Jump to content

Who were the good guys? (O/T )


Childress

Recommended Posts

The Soviets would allow bashing the Nazis and praising Soviet Russia while the Nazis would allow bashing the Soviets and praising Nazi Germany. In this thread we are allowed to bash both and praise none of the two. Is this freedom? Is total freedom of thought speech even desirable? It could be argued that effective thought control is practically unobtainable and thus attempting to completly & forcibly control peoples thoughts would be a waste of resources, but what about the freedom of speech? Doesnt every single country on earth have laws against saying certain things?

I don't think anyone s saying that and there were no doubt many good me on both sides who were told to be there by their national leaders. One of my father's ssters on the Swiss side of the family married a German who had fought on the Russian Front. As far as I know he was just an ordinary infantryman in an ordinary infantry dvision. He did not like to talk about his expreiences. Whern I was about 10 I asked him abot his experiences. All he would do is tell me the above and that he was wounded by a hand grenade. He showed me the scar. And that wasit. It was only when I was older and read more abot the Russian Front including Guy Sager's Forgotten Soldier that I even began to understand why he felt that way.

It would be fair to say that hundreds of thousands of those who survived on both sides who felt like these. Those few still alive on both sidesmost likely still do feel like that. They were fighting for evil, totalitarian regimes but the vast majority very likely did not really want to be there and probably hated what they had to do. So the Eastern Front is probably a far more difficult subject than Normandy or Italy. Having said that most who fought there or in any other place were only there because they were told to be, not because they wanted to be there.

Something we might want to remember and to respect. And that goesfor almost any soldier on any battlefield in any theatre of war. Apart from that let's just enjoy the intellectual challenge of the wargame but, as we do, to think sometimes of the real human beings our graphical icons actually represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 289
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know I think it's very important that people understand you cannot apply modern values and social progress to historic peoples. Social progress simply wasn't that evolved. I'm not saying people back then were stupid, but you've got to remember formal education was harder to come by. Racism, classism, etc were all ubiquitous in the 1940s, and the world was much larger because transport and communications were hard to come by. So peoples were more isolated and strangers were, well, stranger. It was VERY easy to fall into the trap of dehumanizing foreigners even relatively smart people could make the mistake. See: The Eugenics Movement.

Russia was by far much better than Nazi Germany. By the standards of the time Nazi Germany was trying to turn back the clock on social progress by over 1000 years, and was engineering an entire society around killing as many people as possible in a short span of time at the minimum cost. IE: Industrialized murder. Nothing Stalin did compared to the level of planning and thinking that went into the Holocaust. On top of all this, Soviet society and Joseph Stalin were not mutual to each other. Once Stalin died his criminal empire broke apart because he had no line of cronies and successors to continue his brutalities. Hitler on the other hand, planned very much on his dirty work continuing past his death. The "Thousand Year Reich" and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I think it's very important that people understand you cannot apply modern values and social progress to historic peoples. Social progress simply wasn't that evolved. I'm not saying people back then were stupid, but you've got to remember formal education was harder to come by. Racism, classism, etc were all ubiquitous in the 1940s, and the world was much larger because transport and communications were hard to come by. So peoples were more isolated and strangers were, well, stranger. It was VERY easy to fall into the trap of dehumanizing foreigners even relatively smart people could make the mistake. See: The Eugenics Movement.

Russia was by far much better than Nazi Germany. By the standards of the time Nazi Germany was trying to turn back the clock on social progress by over 1000 years, and was engineering an entire society around killing as many people as possible in a short span of time at the minimum cost. IE: Industrialized murder. Nothing Stalin did compared to the level of planning and thinking that went into the Holocaust. On top of all this, Soviet society and Joseph Stalin were not mutual to each other. Once Stalin died his criminal empire broke apart because he had no line of cronies and successors to continue his brutalities. Hitler on the other hand, planned very much on his dirty work continuing past his death. The "Thousand Year Reich" and such.

Exactly.

This is part of what I was trying to say earlier. The root causes of death under areas of Soviet activity before the end of the war, and the trajectory for life under Soviet domination were very different from that under Nazi Germany. The levels of "evil" are not even close. The USSR is absolutely a "Good" guy next to Nazi Germany.

Again, it comes down to this:

After the carnage of the war on the East Front (the level of which is completely outside the experience of the West), life in Soviet-controlled countries, assuming you were not fighting the system, was livable. It may not always have been great, but you could live a life--no matter what your ethnicity or skin color was.

That was not the case under the Nazi Germany that died in 1945, and it would not have been the case had it endured. People who met the approved racial criteria in conquered lands would have been coerced into becoming "German" in the officially approved mold. And the people who did not meet the racial criteria would have been slaves first, if their labor was needed, and then killed. If their labor was not needed, they would simply have been killed. Oh, except for the ones used for experiments...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that we're talking about evil, or levels of evil, but if we have to dicker over whether one regime killing several or tens of millions is better or worse, or good or bad, verses another regime killing tens of millions - I think it's getting a bit surreal.

Dead is dead. Genocide is genocide.

Don't think I'm deflecting in any way here by mentioning Stalin - but my experience is that the average guy has a fair understanding or knowledge of Nazi crimes, and at the same time little to no knowledge of Stalin's crimes.

Ask Ukrainians about the trajectory for life under Soviet domination, especially from 1928 over the next few years. Or, the multiple millions of people including entire family lines who made up the Gulag system.

Reading Stalinist 20th century history is every bit as depressing and appalling as Nazi history, I promise. It's different evil, but vast and hugely sickening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful what authors you read from then because it's important to remember that much of what we in the west think we know about the Soviet Union, even Joseph Stalin, is shrouded in the vale of Cold War propaganda. I saw a poll recently that showed some 1/3 of Russian college students, college students, would vote for Stalin today if he was alive.

I doubt it was all the propaganda was lies. Stalin was not secretly a huggy nice guy that western capitalists were just out to character assassinate. He was a ruthless dictator to be sure, but the crimes of the Soviet Union under his control were played up during the 60s while the brutalities the Allies commit in the name of the war (and their were plenty) were ignored or brushed under the rug. For the Americans in particular the Cold War was a gigantic case Pot Kettle Black on so many issues.

I understand that to people directly affected by Stalin's rule, he and Hitler were essentially indiscernible from one another. Their were a ton of Russians who fought *for* the Germans after all. An entire Waffen SS Division was made up of Ukrainian volunteers! To the common people of Russia the higher-level thinking of the war was indeed mostly beyond them and they were unfortunately, caught in the middle regardless. I see the reasons people would have for still hating Stalin more than Hitler and completely understand and sympathize.

That still does not excuse fighting for the Nazis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful what authors you read from then because it's important to remember that much of what we in the west think we know about the Soviet Union, even Joseph Stalin, is shrouded in the vale of Cold War propaganda.

I avoid cold war era writers, I agree they mostly can't be trusted. There is much good, current research being done without the cold war hysteria. Some of the best writing is being done by Russian scholars who now have access to the Stalin archives. They still meet with resistance from old Stalinists.

I saw a poll recently that showed some 1/3 of Russian college students, college students, would vote for Stalin today if he was alive.

I know! I can't remember what the proportion was, but it was considerable. Enough to be pretty disturbing.

You can still buy "notalgic" trinkets and products with a smiling Stalin on them in Russia...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were the good guys British soldiers, when the "brutal colonial regime" oppressed aborigines and made hunger in Ireland?

Were the good guys American soldiers, when goverment killed natives and shot worker protests while Depression?

Polish soldiers, after partition of Сzechoslovakia with Germans?

May be nevertheless answer is "yes"?

Were there "good guys" in world history or judging historical figures from the modern point of view in senseless?

And I still don't understand why 700 thousands executed by Soviet goverment 1920-1950's (it is huge) is more, than 6 millions of jews and 18 millions of Soviet civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry but i dont understand what that has to do with my post.

It shows there were good men who suffered terribly, no doubt on both sides.The fact is they were fighting for an evil cause, not because they wanted to but because they had to. Those men would have suffered just as much as anyone else. Possibly more so given the horriffic nture of warfare on the Russian Front.

We can condemn both the Nazis and the Soviets as evl causes and rightly so. But behind that is he story of millions of human beings most of whom were ordinary, decent men forced into a horrible situation. We would do well to remember that it might not be so black and white as "good" ans "evil" There are shades of grey and the stories of human beings like my relative who was a good and decent man even though he had effectively been coerced into fightingfor an evil cause (the Nazis) due to time and place of birth. I certainly never heard him express any liking for the jnazis and I think he even hated them for what they had done. Perhaps having a relative who was actually there as he was gives me another perspective on this part of WW2 history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the "West's" perspective, the West was the winner!

National Socialists and Communists smashing each other to pieces! It doesn't get any better than that.

Of course, the West could have gone for "gold" if they had taken Patton's and Churchill's advice.

Iran-Iraq was another good win for the West, two anti-West regimes giving each other a pasting. Plus a few extra Western military sales to sweeten the affair!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I still don't understand why 700 thousands executed by Soviet goverment 1920-1950's (it is huge) is more, than 6 millions of jews and 18 millions of Soviet civilians.

Are there actual verified figures? When I was researching the 1930s "Purges" a few year's back, all I could find were estimates, since it seemed most official records had serious gaps. Best estimate I saw were around 1,000,000 who were "Purged", 500,000 who were executed and another 500,000 sent to prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polish soldiers, after partition of Сzechoslovakia with Germans?

There was no partition of Czechoslovakia along with the Germans, stop spreading misinformation.

The Polish goverment took back only what was taken by the Czechs in 1920 when Poland was weakened and engaged in a war against the Soviets.

The timing was not perfect but there was absolutely no agreement with the Germans and there was no "partition of Czechoslovakia". It was basically a mirrored move of what the Czechs did in 1920. So please be careful of what you are saying as Poland was at no point an ally or colaborator of Nazi Germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one can say all the good/bad men were on one side or the other. My old Grandad used to say, "Not all Americans are cowboys and not all Germans are U Boat captains." In the end it just came down to the same old 'common' men of both sides who were fighting because the men who ran their countries at that particular time, told them they had to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a side note, I find the very question of this thread as absurd.

Are there actual verified figures? When I was researching the 1930s "Purges" a few year's back, all I could find were estimates, since it seemed most official records had serious gaps. Best estimate I saw were around 1,000,000 who were "Purged", 500,000 who were executed and another 500,000 sent to prison.

In Russian,

i_002.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there actual verified figures? When I was researching the 1930s "Purges" a few year's back, all I could find were estimates, since it seemed most official records had serious gaps. Best estimate I saw were around 1,000,000 who were "Purged", 500,000 who were executed and another 500,000 sent to prison.

There is official statistics, overall number of executed is 700 000, overall number of arrested - about 3,5 millions. (for political reasons) Peak of repressions - 1937-1938, 90% of executions took place in that period. (reasons of that are unclear for me) There are gaps, historians specify it, but it doesn't change numbers much. Tens of thousans, not hundreds.

There was no partition of Czechoslovakia along with the Germans, stop spreading misinformation.

The Polish goverment took back only what was taken by the Czechs in 1920 when Poland was weakened and engaged in a war against the Soviets.

Ok, may be there were reasons for that. But the Soviet Union is hardly ctiticised for the same by the fact. It is my opinion, you probably think that it is different thing, let's not make holywar about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is ethnic cleansing and purging going on right now - esp in Africa, and very few people (in our parts of the world) seem to care that much. Pre-WW2, what you did in your own country was pretty much unassailable.

Big difference when someone invades your homeland and starts eliminating you and your population, or seriously planning to turn them into animal-like serfs who can only count up to ten and grunt yes or no.

Elimination happened to the American Indians of course, but other than that, the US has no idea what that horror is like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I avoid cold war era writers, I agree they mostly can't be trusted. There is much good, current research being done without the cold war hysteria. Some of the best writing is being done by Russian scholars who now have access to the Stalin archives. They still meet with resistance from old Stalinists.

I know! I can't remember what the proportion was, but it was considerable. Enough to be pretty disturbing.

You can still buy "notalgic" trinkets and products with a smiling Stalin on them in Russia...

Indeed. Some (much?) of what the Stalnist Soviet historians write is utter rubbish. A case in point is a certain Soviet historian who wrote a book covering the last 6 months of the war. Lots of refererences to how "the heroic representitives of The People (read small clique of communiststs who were anything but heroic or representitive) heroicly (really?) assisted (did they?) the Red Army to drive out the hated Germans and install (the Red Army did it for them under Stalin's orders) a People's Government (Soviet Client State ruled by members of said small clique of communists selected by Stalin) who ruled wisely for the benefit of the people (oh yeah? So how was it they required communist police staesthat were only overthrown in 1989?)

But before we conclude that Soviet era historians were all bad let us consider historians such asPaul Carell (he was a 3rd Reich popaganda writer during WW2 as I understand it) How the Wehrmach fought so bravely against the odds. Would have won against that faceless hordeof Slavic Bolshevik Untermensch too had it not been for all those stupidf Fuhrer Orders and if there had beed a few more Tigers and Panthers.

Then there are the Cold War era Western hisorians. Take the accounts of the famous tank battle at Prokhorovka for example. Following the official Soviet lineabout ow II SS Panzer Korps had all those Tigers and Panthers (wwhich modern historians such as George Nipe have shown that they acually did not have - no Panthers and about 40 Tigers in the whole Korps not all of which were actually runners on the day) and how 5th Guards Tank Army thrashed and almost destroyed II SS Panzer Korps on that battlefield. In fact as Nipe and Glanz (and others) have shown that is based on a Soviet era lie. Turns out this may have originated with Rotmistrov himself who had to explain why he had effectively immolated his command (5th GTA) without being relieved of command (and quite possibly executed on Stalin's orders) So he toldStalin that the SS had all those Tigerws and Panthers. And it was convenient for Soviet propaganda to use that "nterpretation" of the battle. So why wasn't this debunked after Stalin's death. The answer to this can be given in two words. Nikita Khruschev/ He was the commissar with the Voronezh Front under whose command 5GTA came a couple of days before Prokorovka. By the late 1950s of course Khruschev was First Secretaryy of the Communist Party and, to say th least it would be hugely embarrassing if the truth about Prokorovka came out, particularly so if Khruschev's true role in all of this were to become public knowledge. We still don't know exactly what was said but it seems Nikita pressured commanders into launching 5h GTA attack and wanted it done quickly. The truth of the matter seems to be that 5tth GTA didd indeed stop the SS for a crucial day while Sovuiet reinforcements moved into place but destroyed itself in the process. However, there are still many Western historians who repeat the old Soviet era mantra and ignore the research of modern historians who have examined both the Soviet archives and the SS records which are available in the US on microfilm and have been available for many years had certain historians taken the trouble to go and look instead of assuming that source was poor due to their belief thatthe official Soviet version was the historical truth (and therefore that the SS records were Nazi propaganda - in fact those records were the official militay records from the time used for military purposes - not useful if he records did not represent the true state of the IISS Panzer Korps)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring more to political and social history of the USSR during Stalin's reign.

But the discrepancies in military history writing are fascinating, the story of how historians correct, revise and argue over interpretations is almost a battle in itself. For even unbiased history is practically always about interpretation.

Having done years of research into primary documents along with interviewing veterans (totally different theatre, I have only an amateur's interest in the eastern front) gives me an insight into how tricky it can be to reconcile records with what actually happened, why, and who was responsible.

Even primary sources such as unit command diaries can disagree with each other - which to trust? Memories fade or are embellished, and personal relationships or feuds can get in the way of accurate oral history. And yes even after the war is over, propaganda continues.

Historians need similar skills to detectives if they want to present a sound case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elimination happened to the American Indians of course, but other than that, the US has no idea what that horror is like.

Let's be fair, Erwin. The Native Americans were done in by alcohol and, above all, microbes. These caused more ravages than a thousand Wounded Knees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of these days someone is going to have to try and explain to me why pointing out a 200 year old genocide in some other country makes the Holocaust all okey dokey now.

But before we conclude that Soviet era historians were all bad let us consider historians such asPaul Carell (he was a 3rd Reich popaganda writer during WW2 as I understand it) How the Wehrmach fought so bravely against the odds. Would have won against that faceless hordeof Slavic Bolshevik Untermensch too had it not been for all those stupidf Fuhrer Orders and if there had beed a few more Tigers and Panthers.

Germany lost the war long before Hitler made his most famous bad moves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Childress: The American Indians were given disease infested blankets deliberately. Early example of biological warfare by the invaders. That's why I mentioned it. It was their "holocaust". (BTW: Meant the opposite of saying it's all "okey dokey" now.)

Maybe I misread, but I thought this thread started on about the "positive" aspects of the Nazis. I find that sort of thinking disturbing. But, these sorts of academic discussions seem fine and can flourish when talking about far away countries and events that don't touch one personally.

So, closer to home, what about the positive aspects of what the Anglos brought to the US by eliminating the natives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...