So I was reading through @[email protected] '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:

  1. The Estonian population expanded rapidly during the industrial revolution right up to the 1910s.

  2. World War 1 and the Great Depression manage to suppress population growth for the next decade.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 20000 people were deported to Russia very early in the existence of the SSR

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  • trot [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    39·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • sunaurus@lemm.eeEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • trot [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        34·
        1 year ago

        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:

        1. 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.

        • sunaurus@lemm.eeEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          I guess it’s more interesting for you to focus on the religious bits rather than the numbers of people destroyed and deported?

          I can provide some additional context if you like:

          There certainly is (even today in 2023) a religious minority in Estonia (less than ~30% of the population has declared a religion). Some of these people, especially older folks, have for sure very bad takes on things like abortion, or the necessity of church, etc. Believe it or not, this is actually cause for a lot of debate even today in Estonian society, the context being our declining population, with the religious minority being the loudest voice advocating for all kinds of methods to improve population growth (even going as far as abolishing abortion).

          I believe the author of that particular paper was part of this religious minority and clearly wanted to include some of their religious beliefs in their conclusions. Maybe it was more intended for foreign readers, who were though to be more religious? I’m not sure, but in any case, religion is not common among Estonians.

          As for the non-abortion related things you’ve quoted, I honestly don’t see what is so controversial about them.

          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.

          I’m not into comparing suffering like this, I think it doesn’t add any particular value, but I assume this statement is included for foreign readers who maybe don’t have any frame of reference for what the psychological long-term effects of soviet concentration camps were.

          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;

          Does this statement surprise you? It’s pretty much taken as common knowledge that “communism” was used as a catch-all reason to imprison, execute or deport pretty much anybody that the regime did not like. I have no idea why you highlighted this part as something interesting, unless this is actually a controversial statement for you?

          forcing materialism and atheism, restricting church life, prohibiting and destroying religious books, physical and moral repression of the clergy and the believers;

          The person is religious, I guess it makes sense that this is a major takeaway for them, it’s not particularly interesting for myself

          • 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.

          This was the whole purpose of russification, do you not see why this is bad?

          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.

          It’s pretty obvious to me that WW2 had this effect on Estonia (as it did on many other nations). Not just through deportations, but also through conscription of young men into occupant armies.

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        26·
        1 year ago

        @[email protected] 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.

        • trot [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          23·
          1 year ago

          I should have probably made it more clear that all the excerpts come from unrelated parts of the text. The one on abortion is from a section on health problems “resulting” from Soviet occupation, not from the section of the above excerpt. Nevertheless, considering the content of the rest of the report, it’s most likely implying that the act of abortion is itself a problem.