Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soviet versus Russian Victory in WWII

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Soviet versus Russian Victory in WWII

    Was it a German defeat or a Fascist one? Even the Soviets used the term Fascist. And was it a Russian victory or a Soviet one? The Russians used the term Soviet it seems to me. The RKKA isn't the Russian army, it's supposed to be composed of peasants and workers, not necessarily Russian.

    Why is it that the Germans have- by and large, with the notable exception of some East German++ neo-Nazi groups- reconciled themselves to their co-option by Hitler's Fascism (or National Socialism) in the commission of some terrible acts and crimes against humanity? And have admitted them.

    Whereas the Russians seem- or are- unable to do the same when it comes to their co-option by Communism in Stalin's Soviet system, and the commission of some terrible acts and crimes against humanity? And in some cases seem unwilling to admit them, or try to mitigate their scale, if only by comparisons that seem meaningless to many.

    Both Totalitarian Regimes were operating criminally well before WWII. If the Germans can 'unhitch' their national car from the ideological 'Nazi' train (wreck) and move on (and be respected for it), why can't the Russians do the same with theirs behind the Soviet train (and then move on and be respected for it too)?

    Just an open question to Russian (and any others with interest) forum participants. I'd like to understand this phenomenon, rather than having it constantly intertwined and confused among the forests of Katyn or the wilds of the Baltic States and Finland. Maybe we should try to get to the bottom of it, perhaps hopefully lay it to rest and move on.
    Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
    (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

  • #2
    ...for one thing GS, the Soviet Union was composed of many Republics and nationalities. Most of them, now independent still celebrate their veterans who fought in what was the Red Army. I see no reason why any should change that.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by joea View Post
      ...for one thing GS, the Soviet Union was composed of many Republics and nationalities. Most of them, now independent still celebrate their veterans who fought in what was the Red Army. I see no reason why any should change that.
      I completely agree. The Soviet Republics if they wish to, the Baltic States too (whichever side if that is what they want, though personally I think a National Day should cover it without promoting any particular ideology).
      Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
      (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by General Staff View Post
        Was it a German defeat or a Fascist one? Even the Soviets used the term Fascist. And was it a Russian victory or a Soviet one? The Russians used the term Soviet it seems to me.
        It was a Soviet victory as people from the whole USSR fought for it.

        The USSR is not the same as Russia.

        And the role of the Communist Party was significant. I am not a Communist but I must to say about it. The Communist Party cheered people and organized resistance.

        There was a famous slogan "Communists, go ahead!" and the Communists raised in attack under machine-gun fire. It is truth.

        Many ordinary soldiers wrote before a combat "If I die I request to consider me a Communist". It is truth.

        And so on.

        So it was a SOVIET victory geographically and in moral sense.

        The RKKA isn't the Russian army, it's supposed to be composed of peasants and workers, not necessarily Russian.
        RKKA was only a name - tradition from the Civil War time. Really it was an ordinary army consisting from people of all social groups of Soviet population.

        Why is it that the Germans have- by and large, with the notable exception of some East German++ neo-Nazi groups- reconciled themselves to their co-option by Hitler's Fascism (or National Socialism) in the commission of some terrible acts and crimes against humanity? And have admitted them.
        because they want to have their heroes and dislike to admit the fact that their country was "a bad guy" in that war.

        Whereas the Russians seem- or are- unable to do the same when it comes to their co-option by Communism in Stalin's Soviet system, and the commission of some terrible acts and crimes against humanity? And in some cases seem unwilling to admit them, or try to mitigate their scale, if only by comparisons that seem meaningless to many.
        we admit the terrible acts that really occurred.

        we don't admit the terrible acts that were faked by western propaganda to demonize the USSR

        Both Totalitarian Regimes were operating criminally well before WWII.
        the western propaganda speaks it.

        but it is absolutely incorrect.

        If the Germans can 'unhitch' their national car from the ideological 'Nazi' train (wreck) and move on (and be respected for it), why can't the Russians do the same with theirs behind the Soviet train (and then move on and be respected for it too)?
        we admit what happened inreality and don't admit what didn't happen.

        i know history of WWII and of GPW well enough to differ true facts from propagabda false.

        Just an open question to Russian (and any others with interest) forum participants. I'd like to understand this phenomenon, rather than having it constantly intertwined and confused among the forests of Katyn or the wilds of the Baltic States and Finland. Maybe we should try to get to the bottom of it, perhaps hopefully lay it to rest and move on.
        I have an advice - try to be un-biased and try to check logically what you read in western sources about the Soviets.

        Comment


        • #5
          From Wiki:
          (my bolding)

          Emerging from the Russian Empire following the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Russian Civil War of 1918–1921, the USSR was a union of several Soviet republics, but the synecdoche Russia—after its largest and dominant constituent state—continued to be commonly used throughout the state's existence.

          The Russian Federation is divided into 83 federal subjects (constituent units), 21 of which are republics. The republics represent areas of non-Russian ethnicity. The indigenous ethnic group of the republic that gives the republic the name is known as the "titular nationality". Due to decades (in some cases centuries) of internal migration inside Russia, this nationality is not necessarily a majority of a republic's population.

          There are 27 other official languages, but Russian is the main official language.


          /Wiki


          So yeah, Russia is a multi-ethnic state. The Russian Empire, and the Russian Federation (key word), have always been more that just ethnic slav Russians.

          Was WWII a Russian victory? Of course. Was it just that? Of course not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by General Staff View Post

            . . . Even the Soviets used the term Fascist.
            The Soviets were always careful to distinguish between "Germans" and "Nazis" = "Hitlerites" = "Fascists". It was an ideological war, not a nationalist one. There are (were) good German Communists. There were no good German Nazis.


            . . . And was it a Russian victory or a Soviet one? The Russians used the term Soviet it seems to me. The RKKA isn't the Russian army, it's supposed to be composed of peasants and workers, not necessarily Russian.
            It was a Soviet victory, achieved by the citizens of the Soviet Union. As pointed out, Russia, while the largest, is only one of many constituent Socialist Republics and regions.

            It is habit among westerners with no real understanding of the USSR to refer to that country as "Russia". It's the same as referring to the United States as "California", and just as correct.

            Scott Fraser
            Canada
            Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

            A contentedly cantankerous old fart

            Comment


            • #7
              Not sure if I agree with your analogy Scott. California is not the dominant US state, even though it might be the richest, nor was it the first state.

              A better analogy would be comparing "The United States of America" and "America". It is fine to commonly refer to the USA as America, while technically incorrect.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Emil_G View Post
                Not sure if I agree with your analogy Scott. California is not the dominant US state, even though it might be the richest, nor was it the first state.

                A better analogy would be comparing "The United States of America" and "America". It is fine to commonly refer to the USA as America, while technically incorrect.
                Britain and England are a better analogy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Emil_G View Post
                  Not sure if I agree with your analogy Scott. California is not the dominant US state, even though it might be the richest, nor was it the first state.
                  It's as good a choice as any other state. It is the same situation as when people refer to the USSR as "Russia".

                  The Soviet Union was a federation of equal republics, in theory at least, as reflected in the name "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". The "United States of America" conveys the same sense of a federation of equal states. Whether Rhode Island and Texas are "equal" is moot, as much as whether Russia and Armenia are "equal". As in anything, population, politics and money determine who is more "equal" than others, but the principle is the same.

                  A better analogy would be comparing "The United States of America" and "America". It is fine to commonly refer to the USA as America, while technically incorrect.
                  I respectfully disagree. Canada and Mexico are also in America, as are Argentina and Brazil. The United States may be the richest, but it was not the first country in America.

                  Cheers
                  Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

                  A contentedly cantankerous old fart

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                    Britain and England are a better analogy.
                    Yeah, I thought about that too.


                    Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                    It's as good a choice as any other state. It is the same situation as when people refer to the USSR as "Russia".

                    The Soviet Union was a federation of equal republics, in theory at least, as reflected in the name "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". The "United States of America" conveys the same sense of a federation of equal states. Whether Rhode Island and Texas are "equal" is moot, as much as whether Russia and Armenia are "equal". As in anything, population, politics and money determine who is more "equal" than others, but the principle is the same.



                    I respectfully disagree. Canada and Mexico are also in America, as are Argentina and Brazil. The United States may be the richest, but it was not the first country in America.

                    Cheers
                    That's what I mean Scott, it is technically incorrect but when people say America they mean the USA.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Britain and England is a better analogy.

                      While Soviet policies had been different after the revolution, by WWII Soviet policies and attitudes included such a heavy dose of Russian chauvinism it is difficult to separate the two. While in rhetoric the "socialist in content, national in form" slogans continued, in effect all culture other than Russian was suppressed.

                      Also I don't agree that Germans (and other ethnicities designated as enemies) and Fascists were carefully separated. Yes, sometimes this was emphasized in rhetorics, but this was a thin veil to very different practice.

                      I drink, before all, to the health of the Russian people, because in this war they earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the nationalities of our country.

                      Stalin 9 May 1945
                      A sort of all are equal but others are more equal than the rest deal.

                      Also there is the espousal of Soviet mythology in recent years in modern Russia to consider.

                      I agree though that it might be useful if Soviet and Russia could be separated to a greater extent, as it perhaps would allow less passionate study of history and finally get to some terms with the past.
                      Last edited by pp(est); 17 May 08, 05:08.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wow, you grew up in the USSR without even learning how to read Russian, (can you even speak it?) but of course you can't shut up about how cultures were suppressed and Russified...

                        Russians as the "leading force" doesn't mean they had more rights, it just means they were the leading force. And they were, because it sure wasn't the Chuvashs or the Kalmyks, or even Ukranians or Tatars. Stalin (a Georgian) wasn't making a new decree there in that speech.

                        But I guess you are making up for this now by mistreating and disrespecting 25% of your population there in Estonia.

                        Russia has come to terms with its past 100%. It's only some Estonians, Poles, etc. who are too "passionate" and are solidly faced backwards.
                        Last edited by Emil_G; 17 May 08, 07:36.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                          1) It was a Soviet victory as people from the whole USSR fought for it. The USSR is not the same as Russia.

                          2) And the role of the Communist Party was significant. I am not a Communist but I must to say about it. The Communist Party cheered people and organized resistance. There was a famous slogan "Communists, go ahead!" and the Communists raised in attack under machine-gun fire. It is truth. Many ordinary soldiers wrote before a combat "If I die I request to consider me a Communist". It is truth. And so on.

                          3) So it was a SOVIET victory geographically and in moral sense.

                          4) RKKA was only a name - tradition from the Civil War time. Really it was an ordinary army consisting from people of all social groups of Soviet population.

                          5) because they want to have their heroes and dislike to admit the fact that their country was "a bad guy" in that war.

                          6) we admit the terrible acts that really occurred. we don't admit the terrible acts that were faked by western propaganda to demonize the USSR. the western propaganda speaks it. but it is absolutely incorrect. we admit what happened in reality and don't admit what didn't happen.

                          7) i know history of WWII and of GPW well enough to differ true facts from propaganda false. I have an advice - try to be un-biased and try to check logically what you read in western sources about the Soviets.
                          Let's logically go through this checklist, filter out the agreed so we can focus on the core disagreements (I speak only for myself and invite disagreement or differences of opinion from others):

                          1) Agreed. To both.
                          2) Agreed, though it was really the only organized game in town, given speed and ferocity of initial Barbarossa attack. Motivation is a different deal- I'm not sure I'd have agreed to participate in a human wave assault unless I was 100% sure a political commissar would shoot me if I didn't. And ordinary soldiers writing "if I die I request to consider me a Communist" (some sort of will?) wouldn't have anything to do with next of kin benefits or pensions entitlements, would it?
                          3) Agreed, though only in moral sense as one Totalitarian regime destroying another, and as it relates to relative morality between the two.
                          4) Post purges and into WWII it certainly became that. But that's after Stalin played the motherland and church cards. Before then he seemed to have every intention of keeping it with peasants and workers.
                          5) Disagree. Most Germans I know are keenly aware they were 'bad guys'. And what heroes? There were some very clever technical chaps (war, science, technology) working for a dreadful Totalitarian regime, who even you and I might admire. Hardly heroes, except for maybe the individual fighting for himself and his comrades to survive as in every army.
                          6) OK. So why are we arguing about Katyn? 9700 or 10700, does it make a difference? Or which acts are we talking about to agree what actually occurred? And which ones do you consider false allegations so we can discuss those (in a separate focussed thread)?
                          7) Good. We think we do in the West too. After all these years of forced Soviet partition we're finally allowed to discuss these issues. So let's do it. And I think we do try and be unbiased- you have to remember we've been dealing with free speech a lot longer than you've been taking Pravda into the toilet with you.
                          Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                          (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                            Britain and England are a better analogy.
                            Well you really know where to hit me, and this sure sent a shiver down my spine.

                            I'm not sure there's an exact analogy, since it was something of a unique experiment and phenomenon. Central authority under one man (like Stalin)- Persia under Darius, Greece under Philip, Europe under Charlemagne or Napoleon. Maybe Napoleon's Europe comes close, since it did have an anti-Royalist Republican slant as an ideology initially, though political pragmatism eventually forced him to use older institutions for control.

                            I wouldn't buy California/USA or America/USA since they're bottom up democracies, not top down Totalitarian Regimes.

                            China as it took over Tibet in 1959 probably comes closest, though it's morphing into something different today. That's what I'd go with- top down, ideological, crushing any dissent with a chauvinistic ethnic group by and large at the top.
                            Last edited by General Staff; 17 May 08, 08:39. Reason: Add 1959 China
                            Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                            (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pp(est) View Post
                              While Soviet policies had been different after the revolution, by WWII Soviet policies and attitudes included such a heavy dose of Russian chauvinism it is difficult to separate the two. While in rhetoric the "socialist in content, national in form" slogans continued, in effect all culture other than Russian was suppressed.

                              Also I don't agree that Germans (and other ethnicities designated as enemies) and Fascists were carefully separated. Yes, sometimes this was emphasized in rhetorics, but this was a thin veil to very different practice.

                              A sort of all are equal but others are more equal than the rest deal.

                              Also there is the espousal of Soviet mythology in recent years in modern Russia to consider.

                              I agree though that it might be useful if Soviet and Russia could be separated to a greater extent, as it perhaps would allow less passionate study of history and finally get to some terms with the past.
                              Agree to all the above. Or to put it another way, you can take the Totalitarian out of the tribesman, but you can't take the tribesman out of the Totalitarian.

                              Ethnicity and ideology in theory could get emphasized, but as the sentence above indicates in practice it often wasn't really, if at all. At the individual and emotional level, there was 'Ivan', 'Tommy', 'Jerry' and I'm sure the Russians had their names too (interested to know what they were?). You just didn't say in complete panic 'The Soviets/Fascists are knocking on the door'.
                              Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                              (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • casanova
                                Adults Rashid Dostur
                                by casanova
                                The Warlord Abdul Rashid Dostur came back to Afghanistan and was promoted to military marshal by the Afghanian president Ashraf Ghani. ...
                                Today, 00:48
                              • casanova
                                Alouette III
                                by casanova
                                The military helicopter Alouette Iii will be staioned off duty in 1923 because of oldness by the Austrian airforce. The Austrian airfoce wants to buy...
                                Today, 00:22
                              • casanova
                                Israel Army
                                by casanova
                                The Israelian Army stationed all airdefencesystens, tanks and soldiers on the Liban and Syrian border. The Iran wants to attack Israel. Arabian terrorists...
                                Yesterday, 23:15
                              Working...
                              X