PDA

View Full Version : Biggest Geo-Political Tragedy of the 20th Century



yankee@moscow
25-04-2005, 22:45
According to Putin in tonight's speech, it was the fall of the Soviet Union. I guess it all depends on your perspective? Some might have said that the formation of the Soviet Union was the biggest geo-political tragedy of the 20th century. I don't think it was either. I think it was all the events leading up to WWII that form the biggest geo-political tragedy of the 20th century. We're still paying for all of that today in one form or another.

koba65
26-04-2005, 01:36
I can understand Russians thinking that the fall of the Soviet Union was the biggest geo-political tragedy, but that road was paved when Lenin and co. staged their coup in Oct 1917 (ther real Revolution being in Feb 1917). A corrupt repression-based state-managed society cannot survive indefinitely.

Take a look at economic indicators for Tsarist Russia and see the projections based on the hypothesis of Stolypin's reforms being implemented. You could say that the Russian Empire would have been quite strong had the Bolsheviks not taken power.

I have to agree that WWII was the biggest geo-political tragedy - the way the British Empire was broken up is being felt today. As is the Soviet Yoke imposed on Eastern Europe by the big three (Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill [at least he was opposed to the partitioning).

quincy
26-04-2005, 11:59
The collapse of the Soviet Union allowed NATO to expand into territory it probably always wanted to, and plunged millions of Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians etc into poverty. Russian communities in Estonia, Latvia etc suffered intolerance and dispersion, Kaliningrad has become isolated. Putin is probably stating what many people in Russia (and in some of the other republics) think. In terms of human catastrophe WWII was the greatest tragedy but the victorious Russians probably felt that an even worse catastrophe (that of being ruled by the hated Nazis) had been avoided

Shatneresque
26-04-2005, 15:41
I (along with tens of millions of others, no doubt) would say that the creation of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, if not of all time....

peyote
26-04-2005, 18:33
no doubt, as we say in spanish - one thing thinks the bartender and another the drunk -

without the soviet union you would be speaking german...

yankee@moscow
26-04-2005, 18:52
no doubt, as we say in spanish - one thing thinks the bartender and another the drunk -

without the soviet union you would be speaking german...

I have to disagree with that. The Russians won that side of the war, not the Soviet Union. The Germans went through the rest of the Soviet Nations like a knife through hot butter. Some of the other nations in the Soviet Union were actually glad to see the Germans until they realized that they weren't there to liberate them from the Soviets, but to torture and kill them.

I don't know that the existance of the Soviet Union was as bad as the fact that it was a totalitarian communist state. In my opinion, a non-communist, non-totalitarian union of the same nations could have been a profitable venture for all of those countries if things would have been different. It turns out that the Soviet nations found it better to be less profitable and more independent. Sometimes there are other things more important than power, like having your own identity, speaking your own language, and not reporting to leaders in Moscow.

koba65
26-04-2005, 18:59
no doubt, as we say in spanish - one thing thinks the bartender and another the drunk -

without the soviet union you would be speaking german...

Disagree - without the Allies (Soviets, Americans, Canadians, Brits, Free Polish Forces) we'd be speaking German. And, without Soviet covert assistance to Germany prior to WWII the Nazis never would have been in the position to threaten the world.

The communists put the loaded weapon in the monstor's hands and now rewrite history to "wish" it away. They allowed Fascist GErmany to rearm and train their troops in violation of their WWI surrender terms.

Add this to European appeasement of Hitler vis-a-vis Czechoslovakia and Austria and you have a recipe for disaster.

Yes, the Soviet Union did do much to defeat the Nazis - but only did so because it meant survival for them. If they had more power at the end of the war we would be speaking "Russian" (well, those of us who dont now).

So, if you are looking for the greatest geo-political tragedy, I'd have to say it was the formation of the Soviet Union - the Union that armed Fascist Germany. Not to mention the secret pact they signed with the Fascists to carve up Europe. This pact only fell apart when the Nazis pulled out the long knives and stabbed the Commies in the back.

koba65
26-04-2005, 19:10
I have to disagree with that. The Russians won that side of the war, not the Soviet Union. The Germans went through the rest of the Soviet Nations like a knife through hot butter. Some of the other nations in the Soviet Union were actually glad to see the Germans until they realized that they weren't there to liberate them from the Soviets, but to torture and kill them.

Yankee,
Some of the first troops into Berlin were Mongols. The Red Army used everyone available to them: Russians, Ukrainians, Belorusians, Armenians, Mongols, Azeris, etc. etc. A lot of the frontline troops were non-ethnic Russians (more expendable). Military historians now believe the Soviets caused more than 1 million of their own troop casualties because of poor leadership (sh$t like that happens when you execute your top generals in a paranoid purge). The "Russians" expelled the Nazis from their territory despite the Communist ineptitude - they did so to protect their homeland. The sad thing is thousands of Soviet soldiers and officers who became POWs were sent right to the GuLAGS after the war for being traitors.

quincy
26-04-2005, 19:21
There was the occupation of Czechoslovakia and the Anglo-German Munich agreement (both in 1938) as part what is euphemistically called "appeasement" but probably was more of a common British-French-German understanding against Moscow. Nazis were mainly driven by hatred of Communism and expansionism eastwards. German communities in the Baltics, Hungary and Romania could be counted on for local support. Did the Soviet Union covertly help Germany before 1939?

koba65
26-04-2005, 19:33
There was the occupation of Czechoslovakia and the Anglo-German Munich agreement (both in 1938) as part what is euphemistically called "appeasement" but probably was more of a common British-French-German understanding against Moscow. Nazis were mainly driven by hatred of Communism and expansionism eastwards. German communities in the Baltics, Hungary and Romania could be counted on for local support. Did the Soviet Union covertly help Germany before 1939?

Oh yes - since 1922:

" In April of 1922, the Soviet quest for security generated a significant payoff in the form of the Rapallo treaty. In addition to opening up political ties, the Rapallo agreement included a secret clause providing for German military and technical assistance in exchange for training in Russia. This component furthered the post-war recovery of each, namely Soviet industrialization and German military development. In this way, the Rapallo link served both the international and domestic interests of the Soviet regime."

koba65
26-04-2005, 19:42
"Rapallo, Treaty of, 1922, agreement signed by Germany and the USSR at Rapallo, Italy. It was reached by Walter Rathenau and G. V. Chicherin independently of the Conference of Genoa (see Genoa, Conference of), which was then in session. Germany accorded the USSR de jure recognition (the first such recognition extended to the Soviet government), and the two signatories mutually canceled all prewar debts and renounced war claims. Particularly advantageous to Germany was the inclusion of a most-favored-nation clause and of extensive trade agreements. The treaty enabled the German army, through secret agreements, to produce and perfect in the USSR weapons forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles.

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2005, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved."

You can't become a menance to other nations unless you're allowed to build up your armaments. Post-WWI Germany was required to disarm itself and limit its army precisely because of the threat they imposed on other nations. The Soviet Union entered into a secret agreement with them because they found it beneficial to their own aims. Now, after WWII, they want to repaint themselves as "Nazi Slayers" - when in fact it was the Communists who started Germany down the path to world conquest.

yankee@moscow
26-04-2005, 23:24
It always boggled my mind how the Italians came out smelling like a rose after WWII when they pretty much freakin' started it along with Germany. Hang your leader. Burn his things. Kill his family. All's forgiven?! :suspect:

koba65
26-04-2005, 23:27
It always boggled my mind how the Italians came out smelling like a rose after WWII when they pretty much freakin' started it along with Germany. Hang your leader. Burn his things. Kill his family. All's forgiven?! :suspect:

That's because they switched sides. Didcha know that Sophia Loren is a Mussolini relative?

yankee@moscow
26-04-2005, 23:34
I guess she is a fairly distant relative? :)

koba65
26-04-2005, 23:55
Her neices and nephews are Mussolini's grandkids... I guess that's distant enough! Big knockers gets ya out of all kinds of troubles!

quincy
27-04-2005, 00:09
[QUOTE=koba65You can't become a menance to other nations unless you're allowed to build up your armaments. Post-WWI Germany was required to disarm itself and limit its army precisely because of the threat they imposed on other nations. The Soviet Union entered into a secret agreement with them because they found it beneficial to their own aims. Now, after WWII, they want to repaint themselves as "Nazi Slayers" - when in fact it was the Communists who started Germany down the path to world conquest.[/QUOTE]

Yet it is also true that the Nazis were encouraged by the western democracies - a kind of a Cold War mentality from the 1930's

quincy
27-04-2005, 00:10
=koba65You can't become a menance to other nations unless you're allowed to build up your armaments. Post-WWI Germany was required to disarm itself and limit its army precisely because of the threat they imposed on other nations. The Soviet Union entered into a secret agreement with them because they found it beneficial to their own aims. Now, after WWII, they want to repaint themselves as "Nazi Slayers" - when in fact it was the Communists who started Germany down the path to world conquest.

Yet it is also true that the Nazis were encouraged by the western democracies - a kind of a Cold War mentality from the 1930's

koba65
27-04-2005, 00:17
That's without argument - England and France, by their lack of action on Nazi Germany's movements (see the German Navy vis-a-vis the UK - Churchill being the only one speaking out about it). However, they did not arm the Nazis. No weaponry, no way to attack your neighbors. The Sovs don't get a pass on this one.

quincy
27-04-2005, 01:24
That's without argument - England and France, by their lack of action on Nazi Germany's movements (see the German Navy vis-a-vis the UK - Churchill being the only one speaking out about it). However, they did not arm the Nazis. No weaponry, no way to attack your neighbors. The Sovs don't get a pass on this one.

I think even Churchill in the early 1930's saw Hitler as an ally against Moscow. Their lack of action over the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938 was nothing but approval for the blitzkrieg eastwards.

Are you saying that there was a ongoing secret military alliance between Soviet Russia and Germany from the early 1920s (when Germany was a democracy) all the way upto 1941?

koba65
27-04-2005, 01:35
I think even Churchill in the early 1930's saw Hitler as an ally against Moscow. Their lack of action over the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938 was nothing but approval for the blitzkrieg eastwards.

Are you saying that there was a ongoing secret military alliance between Soviet Russia and Germany from the early 1920s (when Germany was a democracy) all the way upto 1941?

Actually Churchill (and others) was well out in front about the dangers of appeasing Hitler:
"Even in September 1938, there had been people in Britain who said appeasement was wrong. Duff Cooper, Lord of the Admiralty resigned over Munich, and in October 1938, at the Oxford by-election, three future Conservative Prime Ministers (Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath) campaigned against the Conservative candidate Quentin Hogg, saying that ‘a vote for Hogg is a vote for Hitler’. During the months after Munich, more and more people in Britain came to agree with them. Chamberlain could not have gone to war in September 1938 – too many people in Britain had wanted peace – but by March 1939, most people in Britain agreed that there would have to be a war, and he was able to promise to defend Poland."


And, yes I am saying that the Sovs were cosy with Germany (and "democratic" in the '20s is a stretch) from 1922 to 1938 with the Rappelo Treaty and from 1939 to 1941 with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Hell, the Bolshevik "love affair" with Germans began with Lenin accepting that train ride and Trotsky, et. al., accepting very severe land losses with the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.

quincy
27-04-2005, 02:25
I am surprised that there was ANY co-operation between Moscow and Nazis before 1939 (when the whole Nazi ideology promoted hatred against Communists, Slavs and Jews).

I have been told that Churchill welcomed the coup that Hitler launched in the early 1930s because of Hitler's anti-Communism. I think Britain and France continued to see Moscow as their enemy right up to 1939. 19th century rivalry with Russia had also promoted a certain degree of Russophobia in the Anglo-French media and public debate sometimes bordering on racism. Here's what was said on the eve of the Anglo-French attack on Crimea:

"I believe that if this barbarous nation(Russia) the enemy of all progress......
should once succeed in establishing itself in the heart of Europe,
it would be the greatest calamity which could befall the human race"
Lord Lyndhurst in a speech to the House of Lords

koba65
27-04-2005, 02:47
Here's what Churchill "told" me (note the year):

"In his address of 5 October 1938, on the Munich Pact, Churchill captured the dynamic logic and fatal flaw in the "realist" policy of appeasement:


…there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen with pitiless brutality, the threat of murderous force. That power cannot be the trusted friend of the British democracy...

We do not want to be led upon the high road to becoming a satellite of the German Nazi system of European domination. In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply. Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the Press, for it will be said — indeed, I hear it said sometimes now — that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a Press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and choroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey."

quincy
27-04-2005, 11:15
we might be veering a bit from the thread but...

Speaking in Rome on 20 January, 1927, Churchill praised Mussolini’s fascist regime, which had rendered a service to the whole world for its “triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism’.
......
Churchill’s reputation is above all as a ‘lone voice’ calling for re-armament against Germany, and as a ‘fierce critic’ of the appeasement of Hitler. Contrary to this myth, however, Churchill was not opposed to making concessions to Hitler’s Germany in the 1930s. In fact, he was openly admiring of Hitler as a German nationalist: “One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement… If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”

peyote
27-04-2005, 12:31
wow! hell broke loose!

you all forgot about the bartender and the drunk :D

so now the soviet union started ww2? don't you think we all, even your "honest" historians, re-write history? you wouldn't be so naive, would you? whatever the russians (and not the soviets) or the russian empire would have done it's just a poincare conjecture. if my granma had wheels she'd be a bycicle ;)

point is: abramovich may think the creation of the soviet union was a tragedy while a babushka barely surviving might think otherwise. see? the bartender and the drunk, or as marx rightly said: men think according to how they live and none of you can escape that. or so it seems.

now let's go back to the issue, which is not ww2. although ww2 can be a good candidate for the biggest geo-political tragedy. would you agree?

J.D.
27-04-2005, 14:39
It always boggled my mind how the Italians came out smelling like a rose after WWII when they pretty much freakin' started it along with Germany. Hang your leader. Burn his things. Kill his family. All's forgiven?! :suspect:


And Russia would smell just as Rosy if they followed suit.
Look not only at the Italians but Germany and Japan as well.

Chubby Hubby
27-04-2005, 15:42
I have to disagree with that. The Russians won that side of the war, not the Soviet Union. The Germans went through the rest of the Soviet Nations like a knife through hot butter. Some of the other nations in the Soviet Union were actually glad to see the Germans until they realized that they weren't there to liberate them from the Soviets, but to torture and kill them.


So true! The Ukrainians threw flowers at the German tanks, but when they won a friendly soccer came or two against the German team, the Kiev team was killed! What kind of Aztec BS is that? In any event, I don't think that Eastern Europe would be half as democratic as it is now if it hadn't been for 50 years of oppression under Soviet proxy rule. If you look at the pre-WWII governments of Eastern Europe, very few had retained the democracies Wilson and the Allies had set them up with after World War 1.

Some times the best thing a government can do is leave a bad taste in your mouth. For example, what would happen if the Nazis had never existed until now? They'd pour billions into high-grade genetic bio-weapons research. Microbiologists have theorized that viruses can be engineered to target specific phenotypes. They could wipe out entire ethnicities with crop dusters without harming a blonde hair on one of their own.

I think the worst geo-political disaster in recent times was the decision to abandon colonialism in the early 1960's in countries where unaccountable generals would strike an unholy alliance with multinationals to extract resources while populations remained malnourished and illiterate. However, the cost of defending a country with teenagers and AKs is dwarfed by the cost of maintaining an unloved occupational army (I won't name any current examples.)

koba65
27-04-2005, 20:45
wow! hell broke loose!

you all forgot about the bartender and the drunk :D

so now the soviet union started ww2? ?

Didn't start it - helped it along... You could also surmise that the draconian measures placed on Germany after WWI led to a loss of national pride which in turn led to the rise of nationalism resulting in the election of the National Socialists... ;)

yankee@moscow
27-04-2005, 23:46
So what do you think Putin is really doing in Israel? I can't honestly imagine.

SVL
28-04-2005, 20:41
Best "cold war" crap and worst history knowledge-in one thread. How nice.

koba65
29-04-2005, 00:40
Best "cold war" crap and worst history knowledge-in one thread. How nice.

I'm sure you realize that when we say "Allies" we mean the Brits, Canadians, Soviets, Aussies, Americans, etc? Your only other choice is the Axis, and I'm fairly certain you're not implying they won.

Regarding the Mongols - it has been documented that the front line troops in Marshal Zhukov's army were not only Russian (Mongolian, Georgian, Azeri, you name it). In other words, to call it a "Russian" victory instead of a "Soviet" victory is inaccurate. There a few memoirs written by people in Berlin after the capitulation - Zhukov allowed his troops 48 hours of non-punishable looting, marauding, and raping (as a reward for getting there). There are some pretty graphic descriptions about Mongol troops being the most feared of the bunch because of what they did to women and children. This information can be found in the archives of many institutions studying WWII.

Perhaps you could enlighten us on your historical "facts" that dispute the above?

Or, you could take advantage of being in Moscow and go to RGVA (Russian State Military Archives) on ul. Admirala Makarova and see what your own military leaders wrote about the fall of Berlin and see the numbers of non-Russians in the Soviet Army ranks.....

SVL
29-04-2005, 01:13
>I'm sure you realize that when we say "Allies" we mean the Brits, Canadians, Soviets, Aussies, Americans, etc?

Nope. Most of the time, in movies, video games, etc, we can see Allies as Brits, US Army, whatever, not Soviets.

>Regarding the Mongols - it has been documented that the front line troops in Marshal Zhukov's army were not only Russian (Mongolian, Georgian, Azeri, you name it).

LOL. Mongolia is a different country, Mongol troops weren`t employed in this war at all, only in the operation against Japanese, probably. Of course, for some you, guys, they are just those barbarians from Asia, so they all are Mongols, right?

> In other words, to call it a "Russian" victory instead of a "Soviet" victory is inaccurate.

Yes, but...if Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine want to see SS regiments or OUN/UNSO as their heroes, why should we interfere? They are independent countries, right?

> There a few memoirs written by people in Berlin after the capitulation - Zhukov allowed his troops 48 hours of non-punishable looting, marauding, and raping (as a reward for getting there).

Peace of crap. Can you find any good evidence against him?

> There are some pretty graphic descriptions about Mongol troops being the most feared of the bunch because of what they did to women and children.

Bring me any evidence about troops from Mongolia being employed in the attack on Berlin.

>Or, you could take advantage of being in Moscow and go to RGVA (Russian State Military Archives) on ul. Admirala Makarova and see what your own military leaders wrote about the fall of Berlin and see the numbers of non-Russians in the Soviet Army ranks

So what? Non-Russians were of the different quality? My grandfather, which was a paratrooper, was half-Ukrainian, and what? He was a Soviet citizen defending his homeland.

koba65
29-04-2005, 02:36
Nope. Most of the time, in movies, video games, etc, we can see Allies as Brits, US Army, whatever, not Soviets.

Really? Then explain the following:

Movies:

"Enemy at the Gate" - Soviets as the heroes, Western movie
"Patton" - Soviets as Allies (granted Patton was uncomfortable with them)
"Stalingrad" (2 western movies, actually - one German)
and countless other WWII films where the Soviets are mentioned (as well as "spy" genre with Soviet NKVD guys feted. Not to mention the comedy series "Hogan's Heros" where a trip to the Eastern Front to fight against the Soviets was bantied about as the worst punishment a German officer could receive.
Add to that the countless series on the Red Army and Russia during WWII - all shown on American tv.

Video Games:
"Axis and Allies" - gee, guess who figures big on the Allied side?
"LA-2"
"Kursk"
"Soviet Army"
"Battlefield 1942" etc., etc., etc., ad naseum - heck, I think I've played the Soviets more than I've played the Americans - let alone the Brits.

So, here's a question for you - name ONE Russian movie (other than the Konvoj miniseries) where the Brits and/or the Americans are shown as having a significant role in WWII?


LOL. Mongolia is a different country, Mongol troops weren`t employed in this war at all, only in the operation against Japanese, probably. Of course, for some you, guys, they are just those barbarians from Asia, so they all are Mongols, right?

Let's get this straight - when the Germans labeled the Soviets on the front lines Mongols - they were referencing Tatar-Mongols, Batyry, etc. Are they not Mongoloid racially?




Yes, but...if Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine want to see SS regiments or OUN/UNSO as their heroes, why should we interfere? They are independent countries, right?
Huh? Not sure I follow you on this one...



Peace of crap. Can you find any good evidence against him?
"A best-selling book has prompted victims of one of the
twentieth century's most tragic dramas to break their
silence.

German women have come forward after 50 years to speak
of their appalling treatment at the hands of Soviet
soldiers, who raped their way across Germany for four
years from 1945. Their ordeal has been revealed thanks
to Antony Beevor, whose book Berlin: The Downfall 1945
came out in the UK to great acclaim last month.

In his book, Beevor, a Sandhurst recruit turned
writer, uses previously unpublished material from
Russian archives in Moscow (My note - How bout going to that archive and seeing for yourself???) to describe vividly the
horrific suffering of an estimated two million German
women and girls who were gang-raped by drunken Soviet
soldiers as they made their way across the country
with the aim of forcing the Nazis to retreat.

Among the victims were women who became prominent
figures, including Hannelore Kohl, wife of the former
Chancellor, Helmut. Mrs Kohl, who committed suicide
last year, was raped along with her mother at the age
of 12 as they failed to escape on a train bound for
Dresden."

Or this:
"The rapes had begun as soon as the Red Army entered East Prussia and Silesia in 1944. In many towns and villages every female, aged from 10 to 80, was raped. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel laureate who was then a young officer, described the horror in his narrative poem Prussian Nights: "The little daughter's on the mattress,/Dead. How many have been on it/A platoon, a company perhaps?"

But Solzhenitsyn was rare: most of his comrades regarded rape as legitimate. As the offensive struck deep into Germany, the orders of Marshal Zhukov, their commander, stated: "Woe to the land of the murderers. We will get a terrible revenge for everything."

By the time the Red Army reached Berlin its reputation, reinforced by Nazi propaganda, had already terrified the population, many of whom fled. Though the hopeless struggle came to an end in May 1945, the ordeal of German women did not."



Bring me any evidence about troops from Mongolia being employed in the attack on Berlin.
I said Mongols (as in Tatar-Mongols, Batyry, etc) - not Mongolians. You do know the difference? Check the rosters - it's all at RGVA and open to the public.


So what? Non-Russians were of the different quality? My grandfather, which was a paratrooper, was half-Ukrainian, and what? He was a Soviet citizen defending his homeland.

You misunderstand what I wrote. No one is implying, at least not me, that non-Russians were any different than Russians (well, actually I've heard that claim from RUSSIANS). The point being made is that WWII should be considered a "Soviet" victory instead of a "Russian" victory. Were the Georgian, Dagestany, Armenian, Azeri, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Mary, Batyr, Tatary, etc. soldiers Russian citizens or Soviet citizens?

SVL
29-04-2005, 21:00
Ok, let's go:

>"Enemy at the Gate" - Soviets as the heroes, Western movie

ABSOLUTELY HATED in Russia. Russians/Soviets are portayed as a bunch of idiots, which is being led by dumbf_ck commissars and NKVD machinegunners.

Never seen all the others, so, may be I'm wrong about this.

>"Axis and Allies" - gee, guess who figures big on the Allied side?
"LA-2"
"Kursk"
"Soviet Army"
"Battlefield 1942" etc., etc., etc., ad naseum - heck, I think I've played the Soviets more than I've played the Americans - let alone the Brits.

May be I wrong then.

>So, here's a question for you - name ONE Russian movie (other than the Konvoj miniseries) where the Brits and/or the Americans are shown as having a significant role in WWII?

Sorry but there are very few Russian movies at all, we only started to make good movies. Count Konvoj:)

>Let's get this straight - when the Germans labeled the Soviets on the front lines Mongols - they were referencing Tatar-Mongols, Batyry, etc. Are they not Mongoloid racially?

Heh, Batyry is Tatarian for "great warriors":))) And Tataro-Mongols do not exist for ages. There are two different nations: Tatars and Mongols.
But, yes, they are mongoloids.

If you can read Russian, you can take a look at this:
http://www.rus-sky.org/history/library/w/w05.htm#_Toc536603348
This is the information on who died in Soviet Army during the war, showed by nations. Try to find Mongols there, and also, try to prove your idea about Mongol hordes in the front lines.
If you can't read this, let me know, I will translate.

>"A best-selling book has prompted victims of one of the
twentieth century's most tragic dramas to break their
silence."

Ok, you brought Beevor's piece of crap as evidence:) Thanks for making me laugh, it's Friday anyway:)

>I said Mongols (as in Tatar-Mongols, Batyry, etc) - not Mongolians. You do know the difference? Check the rosters - it's all at RGVA and open to the public.

See above, look for Mongols:)

>You misunderstand what I wrote. No one is implying, at least not me, that non-Russians were any different than Russians (well, actually I've heard that claim from RUSSIANS).

Really? You said that Mongols were the most cruel:)

>The point being made is that WWII should be considered a "Soviet" victory instead of a "Russian" victory.

Agreed.
Just do not bring cold war myths with you, and we can speak then.

Chubby Hubby
29-04-2005, 22:26
Koba - great post - I was going to bring up the post-war rape fest but couldn't find a reference. I must admit that I've heard more gang-rape stories since coming to Russia than I'd ever heard from anyone anywhere else. I take it that gang-rape doesn't have the connotation of being utterly inhumane and horrible the way it does in most of the civilized world. When the Russians try to tell you that they lost 27 million they are BSing you - they mean that 27 million SOVIETS died. Most of the deaths were in Ukraine, and most of the men who had lived under the Germans were sent to the gulags.


From Wikipedia:

Some captured regions, like the Baltic states, were incorporated into Greater Germany; in others Commissariats were established to extract the maximum in loot. In September 1941, Erich Koch was appointed to the Ukrainian Commissariat. His opening speech was clear about German policy: "I am known as a brutal dog ... Our job is to suck from the Ukraine all the goods we can get hold of ... I am expecting from you the utmost severity towards the native population."

koba65
29-04-2005, 23:44
ABSOLUTELY HATED in Russia. Russians/Soviets are portayed as a bunch of idiots, which is being led by dumbf_ck commissars and NKVD machinegunners.

I can see why they wouldn't like that shown, however, it is historically correct regarding the actions of the NKVD and the Kommisars - As pointed out by Alexandr Nikolaevich Yakovlev and other Soviet WWII vets who responded to the criticism of the film. Or, are you denying the existence of "Shtrafbats" and a lack of arms for every conscript? The film also depicted the heroism of ordinary Russian soldiers.

Of course, you could read Stalin's Order 227:
"...Паникеры и трусы должны истребляться на месте.

Отныне железным законом дисциплины для каждого командира, красноармейца, политработника должно явиться требование - ни шагу назад без приказа высшего командования.

Командиры роты, батальона, полка, дивизии, соответствующие комиссары и политработники, отступающие с боевой позиции без приказа свыше, являются предателями Родины. С такими командирами и политработниками и поступать надо как с предателями Родины. ..."

http://vlastitel.com.ru/stalin/vov/227.html

Beria used the above to form his NKVD death squads which trailed Soviet Army units (as depicted in "Enemy at the Gates")


Sorry but there are very few Russian movies at all, we only started to make good movies. Count Konvoj:)

Chego? You're kidding, right?
Soviet WWII-related films:
"The Commisar" "Kommisar"
"Ballad of a Soldier" "Balada o soldate"
"At Dawn it's Quiet Here" "A Zory zdes tikhie"
"The Cranes are Flying" "Letyat Zhuravly"
"Come and See" "Idi i Smotri"
"Otets Soldata" "Father of a Soldier" (Take a look, see the non-Russians in the capture of Berlin ;) )
"One-Two Soldiers were going" "Aty-Baty, Shli Soldaty"
"They fought for the Motherland" "Oni srazhalis za Rodinu"
"Torpedo Bombers" "Torpedonostsy"
"Only Old Men are going to Battle" "V Boi idut odni 'Stariki'"
"August 1944"
"Zvezda"
"Kursanty"
"Krasnaya Kapella"
"Prazdnik"
"Shtrafbat"
etc., etc., etc. - go to www.ozon.ru - they list over 250 Russian art films on WWII. I'd say that's quite a bit.



Heh, Batyry is Tatarian for "great warriors":))) And Tataro-Mongols do not exist for ages. There are two different nations: Tatars and Mongols.
But, yes, they are mongoloids.
Exactly - they're monogoloids belonging to the same racial group regardless of where national boundaries fell.


If you can read Russian, you can take a look at this:
http://www.rus-sky.org/history/library/w/w05.htm#_Toc536603348
This is the information on who died in Soviet Army during the war, showed by nations. Try to find Mongols there, and also, try to prove your idea about Mongol hordes in the front lines.
If you can't read this, let me know, I will translate.

Got a chuckle out of that - I have worked with at least three authors of this book. Are you denying there were any non-ethnic Russians (such as mongoloids, or Kavkatsy, etc.) in the front line troops during the taking of Berlin? Their numbers were significant. Check out the ethic composition of the 2nd Belarusian Front, the 1st Belarusian Front, the 1st Ukrainian Front (to include, the 3rd, 5th, 13th, and 52nd Guards Armies, the 3rd and 4th Guards Tank Armies, and the 2nd Air Army), the Dneprovskaya Flotilla, the Baltic Fleet, and the 1st and 2nd Polish Forces.

If you want a copy of the actual book I'd be happy to give you one.


Ok, you brought Beevor's piece of crap as evidence:) Thanks for making me laugh, it's Friday anyway:)
Western and Russian historians have praised his work - why? Because his work was based on research from Russian Archives. Are you willing to claim the archival documents are incorrect? I suggest you turn to RGVA Fonds:
500, 700, 1323, 1358, etc. etc. etc.. You might not like what you find, but it is fact. Sh#t happens in war that normal people don't even want to think about. Especially a war like that one - it was pay back for what the Nazis dead on Soviet territory and was given sanction by Marshal Zhukov. After the 72-hour peroid ran out, violaters were to be shot.

You could also check out the WWII holdings at the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense in Podolsk. The reading room is open to visitors. Ask for this one: TsAMO 233/2374/92

Or you could go to GARF (State Archives of the Russian Federation) and request the following:
GARF 9401 Plenty of testimony about the rapes

Or:
"SOVIET RAPES IN BERLIN: UNKNOWN TOTAL

The official figures for Berlin rapes by Soviet troops does exist but has never been published. However, Berlin’s former mayor, Ernst Reuter, said that the figure given him was 90,000. Many rapes of course were never reported and the figure of 90,000 includes only hospitalized cases and doctors reports. Some 10,000 women in Berlin died as a result of rape, mostly from suicide. In the Soviet Zone of Germany nearly 90% of females ages between 10 and 80 were raped. This included women expelled from the eastern provinces. Most German children born in Berlin in 1946 were the result of rape. Women and young girls were forcibly dragged from their homes and raped, the Soviet Mongolian soldiers queuing up to await their turn. For two whole weeks these mass rapes of women continued. Some Jewish women, thinking that their nationality would save them, showed their identity cards to the rapists but none of them could even read. Marshal Zhukov issued orders that any soldier caught in the act of rape after the two week period was up, was to be shot on the spot. "


See above, look for Mongols:)
Do you deny that Marshal Zhukov was a fan of Mongolian soldiers? Do you know why?


Really? You said that Mongols were the most cruel:)

That's from testimony of victims - what they labeled as "Mongols", I can only assume they had any non-slavic looking soldier in mind. Or perhaps, they had in mind the "Mongolian Revolutionary Tank Brigade" who fought with Zhukov all the way to Berlin (53 tanks):

"Врач Чадрабол из Центрального аймака, например, внес для создания танковой колонны “Революционная Монголия” 34 тысячи тугриков. Участник боев на реке Халхин-Гол Цэнд отдал на танковую колонну все, что имел: 100 овец и 40 отборных скакунов. Со всей страны поступали средства на эту колонну, и она была создана. 53 танка “Революционной Монголии” завершили свой боевой путь в Берлине."

http://www.pravda.ru/archive/days/1999/may/28/16-44-28-05-1999.htm

You were saying?


Agreed.
Just do not bring cold war myths with you, and we can speak then.

These are not myths. It's fact based on Russian archival materials. I guess you're still sticking to the "Nazis murdered the Polish officers in Katyn" myth? After all, that's what the Soviet government proclaimed for years... until the archives were opened... (Катынь. Пленники необъявленной войны. Документы и материалы. Сост. Н.С.Лебедева, Н.А.Петросова, Б.Вощинский, В.Матерский. М., 1999

Сборник документов о пленении и расстреле в СССР польских офицеров. Впервые издается комплекс документов, выявленных по этой теме в архивах Политбюро и Секретариата ЦК КПСС, Министерства обороны, Федеральной службы безопасности. В подготовке сборника принимали участие российские и польские историки и архивисты. You can pick this up at Dom Knigi in the Military History section)


What also is fact is the Soviets lost 4 soldiers for every German soldier that was killed. The reason for this horrible statistic can be tied to the lasting affect the Red Army purges had on the military leadership and the lack of basic armaments. The reason the Soviets were able to overcome the Germans was they had more men, we're willing to throw them at the enemy (regardless of the human cost), and the Nazis were too far from their supply lines. Add to that the opening of a second front in France and you have the successful joint Allied campaign that wiped out the Nazis. Regardless of the failings of leadership, all men/women who sacrificed to defeat the most serious threat to mankind should be honored.

Chubby Hubby
30-04-2005, 07:14
When they say Mongol, they mean Russian. These Nazis were obsessed with racial hygiene, and considered all slavic races (except Belarussians) to be inferior. The Russians were considered the worst, whereas Belarussians were allowed to become SS troops because their ancestors avoided mongol invasion by hiding in the Pripet marshes.

The historical fact of interbreeding between Rusians/Russians and Mongols/Tatars is a particularly sore spot for some. Russians lament their past relations with this imprecisely defined alien class when they speak of the Mongol-Tatar yoke ("mongolo-tatarskoe igo"). Georgii Fedotov goes so far as to speak of a "Tatar Rus'" ("Tatarskaia Rus'"), and asserts: "Not from without, but from within the Tatar element took possession of the soul of Rus', penetrated its flesh and blood." Russian thinkers sometimes blame the "uncivilized" character features of their own ethnos on the Mongol-Tatars, as when Vladimir Kantor speaks of the "internal Steppe" within Russians and the "steppe element in the Russian" - especially within the Bolshevik Russian - which resulted from "imitation of the Mongol system of rule." Ever since the "secondary barbarization" of Russia under the Mongol-Tatars, according to Kantor, Russians have been seeking a way out of this "most difficult situation of a non-historical and countercivilized conduct of life."

Yoke or no yoke, barbarization or not, interbreeding with the peoples of the steppe is a fact of Russian history. As the proverb has it: "Scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tatar" - "and the reverse," as Lev Gumilev sensibly adds. After all, it has always taken two to tango.
Specialists in physical anthropology in Russia have granted that there is much genetic variety in the background of today's Russians, yet have also insisted on the existence of a Russian physical "type." For example, V. V. Vorob'ev, writing in 1900, characterized the "physical type of the contemporary Great Russian" as possessing, among other features, eyes ranging from dark to light, greater than average stature, moderate brachycephaly (short-headedness), and "well-proportioned and well-developed limbs."



from http://www.panorama.ru:8101/works/patr/ir/13.html

SVL
30-04-2005, 22:14
>I can see why they wouldn't like that shown, however, it is historically correct

Woooooot?! Sorry, but documents say otherwise.

>and a lack of arms for every conscript?

This is not true also, because this problem was investigated in 90s: 1 rifle for 3 soldiers is an urban legend. We were lacking conscripts, not rifles.

>The film also depicted the heroism of ordinary Russian soldiers.

In a very...errr...strange manner, to say the least.

>Of course, you could read Stalin's Order 227:

yes, I know about this.

>Beria used the above to form his NKVD death squads which trailed Soviet Army units (as depicted in "Enemy at the Gates")

What's depicted is a total crap. Zagradotryadi were not used like this.

>Chego? You're kidding, right?
Soviet WWII-related films

You said Russian, not Soviet.

>Got a chuckle out of that - I have worked with at least three authors of this book. Are you denying there were any non-ethnic Russians (such as mongoloids, or Kavkatsy, etc.) in the front line troops during the taking of Berlin?

No. Im showing you that there are no Mongol hordes depicted by Germans or Beevor.

>Western and Russian historians have praised his work - why?

Which Russians? Suvorov-Rezun and Boris Sokolov?=)
heh I do not deny that there were marauders and other criminals. I deny Beevor's numbers and his crap about actual orders to loot and rape.

>I guess you're still sticking to the "Nazis murdered the Polish officers in Katyn"myth?

Wrong guess.

>What also is fact is the Soviets lost 4 soldiers for every German soldier that was killed.

Sorry, you are wrong, we lost 11.5 mln soldiers and killed 7 millons of German ones. All the rest, 15.5 millions were civilians.
Do not use B.Sokolov's numbers.

>The reason for this horrible statistic can be tied to the lasting affect the Red Army purges had on the military leadership and the lack of basic armaments. The reason the Soviets were able to overcome the Germans was they had more men, we're willing to throw them at the enemy (regardless of the human cost), and the Nazis were too far from their supply lines.

All wrong. The reasons why we lost in 1941 more are simple:
1) Germany had better armaments in the beginning of war with USSR
2) Experienced army
3) Advanced logistics due to better economic development compared to USSR
4) Advanced industry
5) Superior command and control due to better industry (more radios, more cars)
6) Superior army structure

We won in 1945 because we had:
1) Better armaments and more armaments than Germans
2) Our industry was capable of producing more arms than theirs
3) The whole country worked for the army -we outperformed Germans in mobilizing the country for war
4) Experienced army - our field medicine had the highest % of survived soldiers among all the countries which were involved in this war. ((regardless of the human cost, right?))
5) Superior army structure and methods of war - Soviet Army showed that can adopt to modern war faster than Germans.
6) Large supply of tracks, cars, food, gasoline, powder, metals from Allies.

SVL
30-04-2005, 22:16
>These Nazis were obsessed with racial hygiene, and considered all slavic races (except Belarussians) to be inferior.

And that's why they killed 25% of Byelorussians.Looks like you were talking about SS guys from Latvia and Estonia, which, in facts, gladly participated in cleansings in Byelorussia.

koba65
04-05-2005, 15:02
>I can see why they wouldn't like that shown, however, it is historically correct

Woooooot?! Sorry, but documents say otherwise.

>and a lack of arms for every conscript?

This is not true also, because this problem was investigated in 90s: 1 rifle for 3 soldiers is an urban legend. We were lacking conscripts, not rifles.

>The film also depicted the heroism of ordinary Russian soldiers.

In a very...errr...strange manner, to say the least.

>Of course, you could read Stalin's Order 227:

yes, I know about this.

>Beria used the above to form his NKVD death squads which trailed Soviet Army units (as depicted in "Enemy at the Gates")

What's depicted is a total crap. Zagradotryadi were not used like this.

>Chego? You're kidding, right?
Soviet WWII-related films

You said Russian, not Soviet.

>Got a chuckle out of that - I have worked with at least three authors of this book. Are you denying there were any non-ethnic Russians (such as mongoloids, or Kavkatsy, etc.) in the front line troops during the taking of Berlin?

No. Im showing you that there are no Mongol hordes depicted by Germans or Beevor.

>Western and Russian historians have praised his work - why?

Which Russians? Suvorov-Rezun and Boris Sokolov?=)
heh I do not deny that there were marauders and other criminals. I deny Beevor's numbers and his crap about actual orders to loot and rape.

>I guess you're still sticking to the "Nazis murdered the Polish officers in Katyn"myth?

Wrong guess.

>What also is fact is the Soviets lost 4 soldiers for every German soldier that was killed.

Sorry, you are wrong, we lost 11.5 mln soldiers and killed 7 millons of German ones. All the rest, 15.5 millions were civilians.
Do not use B.Sokolov's numbers.

>The reason for this horrible statistic can be tied to the lasting affect the Red Army purges had on the military leadership and the lack of basic armaments. The reason the Soviets were able to overcome the Germans was they had more men, we're willing to throw them at the enemy (regardless of the human cost), and the Nazis were too far from their supply lines.

All wrong. The reasons why we lost in 1941 more are simple:
1) Germany had better armaments in the beginning of war with USSR
2) Experienced army
3) Advanced logistics due to better economic development compared to USSR
4) Advanced industry
5) Superior command and control due to better industry (more radios, more cars)
6) Superior army structure

We won in 1945 because we had:
1) Better armaments and more armaments than Germans
2) Our industry was capable of producing more arms than theirs
3) The whole country worked for the army -we outperformed Germans in mobilizing the country for war
4) Experienced army - our field medicine had the highest % of survived soldiers among all the countries which were involved in this war. ((regardless of the human cost, right?))
5) Superior army structure and methods of war - Soviet Army showed that can adopt to modern war faster than Germans.
6) Large supply of tracks, cars, food, gasoline, powder, metals from Allies.

I'll respond to this later, but first, I think you should take a look at this:

http://www.newsru.com/russia/04may2005/rasstrely.html

Afterwards, I'll provide you some archival document references and you can educate yourself regarding Stalin, the NKVD and the executions of soldiers.

SVL
04-05-2005, 15:35
I'll respond to this later, but first, I think you should take a look at this:

http://www.newsru.com/russia/04may2005/rasstrely.html

Afterwards, I'll provide you some archival document references and you can educate yourself regarding Stalin, the NKVD and the executions of soldiers.
OMG how do you manage to find every idiot that writes crap? 30 minutes ago I found this link being discussed on one of the historical forums.
Mr.Yakovlev forgot to tell you that :
994 thousands soldiers (not 954) were brought to trial and sentenced, 442 thousands of those soldiers were sent to shtrafbats, 437 thousands were sent to prison, and only 135 thousands were executed. This information includes criminals, marauders, rapists, etc.

koba65
04-05-2005, 18:18
Well, actually I know Aleksandr Nikolaevich personally and he is far from an idiot. The man has unprecedented access to all of the Russian archives and bases his works solely on archival documents (t.e., documented facts - documented by the guys you're defending). He's also been endorsed by Gorbachev, Yeltsin AND Putin.

I'll ask you again - please provide your sources for your claims. Something tells me they're not based on actual documents.

I'm sure you do realize that being assigned to a Shtrafbat was just about the same as being sentenced to death.


OMG how do you manage to find every idiot that writes crap? 30 minutes ago I found this link being discussed on one of the historical forums.
Mr.Yakovlev forgot to tell you that :
994 thousands soldiers (not 954) were brought to trial and sentenced, 442 thousands of those soldiers were sent to shtrafbats, 437 thousands were sent to prison, and only 135 thousands were executed. This information includes criminals, marauders, rapists, etc.

SVL
04-05-2005, 18:23
>I'll ask you again - please provide your sources for your claims.

What claims? Those numbers above? Ok.
"За годы войны было осуждено 994 тыс. военнослужащих (в том числе 376 тыс. за дезертирство), а 135 тыс. расстреляно. В сентябре 1942 г. были введены штрафные части для «провинившихся в нарушении дисциплины по трусости или неустойчивости» бойцов. Через них за годы войны прошло почти 430 тыс. чел. См. Россия и СССР в войнах XX века. Потери вооруженных сил. Статистическое исследование. Под редакцией Г. Ф. Кривошеева. — М.: Олма-Пресс, 2001."
Of course you know this book.

>I'm sure you do realize that being assigned to a Shtrafbat was just about the same as being sentenced to death.

Yes, if you think that Shtrafbat movie depicts the history in a correct manner:)
Yes, they had much higher KIA rate than regular army, around 52%. But not 100%.
Update: my mistake -52% total loss, including wounded, MIA, etc. Not only KIA.

p.s. Guys I'm defending - who are they? I have no idea:)

koba65
04-05-2005, 18:59
>I'll ask you again - please provide your sources for your claims.

What claims? Those numbers above? Ok.
"За годы войны было осуждено 994 тыс. военнослужащих (в том числе 376 тыс. за дезертирство), а 135 тыс. расстреляно. В сентябре 1942 г. были введены штрафные части для «провинившихся в нарушении дисциплины по трусости или неустойчивости» бойцов. Через них за годы войны прошло почти 430 тыс. чел. См. Россия и СССР в войнах XX века. Потери вооруженных сил. Статистическое исследование. Под редакцией Г. Ф. Кривошеева. — М.: Олма-Пресс, 2001."
Of course you know this book.

>I'm sure you do realize that being assigned to a Shtrafbat was just about the same as being sentenced to death.

Yes, if you think that Shtrafbat movie depicts the history in a correct manner:)
Yes, they had much higher KIA rate than regular army, around 52%. But not 100%.
Update: my mistake -52% total loss, including wounded, MIA, etc. Not only KIA.

p.s. Guys I'm defending - who are they? I have no idea:)


I'm not talking about the movie - I'm talking about the loss statistics regarding the Shtrafbats. Check out the Military Memorial Center...

tbill
05-05-2005, 16:11
Koba,

Don't argue with idiots. I think you have made your point. :rules: If he can't read it ain't your problem.