“Bastard, try and say that I’m faking!” The most brutal moment of the Manchester derby. International media club “Impressum” Festive impressum

Boris TUKH

“The deportations are a tragic page in Estonian history. This tragedy needs to be investigated - as carefully as possible, as accurately as possible. However, for Estonian politicians, the main thing is not historical truth, but the opportunity to escalate the situation, making claims against Russia, demanding “repentance” from it.” Alexander Dyukov

— Why did a young scientist (born in 1978, graduated from the Russian Humanitarian University, better known as the Institute of History and Archives in 2004) take up the tragic pages of Estonian history?

A.D.: The events of the “Bronze Night” showed what memory conflicts can lead to. The basis for Russian national identity is the memory of the Great Patriotic War. For Estonians, the memory of the hardships resulting from Stalin's deportations became more important. For him, the heroes were not the veterans of the Estonian Red Army Corps, but the former soldiers of the Estonian SS Legion. This is not surprising. Every country, every society has its own version of the past. But if two versions collide head-on, and one side says: “You destroyed our people,” and the other says, “You are fascists,” no constructive dialogue will happen. Only new firewood will be thrown into the fire of hatred.

There is a way out. In the rehabilitation of history as a science, in the scientific approach. Any historian of any country suffers from state and national subjectivism, but it is possible to establish the real scale of Soviet repressions. And the publication of my book in Estonian is a Russian argument in this dispute.

The history of Estonia was written mainly by emigrants. They were distinguished by anti-Soviet and partially pro-Nazi views; living abroad, they did not have access to a number of sources. They had to be content with memories, rumors and speculation. When the USSR collapsed, this concept was transplanted onto Estonian soil. History was written in conditions of political unanimity within the state itself and in the absence of any discussion on the Russian side. When the overall story is written by one side, the story inevitably becomes biased. If we want to understand what happened and how we can overcome the tragic past, then we must engage in dialogue.
Estonian politicians constantly use the concept of Soviet genocide. Loss figures are being inflated. In 2007, Estonian Ambassador to the Russian Federation Marina Kaljurand said that during the first year of Soviet occupation in Estonia, 60,000 people were killed, and in 1944 - 100,000 people.

Historians do not speculate on numbers on such a large scale, but still. The report of the Commission on Crimes Against Humanity states in a separate article that in 1940-1941, more than 400 people were sentenced to death by Soviet military tribunals in Estonia, but the final report includes a different figure - 1850. Referring to serious documents, historians write, that in the summer of 1941, Soviet troops destroyed 815 forest brothers. But in the commission's report another figure appears - 100. (Presumably, the rest of those killed were civilians.) What I say is not an excuse for repression. But out of respect for the victims, we must tell the truth.

NOTES IN THE MARGINAL: It’s time to replace the proverb “he lies like a gray gelding” with “he lies like a historian.” Mr. Dyukov's reproaches are quite fair. However, sometimes it slips into the so-called. "historical revisionism". In a Moscow historian’s response to criticism from Hijo Dyukov, published by IA Regnum, he states: “Are the lists published in Estonia adequate? According to archival documents, during the June deportation of 1941, 9,156 people were taken from Estonia. However, according to the lists of the Estonian Bureau of the Register of Repressed Persons, the number of deportees was 10,861 people. Why such discrepancies? It’s very simple: the number of deportees includes not only those who were deported from Estonia, but also children born in exile and even those who were included in the deportation lists, but were not deported...”

Here, excuse me, the question is “nine or ten thousand?” is secondary! Among those deported in June 1941, the majority were people who were innocent of anything before the Soviet regime. According to the Soviet historical concept, people were expelled whose social origin, positions held under the previous regime and views could lead to the fact that these people would become a “fifth column” in the front line. And for a person from whose life 15 years of normal existence were torn out and replaced by vegetation in Siberia, it doesn’t really matter whether he had nine thousand comrades in misfortune or ten...

Dynamics of repression

A.D.: Soviet repressive policies are presented as something unchangeable. In fact, it was very dependent on how the Kremlin assessed the situation. By the fall of 1943, Stalin realized that for many people in the occupied territory, cooperation with the Germans was a form of survival. In the Baltics, the German occupation regime was much softer. And here among the collaborators there were more “ideological” volunteers. The head of the SMERSH department of the Leningrad Front proposed mass deportation in Estonia in 1944. In particular, deport all members of Omakaitse and members of their families. And about 80,000 people passed through Omakaitse. If his proposal were accepted, it would indeed affect a significant part of Estonians. But this did not happen.

In 1944-1947, the repressive policy of the Soviet authorities was moderate. After the war, about 25,000 people stranded abroad were repatriated to Estonia. The usual testing methods were applied to them. But since 1948, when the Cold War began to escalate sharply, the arrest curve has noticeably gone up. The peak was the March deportation. The Kremlin made a cruel decision, which I personally think is wrong. But this is not genocide. There was no intention to destroy the Estonian people.

The former deputy chairman of the KGB speaks

Vladimir Pool: I will be specific. Today's topic is “The whole truth about deportations.” I will only talk about the 1949 deportation. Mr. Dyukov writes that Estonian historians overestimate the number of people scheduled for eviction - by 6-10 thousand. But in fact they underestimated these numbers. In 1992, I wrote a belated report on the March deportations. And he cited an excerpt from the report of Generals Kumm and Ermolin to Lieutenant General Ogoltsov: “29,477 people are intended for eviction and authorized by the prosecutor.”

This report was written before March 19th. After this, the number of people scheduled for eviction totaled about 40,000. 20,702 people were evicted. Almost 20,000 cases remained, but there was no second wave. You write that the percentage of children, women and old people among those expelled is overestimated.

But according to state security data, 77.3 percent of them were women and children. And among the male farmers there were many old people.
A.D: I do not deny that it was a tragedy and that there was unjustified repression against women and children. But this was not directed specifically against them.

Remembers Marya Toom

— 60 years ago, I, a ten-year-old girl, was in a sealed calf carriage, which stood at Jõgeva station for almost two days. I still see people in my carriage, people from Põltsamaa and its surroundings. I see a colorful old Setu man, a famous carpenter in the city. Next to him is my Russian language teacher with three daughters, my friends, with whom we recently, but as if in another life, performed in a New Year's play... Then - a thin young man who has strayed from his family... A mother with three children, the eldest of whom, a boy with hemophilia... In the middle of the carriage, where the soldiers moved her from the truck, there was a very old woman in black sitting in a chair, motionless and speechless. A few days later she died quietly...

I'm not a historian. I don't give numbers. I want to repay the debt to my fellow travelers in Siberia. My mother and I were taken to the open steppe, we were housed in a barn with wicker walls. It belonged to a collective farm, where milkmaids, a shepherd, and cattlemen lived. Mom, who before the war studied in Tartu at the Pallas art school and at the ballet studio at the Vanemuine Theater, began to herd calves - she did not have enough strength for more.

I remember the milkmaids Tatyana, Nyura, Sonya, Katya, and the cattleman Yura. Ivan Deryuga, a one-armed, former sapper, brigadier, told us: “You won’t survive the winter in this barn. You need to dig a dugout.” And he showed how it's done. But mother’s hands were not accustomed to a shovel and a pick, and these people, Nyura, Sonya, Katya and others, under the guidance of a sapper, dug a dugout for us and put on a roof, and one exile, a Volga German woman, built a stove, and by the fall we had our own home . Which became ours for almost six years. There we experienced a terrible storm on August 12, 1953.

And only when I returned to Estonia many years later, I learned that it was the explosion of the first Soviet hydrogen bomb, designed by Academician Sakharov, carried out at the Semipalatinsk test site... And Sakharov became a dissident because he saw where his thought led...

NOTES IN THE MARGINAL: Maryu Toom is convinced that the exiles were deliberately settled in the regions adjacent to the Semipalatinsk test site - they say, this was the devilish plan of Stalin and Beria. The first tests took place there in 1949. The wind carried the radiation around the test site (a zone with a diameter of 1,200 km from the epicenter is today declared an environmental disaster zone) - and many people suffered from the radiation. But it is unlikely that the leaders of the USSR were plotting “nuclear genocide.” Rather, this is another evidence of their extremely disregardful, criminal attitude towards their own people...

Who was exiled and who denounced?

— Soviet historical science claimed that among those exiled in 1949, the so-called predominated. "kulaks" and their families? Is this true?

A.D.: Not really. There were much more of those whose guilt was that they were relatives of the forest brothers or helped the forest brothers. That is. the deportation of 1949 was directed primarily against the forest brothers, and clearing the ground for collectivization was secondary.
V.P.: Lists of the “gangster-nationalist underground” were compiled by the NKVD (MGB) departments. The lists of “kulaks” are still mostly compiled by local authorities. Were there any denunciations? What could we do without it! They have always been there! My grandfather ended up in Siberia for ten years as a result of denunciation. There are sinners in any country at any time!

A.D.: Naturally, denunciations took place. But the deportation itself was initiated from the Kremlin.
— Because the repressions were not genocide, do they remain crimes or not?

— Repression can be legal or illegal. Legal ones are those that are directed against real criminal elements. The deportation of 1949 was not directed against collaborators and not against the forest brothers, but against members of their families; it was an illegal phenomenon. This has long been officially recognized.

Roy Keane's boots met Alf Haaland's knee.

Old Trafford saw off the final minutes of a lackluster Manchester derby. The 1-1 draw impressed no one - and there was no hint that the match would become anything more than a featureless blip on the calendar.

The spiked sole of Roy's boot slammed into the right knee of City's Norwegian midfielder Alf-Inge Haaland. Referee David Elleray sent Keane off 4 times in his career, but there couldn’t have been a more deserved red than this one. To hell with the controversy - the Irishman understood everything perfectly. He only took a quick glance, confirming the obvious, and then turned around and took off the captain's armband. Before leaving, Keen leaned over Holland, distraught with pain and shock, to clearly speak the words that had been eating away at his brain for so long.

A year later, in an interview with The Guardian, Roy Keane outlined what he wanted: “To let him know that I remembered.”

Where it all started - the fateful game in Leeds

Like any tightly tied dramatic knot, the story of Keane and Haaland could have turned out completely differently. They almost became teammates and missed each other by only a year: when the Norwegian moved to Nottingham Forest in 1993, everyone at the City Ground stadium would have shown Roy's locker, but Keane himself was already settling in with all his might at Manchester United.

They were unlucky to meet in September 1997.

Holland played for Leeds; matches with few clubs for Manchester United in the 90s were more important and more difficult. In his first autobiography (2002), Keene recalled that that day he felt lousy, completely destroyed physically and emotionally. He had a hard time getting into a bar fight this week: he got too drunk and got into a fight with guys from Dublin who insulted Cork, Roy’s hometown. He had only been captain of Manchester United for two months and was now burning with shame in front of his family and Ferguson.

The match in Leeds traditionally did not work out. The guests sluggishly tried to win back, and Keane got his personal nightmare - Haaland, who was tormenting him. He simply got under the Irishman’s skin: he tugged at his T-shirt and cracked tirelessly in his ear. Keane had no doubt: the Leeds coach had specifically assigned Alf to him to bring him down. Roy had never been an example of composure and against the general background he could not help but buy it.

Trying to catch up with the hopeless ball, Keane hooked Haaland from behind, and the very next moment he was twisted in terrible pain. The spikes caught on the turf... there was a pop as the Manchester United midfielder tore his cruciate ligament. Holland was furious at his opponent's intentions. It seemed to him that he did not get up from the lawn in an attempt to disguise his foul. Alf flew up to Roy and yelled that you also need to be able to dive, nothing will work.

Keane spent 11 long months recovering. As he pedaled through the empty gym, he remembered Haaland's screams and the chain of events that had led to him being stuck here, with no certainty that he would return. Roy promised himself to take his own condition more seriously before matches, and not take anything for granted. And he set himself the goal of playing at least one more full game at Old Trafford.

What happened next

It's 2001 again.

At first, Keane got off easy - a three-match disqualification and a fine of 5 thousand pounds. Problems began when the first of Roy's two autobiographies was published a year later.

It described the blow to Haaland's knee as: “I've waited too long for this moment. I fucked him properly. The ball was nearby (so it seemed to me). Take it, motherfucker! Try to come up to me again with a smirk and tell me I’m faking.”

The FA launched an investigation, the media went wild and demanded punishment - as a result, Keane received another 5 match ban and a huge £150,000 fine. The player insisted that he had been misinterpreted by his literary assistant Eamon Dunphy and that the book clearly contained fiction. Ironically, it was Dunphy who destroyed Keane’s entire defense: at the hearing, when asked whether Keane wanted to injure Holland in that episode, he said: “Without a doubt.”

In general, the intentionality of the foul was clear. The main difference in the vision of Keene and the public was this: did Roy want to hurt Haaland?.

Keen insisted: no.

In 2014, the ex-captain of Manchester United released a second autobiography entitled “Second Half”. It begins with memories of the proceedings that detonated after the release of the previous memoirs. Keane describes in detail those hard days, talks about the doom of the situation and almost admires the lawyer from the Football Association - he (by the way, a Tottenham fan) tore Roy to pieces.

In the "Second Half" everyone got it at once- Peter Schmeichel, club channel MUTV, as well as ABBA's "Dancing Queen" and Robbie Savage's answering machine. Holland? Well of course: " Did I want to seriously injure Haaland? No. But I wanted to take revenge on him. He constantly provoked me, said something, tried to leave a mark of his thorns on my legs. I have regretted many things in my life, but definitely not this one.

… If I were a psycho out for revenge, why wait years to hurt him? Did I run across the field thinking: “Now I’ll get him. Now I’ll definitely get it”? No. Did I keep it in my head? Of course yes. Just like Rob Lee, just like David Batty, Alan Shearer, Dennis Wise, Patrick Vieira. All these players were deep in my mind.

If I get the chance, of course I'll try to knock you out. Naturally. This is a game. But there is a significant difference between a simple hit and the desire to injure a player. Any experienced footballer will tell you this."

English football will remember Alf Haaland as a player whose career was cut short by the vindictive brutality of Roy Keane. That derby was the last match that the Norwegian played in its entirety. But Keane's horrendous foul was a contributing factor rather than a direct cause. It will surprise many, but the following week Haaland appeared in a friendly game for the national team and City's league match. His left knee had been bothering him for a long time - it had already been bandaged when Alf came out against United. He acknowledged this with a message on his personal website.

After several unsuccessful operations, Alf retired from football in the summer of 2003, two years after his clash with Keane. Since then, both sides have changed their “testimony” several times (immediately after the publication of the first book, Holland was going to sue Roy, and in 2007, in an interview with the Daily Mail, he noted: “After that I didn’t play a single full match, great coincidence, isn’t it?”), but in 2014, in a conversation on BBC Radio 5 Live, the Norwegian assured that what disappointed him most was that Keane made revenge part of the game - and in fact, Holland would have had no problem talking to the offender.

The only thing that remained constant all these years was that Alf Holland never called Roy Keane by name.

Photo: Gettyimages.ru/Gary M Prior/Allsport, Michael Steele; REUTERS/Ferran Paredes, Jeff J Mitchell

printed) are mandatory output data prescribed for printed (and not only) publications, including publisher, author, and/or editor. Additional information is often included, such as printing house, frequency, date and place of publication.

Depending on the type of publication and specific legislation, the imprint should (or should have) contained information about the tax status of the publisher, as well as whether the publication has passed censorship.

In Russian the word imprint(not yet) fixed. Lane's German-Russian Dictionary defines Impressum as " polygame imprint (books)"

Internet imprint (in Germany)

Russian-language sites in Germany face a problem, because on the one hand, they must contain an imprint by law, but on the other hand, the word impressum does not officially exist in the Russian language.

Note that in English there is no word impressum; sites on the Internet call similar pages with expressions like contact us.

Impressum on the Internet (in Germany)

For the first time, the obligation to indicate information about the owner of a website on the Internet - an imprint - was introduced in Germany in 2002 §6 Teledienstgesetz. Since 2007, the obligation to have an imprint on every website on the Internet is regulated by §5 Telemediengesetz. It is debatable whether this requirement is also mandatory for private sites. The law requires that the necessary information be easily identifiable, immediately accessible and always available. The amount of required information varies depending on the legal form and occupation of the site owner.

The law, however, does not directly use the wording “impressum”; it refers to the “duty to provide information.” Therefore, in practice, websites use different formulations, for example Web imprint, output or just contact.

Some companies in Germany specialize in using minor violations or controversial issues in the legal interpretation of the obligation to indicate information about the owner of a website on the Internet as a pretext for accusing website owners of unfair competition.

German Wikipedia, as befits a site in Germany, also has its own imprint (called a disclaimer according to the interwiki).

Note that in English there is no word impressum; sites on the Internet call similar pages with expressions like contact us.

Write a review about the article "Impressum"

Notes

Excerpt characterizing Impressum

“I’m thinking about what you told me,” answered Princess Marya. - I'll tell you what. You’re right, what should I tell her about love now... - The princess stopped. She wanted to say: it is now impossible to talk to her about love; but she stopped because for the third day she saw from Natasha’s sudden change that not only would Natasha not be offended if Pierre expressed his love to her, but that this was all she wanted.
“It’s impossible to tell her now,” Princess Marya said.
- But what should I do?
“Entrust this to me,” said Princess Marya. - I know…
Pierre looked into Princess Marya's eyes.
“Well, well...” he said.
“I know that she loves... will love you,” Princess Marya corrected herself.
Before she had time to say these words, Pierre jumped up and, with a frightened face, grabbed Princess Marya by the hand.
- Why do you think so? Do you think I can hope? You think?!
“Yes, I think so,” said Princess Marya, smiling. - Write to your parents. And instruct me. I'll tell her when it's possible. I wish this. And my heart feels that this will happen.
- No, this cannot be! How happy I am! But this cannot be... How happy I am! No, it can't be! - Pierre said, kissing the hands of Princess Marya.
– You go to St. Petersburg; this is better. “And I’ll write to you,” she said.
- To St. Petersburg? Drive? Okay, yes, let's go. But can I come to you tomorrow?
The next day Pierre came to say goodbye. Natasha was less animated than in previous days; but on this day, sometimes looking into her eyes, Pierre felt that he was disappearing, that neither he nor she was any more, but there was only a feeling of happiness. “Really? No, it can’t be,” he said to himself with every look, gesture, and word that filled his soul with joy.
When, saying goodbye to her, he took her thin, thin hand, he involuntarily held it in his a little longer.
“Is this hand, this face, these eyes, all this alien treasure of feminine charm, will it all be forever mine, familiar, the same as I am to myself? No, it’s impossible!..”
“Goodbye, Count,” she said to him loudly. “I’ll be waiting for you,” she added in a whisper.
And these simple words, the look and facial expression that accompanied them, for two months formed the subject of Pierre’s inexhaustible memories, explanations and happy dreams. “I will be waiting for you very much... Yes, yes, as she said? Yes, I will be waiting for you very much. Oh, how happy I am! What is this, how happy I am!” - Pierre said to himself.

In Pierre's soul now nothing was happening similar to what happened in it in similar circumstances during his matchmaking with Helen.
He did not repeat, as then, with painful shame the words he had spoken, he did not say to himself: “Oh, why didn’t I say this, and why, why did I say “je vous aime” then?” [I love you] Now, on the contrary, he repeated every word of hers, his own, in his imagination with all the details of her face, smile, and did not want to subtract or add anything: he only wanted to repeat. There was no longer even a shadow of doubt about whether what he had undertaken was good or bad. Only one terrible doubt sometimes crossed his mind. Isn't this all in a dream? Was Princess Marya mistaken? Am I too proud and arrogant? I believe; and suddenly, as should happen, Princess Marya will tell her, and she will smile and answer: “How strange! He was probably mistaken. Doesn’t he know that he is a man, just a man, and I?.. I am completely different, higher.”