Who were the good guys? (O/T )

[sburke]

I know that. I'm refering to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo. The same victim culture.

Actually that is a mis statement on the shrine. It is not simply a memorial for the war criminals. The victim culture, that on the other hand is pretty accurate.

Yasukuni Shrine (靖国神社 or 靖國神社, Yasukuni Jinja?) is a Shinto shrine in Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan. It was founded by Emperor Meiji to commemorate individuals who had died in service of the Empire of Japan during the Meiji Restoration. The shrine's purpose has been expanded over the years; the deities enshrined at the Honden shrine within Yasukuni currently include more than 2,466,000 individuals who died in conflicts spanning from the Boshin War of 1868 to the end of World War II, and the adjacent Chinreisha "spirit-pacifying" shrine commemorates all of the dead from all wars fought worldwide throughout history. The shrine also includes a war museum, Yushukan, which contains various artifacts and documents concerning Japanese war casualties and military activity from the start of the Meiji Restoration to the end of World War II.

Controversies and political tension have arisen due to the enshrinement at Yasukuni of over 1,000 war criminals, including 14 "Class A" war criminals, from World War II and the shrine's historical revisionism, and intensified following visits by senior government officials such as prime ministers Yasuhiro Nakasone, Ryutaro Hashimoto, Junichiro Koizumi, and Shinzo Abe.

The Shrine has BECOME a political touchstone, but it is a mis characterization and mis understanding of Japanese culture to attribute the political stance of Japanese leadership about responsibilites regarding WW 2 and the shrine itself.

Frankly MacArthur has a lot to do with how that went down. The US equivocated on Japan based on a perceived national interest vis a vis Russia. We had the means to insure an alternative voice about the truth of the Pacific War and we allowed a lot of those responsible to come back into power. Net result- 70 years of revisionist history with most Japanese not really knowing what their government did and refusing to believe it as "Chinese propaganda".

As an American I am also not blind to the involvement of my own government in creating the conditions to the Pacific war. Japan is responsible for all it's actions don't get me wrong. However the development of the conditions that lead to such a conflict are rarely black and white.

For those interested in a fascinating look at Teddy Roosevelt's role, his frankly illegal diplomatic mission and the mis perceptions created that would eventually contribute to the Pacific War, this is a great read. Same guy who wrote Flags of Our Fathers.

The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War

James Bradley

In 1905 President Teddy Roosevelt dispatched Secretary of War William Howard Taft on the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in history to Hawaii, Japan, the Philippines, China, and Korea. Roosevelt's glamorous twenty-one year old daughter Alice served as mistress of the cruise, which included senators and congressmen. On this trip, Taft concluded secret agreements in Roosevelt's name.

In 2005, a century later, James Bradley traveled in the wake of Roosevelt's mission and discovered what had transpired in Honolulu, Tokyo, Manila, Beijing and Seoul.

In 1905, Roosevelt was bully-confident and made secret agreements that he though would secure America's westward push into the Pacific. Instead, he lit the long fuse on the Asian firecrackers that would singe America's hands for a century.

http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Cruise-Secret-History-Empire-ebook/dp/B002P8N0UC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1392928760&sr=1-1&keywords=roosevelt%27s+daughter+and+japan

[Fizou]

(And I see the Japs in a similar light as well. When I visited, I was happy to write in their "weepy" Hiroshima memorial book the reasons why nuking them was entirely justified.)

No matter whether the bombs where justified or not (I think they where), thats just disturbing behavior.

[agusto]

True, they did have a choice. But using the 43.9% figure you quote above, 56.1% (more than half) did not choose Hitler.

Of these 56,1 % who did not vote for the NSDAP some voted for parties very similar to the NSDAP, like the DNVP (wich temporarily had a coalition with the NSDAP) or the KSWR.

The people, per se, had no say in Hitler becoming Chancellor - that appointment was made by Von Hindenburg. The Germans were not blameless, but their political system was in a total mess and things were pretty murky.

Hindenburg, a man directly chosen by the people (1925), appointed Hitler as Reichskanzler. The Ermächtigungsgesetz, the law that gave the Reichskanzler Hitler unlimited power within Germany, was decided by a 2/3 majority of all elected parties in the Reichstag except the SPD (socialists) and KPD (communists) in Potsdam 1933.

The Germans (...) their political system was in a total mess and things were pretty murky.

I very much agree with that.

[Freyberg]

The problem with the Japanese is that they still see themselves as victims of the war. As a dutchman with quite a few elderly friends (dutchmen and Indo-dutchmen) who lived and suffered in the Dutch East Indies during the war under the cruelty of the Japs I'm also disgusted by the Japanese approach of the war in the Pacific. A brother of my grandfather died in one of their camps after being tortured to death in the most sadistic way. I understand Erwin. What the Japs did to Europeans and Indo-Europeans (and the Chinese, Korean etc. etc.) was almost as bad as what the Germans did to the Jewish people. Imagine the Germans having monuments for their war criminals. Well, the Japs have.

'Almost as bad' is needless understatement. What they did in China was an almost exact equivalent to what the Nazis did in Eastern Europe, and was every bit as murderous - the Chinese claim there were 15 million victims in China.

[Erwin]

Re the Hiroshima book, if you actually read it you will find that the US is regularly demonized as the villains in the affair. It's part of the well-known revisionist history that the Japs are propagating. eg: The Japanese were "tricked" into WW2 by the US. They go on to justify their atrocities (or completely whitewash them) in all sorts of ways. It got my goat as I read that stuff. (And I am from the UK.) At least the Germans have acknowledged their past and made significant efforts to apologize. Go ask the Chinese what they still think of the Japanese.

[sburke]

Ha okay yeah the UK has LOTS of room to talk. Let's see who initiated the Atlantic slave trade, who ran the single biggest drug cartel in history by far for over 100 years? As I recall it was the UK, the US and quite a few other western countries who insisted Japan had to become part of the international community when they were trying to tell us to leave them the hell alone. The primary reason they decided to change their position is they had watched what Britain had done to China and were damned sure not going to be next. I don't recall Britain ever apologizing or offering an indemnity for what they stole from China.

Yeah they certainly have their own issues, but please spare us the righteous indignation.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/juliankossoff/100063040/david-cameron-in-china-dont-mention-the-opium-wars/

[JonS]

Let's see who initiated the Atlantic slave trade

Oh, oh, I think I know this one: Portugal, I believe, with their explorations down the west coast of Africa in the early 1400s in search of spices, colonies, gold, and slaves. (Well, not technically 'Portugal' as we understand it now, but the 15thC predecessors of that country)

Edit: but still, ****ting in someone else's commemoration book? Yeah, that's a pretty retarded thing to do.

[Sgt Joch]

'Almost as bad' is needless understatement. What they did in China was an almost exact equivalent to what the Nazis did in Eastern Europe, and was every bit as murderous - the Chinese claim there were 15 million victims in China.

I believe the Chinese claim 35 million civilian victims while most western historian peg the number of chinese civilians who died as a result of Japanese aggression at around 20 million.

Either way, yes, the scale of atrocities committed by the Japanese in Asia is as monstrous as what the Nazis did in Europe. However, unlike the Germans, the Japanese have never really faced up to their past or apologised for their actions.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

The Germans elected the NSDAP (last Reichstag election in 1933: 43,9 %). When Hitler completely took over power (Ermächtigungsgesetz) later in 1933 this went according to the laws of the Weimar Republic and in accordance with all other political parties except the Socialist and Communist parties. The germans did have a choice and they chose Hitler who was openly speaking out against democracy even long before he got into power.

It actually took three rounds of elections. The Nazis kept pounding a way and bringing down an elected government ((thus forcing a new election) until they had a large enough majority to legally form a government. True, in 1933 the German people did have a choice and many voted against the Nazis and for other parties thus exercising that choice. But the Nazis did everything they could to manipulate and circumvent the democraic systems and procedures finally rendering that choice meaningless and irrelevant to the outcome.

And once the Nazis took power they started dismantling the Weimar Democracy, manipulatng public opinion, forming a secret police and so on. At this point any opportunity for a real choice the German people may have had was taken away from them as a direct result of those mmeasures. There were to be fair brave groups and individuals who stood aganst this, often at the greatest personal cost but the truth is the majority of the German people just stood by and let it happen or indeed went along wit it. And there were those who fully supported and participated in what was going on. Another motivation we cannot ignore is the desperate straits Germany was in in 1933. The Great Depression, near civil war on the streetas with running battles between Nazis and Communists, the harsh and humiliating treaty of Versailles including the French occupation of the Rhineland. We can well nderstand the desperation of the ordinary German facing all this and hyper inflaton of the cost of living.

If people are that desperate a large number will consider voting for extremists which, in early 1930s Germany meant the Communists or the Nazis. ne wonders if someting smilar might have happened had the Communists won power in 1933. The shape of things would have been different with different victims and probably stilll a big European War. That however falls within the realm of alternative history and speculation

[agusto]

It actually took three rounds of elections. The Nazis kept pounding a way and bringing down an elected government ((thus forcing a new election) until they had a large enough majority to legally form a government. True, in 1933 the German people did have a choice and many voted against the Nazis and for other parties thus exercising that choice. But the Nazis did everything they could to manipulate and circumvent the democraic systems and procedures finally rendering that choice meaningless and irrelevant to the outcome.

So the germans did have a choice and the Nazis did legally form their government in 1933. Also, when the Nazis kept bringing down the pre-1933 goverments, continously enforcing new elections, the people could have decided against giving the democratically obstuctive and aggressive NSDAP even more votes, but they chose not to. Independent of the circumstances and how large the democratic minority against the Nazis was, those are the facts.

And once the Nazis took power they started dismantling the Weimar Democracy, manipulatng public opinion, forming a secret police and so on. At this point any opportunity for a real choice the German people may have had was taken away from them as a direct result of those mmeasures.

The Nazis dismantled the Weimar Republic and took away the germans ability to choose their government after they were brought to power by the majority of the people. The germans (or, to be more accurate, most of them) more or less democratically decided to not have a democratic government. They (the majority) willingly gave away their responsibilities as citizens of a sovereign country into the hands of a despotic ruler with obvious imperialistic and murderous tendencies. Did you ever read Mein Kampf written by Hitler in the 1920s, long before he rose into power? Basically what he attempted to do after he took over power was exactley what he wrote in this (not even well written) political manifest.

Another motivation we cannot ignore is the desperate straits Germany was in in 1933. The Great Depression, near civil war on the streetas with running battles between Nazis and Communists, the harsh and humiliating treaty of Versailles including the French occupation of the Rhineland. We can well nderstand the desperation of the ordinary German facing all this and hyper inflaton of the cost of living.

If people are that desperate a large number will consider voting for extremists which, in early 1930s Germany meant the Communists or the Nazis. ne wonders if someting smilar might have happened had the Communists won power in 1933. The shape of things would have been different with different victims and probably stilll a big European War. That however falls within the realm of alternative history and speculation

Yes, the situation in 1920s and 1930s Germany was desperate and surley contributed a lot to Hitlers rise to power. Nontheless this doesnt take away the germans responsibility for what happened, it only makes it easier to understand it.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

So the germans did have a choice and the Nazis did legally form their government in 1933. Also, when the Nazis kept bringing down the pre-1933 goverments, continously enforcing new elections, the people could have decided against giving the democratically obstuctive and aggressive NSDAP even more votes, but they chose not to. Independent of the circumstances and how large the democratic minority against the Nazis was, those are the facts.

The Nazis dismantled the Weimar Republic and took away the germans ability to choose their government after they were brought to power by the majority of the people. The germans (or, to be more accurate, most of them) more or less democratically decided to not have a democratic government. They (the majority) willingly gave away their responsibilities as citizens of a sovereign country into the hands of a despotic ruler with obvious imperialistic and murderous tendencies. Did you ever read Mein Kampf written by Hitler in the 1920s, long before he rose into power? Basically what he attempted to do after he took over power was exactley what he wrote in this (not even well written) political manifest.

Yes, the situation in 1920s and 1930s Germany was desperate and surley contributed a lot to Hitlers rise to power. Nontheless this doesnt take away the germans responsibility for what happened, it only makes it easier to understand it.

A choice of a sort, yes it couldbe argued that this was so. On the other handit can be argued that the Nazis manipulated theelectoral system and sabotaged the elected governments until they got the results they wanted. The factoors alrady discussed were cerainly contributory to the Nazi rise to power. To what exten each influenced the outcome is a matter for historcal debate and here is probably not the right place for such a debate.

As for what happened after 1933 it was likely impossible to predict that what eventually did happen would happen. There were probably a handful of far sighted people who saw the threat but most did not or could not forsee the course eventstook over the next twelve years. I

It certainly became clearquite quickly that certain groups such as the Jews, the disabled, trade unionists, communists, lesbians and homosexuald, hose labelled as "work shy"and so on were going to face discrrimination and persecution under the new regime and a harsh camp system was quickly established among other methods such as euthanasia for the mentally handicapped. Jews were removed from proffessional roles and so on. But could anyone in 1935 haveforseen the so called "Final Solution" tat would start beeing implemented in 1941/2?

And the German people were being indoctrinated to accept this by Nazi Propagada. And, since most people werenot affected by what was happening and were doing much better (in work again with good wages, holidays, goup activites such as sports, the Htlr Youth, League of German Girls etc) why worry about what was happening to hose "out groups" and why put yourself at risk by rocking the boat and asking questions.

This does not excuse the complicity of the German people in what happened bu we can understand how and why the Nazis were able to gain and hold such control right to the very end. It is indeed disturbing and such things can still happen today albeit to a lsser extent even in our own democracies. One just has to keep one['s eyes open to see how some groups are being treated and far less favourably than others even to the extent of discriminaion and perhaps low level persecution

[agusto]

And, since most people werenot affected by what was happening and were doing much better (...) why worry about what was happening to hose "out groups" and why put yourself at risk by rocking the boat and asking questions.

Because that would ve been the responsible, right thing to do.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Because that would ve been the responsible, right thing to do.

True. But in a vicious police state like Germany was it something that most people possessed the physical and moral courage for? There were certainly those who did have those qualities, for example the White Rose Group, certain religious and military leaders and others who did actively oppose the regime and many came to a very nasty end. Don't forget, in `1930s Germany you could be arrested and tortured by the Gestapo, tried before a People's Court 9if you were "lucky" enough to get to trial at all and sentto a concentration camp where conditions were appalling to say the least. And there probablywas some knowledge about what was happening. Mostpeople probably decided to take the safe option and do nothing and ignore what was going on.

Of course, when the war ended there was at least one concentration camp where the Allies compelled the people of the nearest local townto walk through the camp and see he consequences for themselves.I have seen a photo which might have been taken of this incident and the expressions on the townspeople's faces are expressions of horror. Indeed, and it may have been this incident as well the local Burgomeister committed suicide after he had seen the camp. It is probably true that the people at least were aware and had some idea of what was happening but they might not have known the full horor of what happened.

Even today we have some idea of the effects of Government Welfare reforms for example the increased reliance on food banks. Obviously this is nothing like the Holocaust but it still shows how most people are prepared to ignore very negative things happening to other people, possbly people demonised by the government as "work shy scroungers" And by he way te Nazis used very similar language about the unemployed who also often ended up in camps themselves. See under "Black Triangle". And others were forced to wear similar means of identity such as the pink triangle (homosexuals and lesbians) or the famous yellow star for the Jews. There are of course many others.

Then, in Eastern Europe/Soviet Union there was the Einsatzgruppen and various other means of extermination of "undesireable Poles and Slavs. Among other groups that the Naziswere naturally going to target these would go after those such as former military officers, professionals, intellectuals and students who might lead a challenge to the new Nazi regime.

[Dadekster]

That whole region going back hundreds of years has seen nothing but constant warfare and strife. They have always fallen prey to strong charismatic leaders willing to take them to a 'better' place and seem ingrained to follow groups like the Junkers. I mean Europe as bloody in general has been that way but I think in particular that whole area, Germany, Austria, Prussia etc has seen more than most so with all of that constant misery that leaves people pretty susceptible to manipulation. There are always a couple of people willing to do horrible things and the uncountable many people willing to look the other way to continue their comfortable life content to let those couple others do the dirty work. Recently for example I admit I watched the events in Greece with more than a passing interest to see how that'd pan out. Looks like they just caught themselves in time but for a while it was almost like following a history script.

[Freyberg]

I believe the Chinese claim 35 million civilian victims while most western historian peg the number of chinese civilians who died as a result of Japanese aggression at around 20 million.

Either way, yes, the scale of atrocities committed by the Japanese in Asia is as monstrous as what the Nazis did in Europe. However, unlike the Germans, the Japanese have never really faced up to their past or apologised for their actions.

Really! I must have been confused, perhaps it was someone else's claim I remember - anyway, the Japanese Empire behaved every bit as brutally as the Third Reich.

Having said that the modern Japanese, at least the ones I've met. born after the war, are as sorry and regretful as the Germans - they know more about the war than we Commonwealth people do about our Imperial crimes. Kids can read about some of the Japanese wwii crimes in at least one well-known kids comic.

I think the thing with the Yasakuni Shrine is that they may apportion less blame to particular leaders than to themselves as a people because it was a bottom-up fascism, not top-down like in Europe and the USSR. There were certainly a lot of people at the Yasakuni Shrine the day I went, including a handful of apparent fascists albeit mostly looking more like 'Alf's Imperial Army' or here in NZ.

[JasonC]

At the risk of pouring gasoline onto a fire that might better we left to die out - but won't ever actually die out...

First the obvious, anyone with any sympathy for either *government* involved in the war in the east needs a morality transplant, stat. And everyone pretending that everyone does it or there isn't any morality or it doesn't matter or the rest of the equivalence dodges is too dumb to talk to; blows not words are what they require, then they would learn they believe in morality right quick.

Those preliminaries out of the way, I will explain who the good guys actually are, and why. The good guys are the long suffering Russian people, who got it in the neck from both hellish regimes, and also sent both packing. The Communist one, admittedly much later and with help and encouragement. But it is not like cushy westerners sitting on their sofas ended communism when there were tanks on the streets of Moscow trying to restore it - the Russian people did that.

Let's compare and contrast. The communists never won an election in Russia. They got about 20% of the vote in the last one held, in the democratic period between the fall of the Czar and the coup by the communists. Enough of the Russian people knew that was a Bad Idea that they fought like the dickens against it in a civil war lasting 5 years. Which alas, the Reds won. The Reds had promised two things to the people, peace (exit from WWI) and land (redistribution). The war (WWI) ended for everyone else a year later, for the Russians it lasted twice as long, fighting each other. So much for offering peace. As for land, the Reds stole it and slaughtered millions doing so. So much for land.

It is certainly a sign that the regime was worse that it murdered millions of its own people fighting over who own cows and pigs and the harvest, but it is if anything a sign that the people were better that the regime had a fight in the matter.

Either way, the Russian people were crushed in the thirties. My sympathies are all with them then, not with their oppressors. Then their useless leadership gets them into a war with the Nazis after first sacrificing most of their possible allies out of cynicism (pact, trying to turn Germans west, expecting a long war in the west, missing the invasion coming, all that). Then the Nazis who show up aren't there to get rid of the lousy government, but to murder and enslave the entire people.

So the Russian people get it in the neck again. And they resist again. Despite rather than because their leaders are rogues, they manage to destroy the Nazis at enormous human cost and sacrifice. Thankfully the monster later dies. The Russian people remain in prison. 2 generations later they finally get marginally human leaders and breath freer, and more rogues try to put them back in prison. The Russian people send them packing.

So, admittedly with a long delay between, the Russians rid us of both Nazis and Communists. There are a few other peoples on earth who know just how horrible communism was, but they are right at the top of that list, and they did more than almost everyone to get rid of it, eventually. They also did the most to destroy Nazism, during the war.

Did they vote with even a plurality for communism? No. Did they endorse Stalin and his crimes? No, they suffered from them - they were his principle victims.

There are a modest number of honorable Germans of whom the same can be said. A few hundred thousand political activists who had to flee in 1933 or ended up in camps; a few officers who tried to kill Hitler a dozen times and got very close twice; men who protected innocents from his regime or actively fought it in the resistance. But a full half the German people enthusiastically supported Hitler, voted for him, cheered him, fought for him and his mad power fantasies, bought all of it basically. They are not the good guys and no amount of moral equivalence games can make them such.

You can also find common "Landser" just swept up in it all, events too big for them to control or fight, who suffered as the poor bloody infantry always does suffer. I have some sympathy for those, but not as much as for the Russian common man. Fewer of them did anything to stop all of it, fewer of them were forced along with it all. Call that a more popular regime if you like, it makes the people worse not better, morally.

There are certainly rogues aplenty among the Russians, of course, starting with the entire political leadership. Plenty of evil men got along with a regime that let them murder their rivals just by snitching on them about imaginary crimes. Plenty of others remained honorable throughout, and not the sort of honor your typical arrogant Prussian elitist thought he had as a monopoly, but the real kind that consists in doing right in the face of danger, hang the consequences.

So, that is who the good guys are. Your nameless Russian peasant getting shot at by Germans and beaten by his own superiors, without a scrap of justice to be seen anywhere if he didn't make it, who by fortitude and suffering and patience, eventually saw them all off.

One man's opinion...

[Splinty]

I think that sums it up very succinctly Jason.

[Childress]

Very eloquent. Gets my vote.

But the Nazi regime enjoyed genuine popular support for quite a while. Communism never won much affection among the masses. Few wish to die for the Surplus Value of Labor. Realizing this Stalin denominated the conflict 'The Great Patriotic War' and commanded the church bells to peal. It worked- sort of. Enthusiasm for the Soviet elites likely peaked around the time of Gargarin's flight. And straight downhill thereafter.

[Melchior]

Yeah and that summary would be great, if it wasn't for the fact that testimony from actual Russians who fought in the war reveals a far greater range of feeling about Stalin's regime than the feelings of western bystanders do.

I for one, do not buy the idea that the Red Army was nothing but an organization of slave soldiers routinely forced into combat at gunpoint by nasty Commissars. Plenty of men in the Red Army were there because they wanted to be. Conversely, it often surprises people to read about how many draftees comprised the ranks the US Army even after the post-Pearl Harbor enlistment "rush".

Russians were fighting for their lives, because the only possible outcome of Nazi occupation of Russia was the end of Russians. With this in mind I hardly find it strange that the Soviet Union was very, very serious about fighting as bitterly as possible. It was truly victory or death. None of the other Allied powers with the exception of China found themselves so close to absolute destruction. Nor do I think any of them would have conducted themselves much differently if their situation had been as dire.

[Macisle]

WikiP lists total US deaths for the war at 418,500 and UK deaths at 450,900. As a percentage of the population, it gives .32 and .94 for the US and UK. The USSR lost around 14 percent of its population (and Germany 10).

How might the character of the American and British fighting man have changed if...

1. He was fighting the enemy as a land-based invader on his home soil.

2. The invader considered him to be genetically inferior and was planning to enslave and exterminate him so as to replace his population with the invader's.

3. He was facing the cream of the Wehrmacht at its peak of power and his country was losing equivalent casualties to what it did during the whole of the war in single campaigns of a few months?

[Dadekster]

Communism and socialism are great ideas until you put people in charge of them.

[Michael Emrys]

Communism and socialism are great ideas until you put people in charge of them.

I concluded a few decades back that any system of governance would be fine as long as it was run by people who were perfectly wise and completely incorruptible. But those aren't exactly thick on the ground, are they?

Michael

[LUCASWILLEN05]

At the risk of pouring gasoline onto a fire that might better we left to die out - but won't ever actually die out...

First the obvious, anyone with any sympathy for either *government* involved in the war in the east needs a morality transplant, stat. And everyone pretending that everyone does it or there isn't any morality or it doesn't matter or the rest of the equivalence dodges is too dumb to talk to; blows not words are what they require, then they would learn they believe in morality right quick.

Those preliminaries out of the way, I will explain who the good guys actually are, and why. The good guys are the long suffering Russian people, who got it in the neck from both hellish regimes, and also sent both packing. The Communist one, admittedly much later and with help and encouragement. But it is not like cushy westerners sitting on their sofas ended communism when there were tanks on the streets of Moscow trying to restore it - the Russian people did that.

Let's compare and contrast. The communists never won an election in Russia. They got about 20% of the vote in the last one held, in the democratic period between the fall of the Czar and the coup by the communists. Enough of the Russian people knew that was a Bad Idea that they fought like the dickens against it in a civil war lasting 5 years. Which alas, the Reds won. The Reds had promised two things to the people, peace (exit from WWI) and land (redistribution). The war (WWI) ended for everyone else a year later, for the Russians it lasted twice as long, fighting each other. So much for offering peace. As for land, the Reds stole it and slaughtered millions doing so. So much for land.

It is certainly a sign that the regime was worse that it murdered millions of its own people fighting over who own cows and pigs and the harvest, but it is if anything a sign that the people were better that the regime had a fight in the matter.

Either way, the Russian people were crushed in the thirties. My sympathies are all with them then, not with their oppressors. Then their useless leadership gets them into a war with the Nazis after first sacrificing most of their possible allies out of cynicism (pact, trying to turn Germans west, expecting a long war in the west, missing the invasion coming, all that). Then the Nazis who show up aren't there to get rid of the lousy government, but to murder and enslave the entire people.

So the Russian people get it in the neck again. And they resist again. Despite rather than because their leaders are rogues, they manage to destroy the Nazis at enormous human cost and sacrifice. Thankfully the monster later dies. The Russian people remain in prison. 2 generations later they finally get marginally human leaders and breath freer, and more rogues try to put them back in prison. The Russian people send them packing.

So, admittedly with a long delay between, the Russians rid us of both Nazis and Communists. There are a few other peoples on earth who know just how horrible communism was, but they are right at the top of that list, and they did more than almost everyone to get rid of it, eventually. They also did the most to destroy Nazism, during the war.

Did they vote with even a plurality for communism? No. Did they endorse Stalin and his crimes? No, they suffered from them - they were his principle victims.

There are a modest number of honorable Germans of whom the same can be said. A few hundred thousand political activists who had to flee in 1933 or ended up in camps; a few officers who tried to kill Hitler a dozen times and got very close twice; men who protected innocents from his regime or actively fought it in the resistance. But a full half the German people enthusiastically supported Hitler, voted for him, cheered him, fought for him and his mad power fantasies, bought all of it basically. They are not the good guys and no amount of moral equivalence games can make them such.

You can also find common "Landser" just swept up in it all, events too big for them to control or fight, who suffered as the poor bloody infantry always does suffer. I have some sympathy for those, but not as much as for the Russian common man. Fewer of them did anything to stop all of it, fewer of them were forced along with it all. Call that a more popular regime if you like, it makes the people worse not better, morally.

There are certainly rogues aplenty among the Russians, of course, starting with the entire political leadership. Plenty of evil men got along with a regime that let them murder their rivals just by snitching on them about imaginary crimes. Plenty of others remained honorable throughout, and not the sort of honor your typical arrogant Prussian elitist thought he had as a monopoly, but the real kind that consists in doing right in the face of danger, hang the consequences.

So, that is who the good guys are. Your nameless Russian peasant getting shot at by Germans and beaten by his own superiors, without a scrap of justice to be seen anywhere if he didn't make it, who by fortitude and suffering and patience, eventually saw them all off.

One man's opinion...

Agreed. However the Nazis did not realy win the 1933 election either. They failed to win twice albeit each time taking more seats in the Reichstadt. Andusing the strength off their bloc to sabotage and bring down the elected governments, this despite the election votes cast by the German peopleSo, like the Russians we can ask whether the German people really wanted Hitler in 1933 or whether the Nazis cheated and schemed their way into power, and they certyainly used violence and intimidation in the process. to be fair German Communsts were mosjt likely doing the same. The Nazis just turned out to be able to do it most effectively. Was this as bad as the methods used by the Blosheviks in Russia? Yes it probably was.

And both GermanNazis and Soviet Communists weremore than willing to use very unplasent methods, even against each other (Stalin's purges, the Nazi purge of the Brownshirts) and against their own people including "out" groups and the general population.

However there were good and honourable people on both sides and many ordinary soldiers like my relative who did not want to bwe there and only fought because they were told they had to

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Very eloquent. Gets my vote.

But the Nazi regime enjoyed genuine popular support for quite a while. Communism never won much affection among the masses. Few wish to die for the Surplus Value of Labor. Realizing this Stalin denominated the conflict 'The Great Patriotic War' and commanded the church bells to peal. It worked- sort of. Enthusiasm for the Soviet elites likely peaked around the time of Gargarin's flight. And straight downhill thereafter.

How was that support gained. Both regimes put out a lot of propaganda and used various methods to gain that support. And most people, as long as they themselves are doing fine will tend to go along with that and not rock the boat. As I previously indicated ths can happen in a democracy too so it could e considered a human trait in general, not just something thathappens under a dictatorship

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I concluded a few decades back that any system of governance would be fine as long as it was run by people who were perfectly wise and completely incorruptible. But those aren't exactly thick on the ground, are they?

Michael

It s the people in charge, the willingness of people to go along with what they are told and the checks & balances in place within the system. There are indeed ideas like socialism or for that matter capitilism that seem wonderful in principle, but, if you don't have sufficietly robust systems in place to take account of human error they will fail. That is why I believe the Swiss political system works better than most though is far from perfect.