in cities big and small like "Engels Street", "Street of the 50th Anniversary of the USSR", "Lenin Street", "Street of the Proletariat", hell, the St. Petersburg area is still the "Leningrad district". The "Marshal Timoshenko Street"s are rather inconspicuous by comparison.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 20, 2009, 09:46:20 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2009, 09:38:23 PM
Could be interesting. I think it would depend on what exactly the symbol represents or what the monument is specifically dedicated to.
But those two aren't always the same. What a monument is dedicated to and what it represents to the people of that country can be very different things, which makes it difficult.
And now it has fallen down and squished two of those people of that country.
They should put up a new monument dedicated to the memory of those who were squished by the old monument.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2009, 12:05:04 PM
They should put up a new monument dedicated to the memory of those who were squished by the old monument.
And risk even more lives? These people can't be trusted around monuments.
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2009, 11:23:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2009, 04:59:40 AM
We have been having the same thing with removal of communist symbols and stuff like street name changes. However, there is imho a fine line between, say, changing the name of a street named after some communist government apparatchik, and one named after some pre-WW2 Polish communist activist who was killed by the nazis.
you'd be surprised how often I see Russian addresses in cities big and small like "Engels Street", "Street of the 50th Anniversary of the USSR", "Lenin Street", "Street of the Proletariat", hell, the St. Petersburg area is still the "Leningrad district". The "Marshal Timoshenko Street"s are rather inconspicuous by comparison.
Heh, that's like Spain 20-15 years ago, more or less. :lol: Although you still get full blown francoist names in smaller villages. For instance, in my mother's village, in rural Zamora, the main street is still "Calle de José Antonio (Primo de Rivera)".
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2009, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2009, 12:05:04 PM
They should put up a new monument dedicated to the memory of those who were squished by the old monument.
And risk even more lives? These people can't be trusted around monuments.
Hey, anybody else gets killed, just put up a monument to them too. Probably Georgia cound use the economic stimulus that a good round of monument building would provide.
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2009, 11:23:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2009, 04:59:40 AM
We have been having the same thing with removal of communist symbols and stuff like street name changes. However, there is imho a fine line between, say, changing the name of a street named after some communist government apparatchik, and one named after some pre-WW2 Polish communist activist who was killed by the nazis.
you'd be surprised how often I see Russian addresses in cities big and small like "Engels Street", "Street of the 50th Anniversary of the USSR", "Lenin Street", "Street of the Proletariat", hell, the St. Petersburg area is still the "Leningrad district". The "Marshal Timoshenko Street"s are rather inconspicuous by comparison.
I lived on "Science Street". If it were in US, I'm sure it would've been promptly renamed during Bush's administration.
Quote from: The Larch on December 21, 2009, 12:11:14 PM
For instance, in my mother's village, in rural Zamora, the main street is still "Calle de José Antonio (Primo de Rivera)".
When it should really be "Crossroads of the World".
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2009, 12:17:00 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 21, 2009, 12:11:14 PM
For instance, in my mother's village, in rural Zamora, the main street is still "Calle de José Antonio (Primo de Rivera)".
When it should really be "Crossroads of the World".
No clue. :P Most of those streets and squares got renamed to Constitution this or Juan Carlos I that after the current Constitution was approved.
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2009, 12:17:00 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 21, 2009, 12:11:14 PM
For instance, in my mother's village, in rural Zamora, the main street is still "Calle de José Antonio (Primo de Rivera)".
When it should really be "Crossroads of the World".
:yes:
Quote from: The Larch on December 21, 2009, 12:22:05 PM
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2009, 12:17:00 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 21, 2009, 12:11:14 PM
For instance, in my mother's village, in rural Zamora, the main street is still "Calle de José Antonio (Primo de Rivera)".
When it should really be "Crossroads of the World".
No clue. :P Most of those streets and squares got renamed to Constitution this or Juan Carlos I that after the current Constitution was approved.
http://www.thecimmerian.com/wp-content/uploads//2008/06/map_zamora_corinthia.jpg
;)
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2009, 12:34:05 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 21, 2009, 12:22:05 PM
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2009, 12:17:00 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 21, 2009, 12:11:14 PM
For instance, in my mother's village, in rural Zamora, the main street is still "Calle de José Antonio (Primo de Rivera)".
When it should really be "Crossroads of the World".
No clue. :P Most of those streets and squares got renamed to Constitution this or Juan Carlos I that after the current Constitution was approved.
http://www.thecimmerian.com/wp-content/uploads//2008/06/map_zamora_corinthia.jpg
;)
Funnily enough, parts of the movie were shot nearby. :lol: Young Conan and his mother, in the opening scene, were played by Spanish actors.
Quote from: The Larch on December 21, 2009, 12:58:47 PM
Funnily enough, parts of the movie were shot nearby. :lol: Young Conan and his mother, in the opening scene, were played by Spanish actors.
:cool:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2009, 10:56:19 AM
Worse than what Estonia did. Estonia had the argument that they got zapped by Stalin during WWII, Georgia not so much.
Now if Georgia had blown up a monument to the Russian Civil War I would be more understanding.
A Soviet monument is a Soviet monument. Every time one of these is destroyed, it's to the benefit of humanity as a whole. So the Soviets were fighting the Nazis-- big whoop. Doesn't mean former Soviet satellite states shouldn't have the right to erase scars of Soviet occupation.
It *would* be appropriate to put up a monument to the Georgians who served or lost theri lives in WWII (I guess that's what the salvaged naked horseman is for), but I don't see why Georgians need to give a flying fig about Russians, etc.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2009, 11:22:13 AM
You would think getting a Georgian in supreme power in Russia where he could murder millions of Russians would have been enough revenge for the Georgians.
And incidentally, Stalin is far more popular in modern Georgia than he is in Russia.
Quote from: Slargos on December 21, 2009, 05:30:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2009, 04:59:40 AM
We have been having the same thing with removal of communist symbols and stuff like street name changes. However, there is imho a fine line between, say, changing the name of a street named after some communist government apparatchik, and one named after some pre-WW2 Polish communist activist who was killed by the nazis.
I think the problem when dealing with remnants of the old regime (especially non-occupant ones - like in Spain or, arguably, Poland) is do you limit yourself to removing stuff memorizing the really bad people, or do you also go after imagery that memorizes people who were not, in themselves, evil but whose names were used to further the regime's cause. This applies both to "retroactive heroes" the regime adopted as its "founding fathers" (people like Wagner for nazis, for example or Marx for communism), and for people like some worker in Poland who got a street named after him because he worked hard or something.
I don't think it's reasonable to go after the latter category on a rational level, but if these people's names evoke enough ill feeling, then it's certainly justifiable.
It's stupid, but people can do very stupid things when they feel reason for feigning slight.
It becomes a problem, though, when the central authorities try to change it but the locals wouldn't hear of it. We have a lot of cases like this in Poland these days.
We should destroy Russia utterly. And we should erase even the memory of Russia from the histories! Every piece of Russian parchment shall be burned. Every Russian historian, and every scribe shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Russia, or Putin, will be punishable by death! The world will never know they existed at all!
Quote from: The Brain on December 21, 2009, 02:28:40 PM
We should destroy Russia utterly. And we should erase even the memory of Russia from the histories! Every piece of Russian parchment shall be burned. Every Russian historian, and every scribe shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Russia, or Putin, will be punishable by death! The world will never know they existed at all!
Ah, yes, the eternal swedish wet dream.
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2009, 01:54:32 PM
A Soviet monument is a Soviet monument. Every time one of these is destroyed, it's to the benefit of humanity as a whole. So the Soviets were fighting the Nazis-- big whoop. Doesn't mean former Soviet satellite states shouldn't have the right to erase scars of Soviet occupation.
It *would* be appropriate to put up a monument to the Georgians who served or lost theri lives in WWII (I guess that's what the salvaged naked horseman is for), but I don't see why Georgians need to give a flying fig about Russians, etc.
The principle is worth defending. How would you feel if the Flips blew up a Bataan monument?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2009, 07:22:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2009, 01:54:32 PM
A Soviet monument is a Soviet monument. Every time one of these is destroyed, it's to the benefit of humanity as a whole. So the Soviets were fighting the Nazis-- big whoop. Doesn't mean former Soviet satellite states shouldn't have the right to erase scars of Soviet occupation.
It *would* be appropriate to put up a monument to the Georgians who served or lost theri lives in WWII (I guess that's what the salvaged naked horseman is for), but I don't see why Georgians need to give a flying fig about Russians, etc.
The principle is worth defending. How would you feel if the Flips blew up a Bataan monument?
Would depend why and how. If they just blew it up that would be upsetting. If however they identified a need for the space, took steps to presereve and relocate the monument, that should be fine.
I know the Indians and South Africans moved/changed a lot of Imperial-era British monuments and the Brits didn't manage to get too outraged.
It's worth noting that Estonia handled its memorial issue significantly better, by relocating it (arguably to an appropriate location) rather than outright destroying. Russian reaction was really over the top on that one.
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2009, 07:42:00 PM
I know the Indians and South Africans moved/changed a lot of Imperial-era British monuments and the Brits didn't manage to get too outraged.
We move lots of Imperial-era monuments. Many of them just aren't relevant.
If they touch the statue of Henry Purcell though I'm going mental.