English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Estonia's president vetoed a law passed by parliament on Thursday to remove a Soviet-era Red Army monument from the capital Tallinn, a plan which had sparked strong Russian criticism. Parliament had given final approval to a bill requiring the government to move the bronze statue of a Red Army soldier to a cemetery. Russia said such a move would be 'an act of blasphemy'. Many Estonians see the monument as a symbol of 50 years of Soviet occupation.

2007-02-17 03:31:49 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

4 answers

No they should be kept as they are they are part of the history.Remember how bad it was when Talibans in Afghanistan Destroyed 2500 years old Buddha Statues just because the Muslim are now ruling the land .Little ever they realized that it is part of their culture and heritage.That was a True Animal Behavior.No thing like that should never happen.

2007-02-17 03:44:47 · answer #1 · answered by Dr.O 5 · 0 1

Yes, symbols of past regimes should be removed when the symbol is of a regime of a former foreign occupying power. By continuing to allow a symbol such as the Soviet-era Red Army “bronze soldier” to exist in a central location in the capital of the independent nation of Estonia creates the appearance that Russia, the legal and de facto successor of the Soviet Union, still exercises control over the decisions of the independent nation of Estonia. Only if the people of Estonia decide to allow the appearance that Russia still exercises control over the decisions of their independent nation should the statue of the Red Army “bronze soldier” be allowed to exist in a prominent location of the Estonian capital. Otherwise, it should be moved to a more appropriate location such as a cemetery, as is currently recommended by the most recent act of Estonian parliament(15.Feb.2007.) Monuments to the Soviet Union exist in independent nations such as Austria and Norway; I think that if the Soviet Union had left a “liberated” Estonia independent in the aftermath of WWII instead of occupying for nearly 50 years, only then could a monument to Soviet soldiers be justified.

2007-02-18 16:06:16 · answer #2 · answered by dres O 1 · 2 0

If the people of Estonia want the statue moved, it should be moved whether Russia wants it moved or not.
However, you must not be too hasty to remove the past from the present. There are many monuments that define history & by removing them you are removing a part of history, no matter how unpleasant.

2007-02-17 03:44:02 · answer #3 · answered by geegee 6 · 0 0

A symbol means one thing for one person, and something else for another person.

2007-02-17 03:38:27 · answer #4 · answered by Kilroy 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers