60 years since victory in World War 2

[Caid Ivik]

Does it matter whether you die in a gas chamber, shot as a civilian by SS cleansing troops, of exhaustion during fleeing, by artillery shell or by air raid? I would say, for the victim are consequences the same. As well as for victim is unimportant into which group it is counted. I am sure there were many jewish communist krasnoarmeists, who died when they lay wounded, hidden in some village on Ukraine. I would say war was about this as well.

[MrFlibble]

I totally agree. The war and its aftermath is a horrible tragedy to all involved in it, even if they do not realize this. The lesson humanity should learn is that we must NEVER EVER let such tragedy happen again - this would be purely inhuman.

Unfortunately, some people (that are in charge) still think that the use of military force can solve any political, religious or social problem :(

[veK]

this whole world war 2 stuff really pisses me off now. because they make too much merchandise with it. you can't imagine how many tv productions and tv movies there are about ww2, hitler or wahtever is related to ww2 or hitler... and this isn't just "information what went on back then" but pure merchandise as well. this really sucks. it's okay to give information to those who don't yet know (and I mean the younger generation and children) but not all those movies and stuff who have 5% information 80% mainstream crap and 15% adverts... this really sucks and I'm not the only one around here who gets pissed off by this.

and the politicians also piss me off. they go from one commemoration to the next and always talk the same crap in interviews about "how tragic this was and it should never happen again" ... and so on.

but still they don't manage it to decrease the number of crimes comitted by right wing extremist or forbid the  poltic-parties who think fascistic. Or plz could somebody tell me right wing extremist are still allowed to gather and demonstrate on some days. you have to get a permission for every demonstration - so why can't they manage it to not give any permissions for such demonstrations which are totally without any sense and cost so much money (because of all the police who has to be around... a lot more than at "normal" demonstrations). I jut don't get it... stupid politicians and laws.

[Dude_Doc]

this whole world war 2 stuff really pisses me off now. because they make too much merchandise with it.

What historic event is not "merchandized"?

and the politicians also piss me off. they go from one commemoration to the next and always talk the same crap in interviews about "how tragic this was and it should never happen again" ... and so on.

That is a way of remembering it. To always inform people, to say those things so that no one will forget. World War 2 may seem like something we should leave to history and "move on", but the causes for the war are serious thus they must be remembered as they are now.

you have to get a permission for every demonstration - so why can't they manage it to not give any permissions for such demonstrations which are totally without any sense and cost so much money (because of all the police who has to be around... a lot more than at "normal" demonstrations). I jut don't get it... stupid politicians and laws.

Yes, I have thought about this myself. But that would restrict the right of free speach, and the estreme right would probably gain more sympathizers - people could start thinking in lines like "hey, maybe they are right - why else are they not allowed to speak and demonstrate like everybody else?". That most crimes are blamed on immigrants, because of the capitalist segregation, does not help.

[Edric O]

But many of those numbers are connected to the Red Army - they died fighting. Jews were deported because of their "race" and killed without a fighting chance. As I said, I don't agree with killing any human, but if I were to choose, I'd say it is "more acceptable" to kill a soldier in war, than it is to arrest, torture and then kill a civilian that has not one chance to fight back.

18 million Soviet civilians were killed in the war. There were also 9 million soldiers who died, which is why the total number of Soviet dead in WW2 is 27 million.

[exatreide]

Maybe if Stalin didn't butcher so many of his own men, the number wouldn't be so large either, or perhaps some kind of strategy besides massive artillery bombardment fallowed by infantry and tank charge the number of dead soldiers wouldn't be so high...

[Edric O]

Maybe if Stalin didn't butcher so many of his own men, the number wouldn't be so large either, or perhaps some kind of strategy besides massive artillery bombardment fallowed by infantry and tank charge the number of dead soldiers wouldn't be so high...

None of those 18 million Russian civilians were killed by Stalin or any Soviet authorities. Stalin's victims make up another few million dead - but most of them died in the purges of the late 30's, not during WW2. As for the 9 million soldiers who died, given the brutality of the war on the Eastern Front, it's unlikely that much could have been done to reduce their numbers.

On a related note, it has already been mentioned that the genocide against the Russians was far larger (and in many cases more brutal) then the genocide against the jews.

But why is this rarely mentioned? I was never taught this in grade or high school, even though WW2 material had been (and still is) extensively treated. Ask any kid, everyone will know that roughly 6 million jews were deported and murdered. But what about the other 6 million who died in the same camps? The communists, gypsies and homosexuals? The double-digit number of millions of Russians who died on the eastern front? It seems to me that the tragedy of the jewish victims is over emphasized, and you're instantly suspect if you point that out.

Very good point - I've often wondered the same thing. I suppose the genocide against the Russians and the fact that communists were taken to concentration camps alongside the Jews were kept quiet in the West due to the circumstances of the Cold War (after all, the Russians and the communists had to be portrayed as evil), but what about the gypsies and the homosexuals? Or what about the disabled people killed in hospitals all across Germany for not living up to the Nazi image of the healthy, strong aryan?

The Jewish people suffered immensely in the Holocaust, but we must remember the other victims as well. It is not an insult to the Jews to say that, for example, the Nazis killed almost 3 times more Russians than Jews. It's simply the truth. If anything, ignoring the non-Jewish victims of the Nazis only serves to gloss over Nazi crimes and make them look less evil than they actually were. How many times have you heard the claim that "the Nazis killed only 6 million people"?

The killing of any human being is wrong, but the reasons for killing them can be even worse. I think that the reason the Jews are "special" is because Hitler's whole campaign was built on Jews. He hated them. And it didn't help that Lenin or Marx was half-Jewish (or "complete Jews" (?)) - but I believe that since Lenin and Marx "started Communism", that became another target for the Nazis.

Whether Hitler hated communism because Karl Marx was a Jew or hated Jews because "they started communism" is a sort of chicken-and-egg question. It should be noted, however, that Hitler was less obsessed with Jews in the early days. Back in the 1920's, it's safe to say he hated his political opponents more than he hated the Jews or other non-aryans. His racism got stronger as time passed, though, until it became the main driving force in his life around the middle of WW2.

As a historical note, Marx's parents were Jews who had converted to Christianity when Karl was a small boy. There is no indication that any of Lenin's close relatives were Jews, but it's not like that mattered to the Nazis. In their view, any communist leader was a Jew by definition.

In other words, if Hitler (or any Nazi for that matter) were to shoot either a Communist or a Jew, they would choose to shoot the Jews because of his "race". In Nazism, "race" came before the political system - "race" came before anything for that matter. The Jew could very well be a Nazi himself, he would still be shot before the Communist.

I'm not so sure. I suppose it depends on which Nazi you're talking about, and what mood he happened to be in.

[exatreide]

None of those 18 million Russian civilians were killed by Stalin or any Soviet authorities. Stalin's victims make up another few million dead - but most of them died in the purges of the late 30's, not during WW2. As for the 9 million soldiers who died, given the brutality of the war on the Eastern Front, it's unlikely that much could have been done to reduce their numbers.

Please, What about the one Russian city that held off German attacks near Leningrad for awhile, was incircled and continued to fight on, but had to surender sooner or later. Stalin said these people were enemies of the state for surendering. Hell he disowned his own son after he was captured, Soviet political police commenly shot soviet troops for retreating.

Something I read was for every 2 soviet divisions on the front, one police divison was behind them, making sure didn't retreat, and Commenly fired at own sovet retreating forces.

Please, Zhukov's main strategy was massive air and arty bombardment fallowed by charge, you honestly think that was the most effective strategy? World war one tactics against a modern mechanicle army? Ah but what kept the soviet infantry from turning and retreating when all of their comerades were shot dead? The political police  ;)

Edit by Edric: fixed quote tags

[Edric O]

Hey, I never said Stalin was a nice guy, I only said those 27 million victims weren't his doing (which is perfectly true, at least for the 18 million civilians. Some of the 9 million soldiers were shot when trying to retreat, but the vast majority of them were killed by the Germans, obviously).

Hell he disowned his own son after he was captured

He had to do that so the Germans couldn't blackmail him with the life of his son.

Something I read was for every 2 soviet divisions on the front, one police divison was behind them, making sure didn't retreat, and Commenly fired at own sovet retreating forces.

I don't think the ratio was 2:1 (that would have meant a huge and completely overkill number of police divisions), but other than that, you're right. On 28 July 1942 (a little over a year after the initial German invasion), Stalin issued an order that came to be known as "Not One Step Back", which contained the following directives:

1. The military Councils of the fronts and first of all front commanders should:

  a) In all circumstances decisively eradicate retreat attitude in the troops and with an iron hand prevent propaganda that we can and should continue the retreat to the east, and this retreat will not be harmful to us;

  b) In all circumstances remove from offices and send to Stavka for court-martial those army commanders who allowed their troops to retreat at will, without authorisation by the Front command;

  c) Form within each Front 1 to 3 (depending on the situation) penal battalions (800 personnel), where commanding, senior commanders and political officers of corresponding ranks from all services, who have broken discipline due to cowardice or instability, should be sent. These battalions should be put on the more difficult sections of a Front, thus giving them an opportunity to redeem their crimes against the Motherland by blood.

2. The Military Councils of armies and first of all army commanders should:

  a) In all circumstances remove from offices corps and army commanders and commissars, who have allowed their troops to retreat at will without authorisation by the army command, and send them to the Military Councils of the Fronts for court-martial;

  b) Form 3 to 5 well-armed guards (barrage) units (zagradotryads), deploy them in the rear of unstable divisions and oblige them to execute panic-mongers and cowards at site in case of panic and chaotic retreat, thus giving faithful soldiers a chance to do their duty before the Motherland;

  c) Form 5 to 10 (depending on the situation) penal companies, where soldiers and NCOs, who have broken discipline due to cowardice or instability, should be sent. These units should be deployed at the most difficult sectors of the front, thus giving their soldiers an opportunity to redeem their crimes against the Motherland by blood.

3. Corps and division commanders and commissars should:

  a) In all circumstances remove from offices regiment and battalion commanders and commissars who allowed their troops to retreat at will without authorisation from divisional or corps command, deprive them of their military decorations and send them to the Military Councils of fronts for court-martial;

  b) Provide all possible help and support to the guards (barrage) units (zagradotryads) of the army in their work of strengthening discipline and order in the units.

Read the full text here:

http://www.mishalov.com/Stalin_28July42.html

In all fairness, however, most Russian war veterans say that these desperate measures were necessary in order to win the war, and that, in the end, they saved many more lives than they took.

[Khan]

And besides, shooting troops for retreating was a common practice in most armies back in those days.

[exatreide]

No it wasn't...

France didn't do it..

Britan didn't do it..

Germany only did it in the last hours of the war, sometimes.

[Khan]

No it wasn't...

France didn't do it..

Britan didn't do it..

Germany only did it in the last hours of the war, sometimes.

I don't know about germany but Britain and france had legislation in place deeming the penalty for desertion as death. Britain's army still has the possibility of such action in place, but it is unlikely that it will ever happen.

[exatreide]

deseretion is one thing.

but retreating...

[Caid Ivik]

Actually it would be hard to imagine Russians (and we could partially say it about western allies too) winning this war if they weren't such masters in retreating... And in fleeing too. Many armies were dissolved by their own generals just to support partisan forces. And in half of Europe it was the mainstream tactics. When you aren't a part of a regular army, you have no guarantees by both own and enemy forces. If you fled and remained on the enemy territory, you could be killed only because you are a person, which could be recruited, so you can only fight for own life. Now imagine why Russians allowed Germans such rapid progress: no matter what led men to dessertion, be it a command by defeated general or soldier's personal desire, they were instantly thrown into fight for the survival. Most effective form.

[Wolf]

I think it would have been harder for the Allies to spin a negative public image of the Soviets post-World War Two had the Soviets and Nazis not been allied for the first two years of the war. Part of the reason, I think, modern Western historians don't credit the USSR with victory beyond their soaking up scores of German divisions is that they would not have had to do so had Stalin not allowed the Nazis to establish the footholds they had in the first place. Remember, the reason the Allies (post-World War II West) produced all the propaganda about the Soviet Union initially was because of what Churchill defined as "the Iron Curtain;" the territories that aligned themselves with the USSR post-WW2 -- and, oddly enough, that included all of the very territories that Stalin had originally worked with Hitler to acquire.

As an aside, I understand that techincally the Nazis and Soviets only had an NAP, and that there is a distinction between "ally" and "non-aggression pact," however, I feel it is justifiable to label the original relationship between the USSR and Nazi Germany in the early days of World War II as more or less of an alliance for the following reason. When one nation publicly proclaims its hate and recommendation for extermination of the political party that exclusively runs your state as well as the peoples living within your state, and when your state signs a pact to strategically split military targets with that first nation anyway, that relationship is giving more than tacit consent to the initial state's actions. From the objective non-Nazi, non-Soviet point of view, the Nazis and Soviets may not fire at each other as they move to divide Eastern Europe, but their actions in-concert are too flagrantly out of line to ignore.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, much of it is not actually just a propaganda. Stalin really made a compromise - and it is sure he naivelly trusted it for some time - with Germany. Poland was also much more developed than Russia, so there is no problem to understand why part of it remained as part of the Union even after the war. It was naivity and lust to gain something from german ambitions. And same we can say about countries like Hungary or Slovakia, which really allied with Hitler. However, who read Mein Kampf, knew that we were not supposed to be treated as allies...

[Dunenewt]

Hungary wasn't a proper ally was it?  I thought only in Goverment, whilst the actual people were against it, or was that Bulgaria.  I know in Bulgaria they refused to deport the Jews.

[Caid Ivik]

We cannot say that all Germans supported NSDAP as well. As well as even in Britain were some fascists.

[Dunenewt]

Yeah but I know in Bulgaria's example, they refused to deport Jews, and eventually Germany took the country over.

[Anathema]

Germany only did it in the last hours of the war, sometimes.

That is a vast understatement. In the battle of Berlin the SS hung hundreds if not thousends of men (including elderly) because they refused to join the Volkssturm, even though the situation was utterly hopeless.

I agree though, that the death toll of the Red Army would have been much lower had Stalin ordered for more civilised tactics and not making such a mindless dash towards Berlin.

[Edric O]

I think it would have been harder for the Allies to spin a negative public image of the Soviets post-World War Two had the Soviets and Nazis not been allied for the first two years of the war. Part of the reason, I think, modern Western historians don't credit the USSR with victory beyond their soaking up scores of German divisions is that they would not have had to do so had Stalin not allowed the Nazis to establish the footholds they had in the first place. Remember, the reason the Allies (post-World War II West) produced all the propaganda about the Soviet Union initially was because of what Churchill defined as "the Iron Curtain;" the territories that aligned themselves with the USSR post-WW2 -- and, oddly enough, that included all of the very territories that Stalin had originally worked with Hitler to acquire.

As an aside, I understand that techincally the Nazis and Soviets only had an NAP, and that there is a distinction between "ally" and "non-aggression pact," however, I feel it is justifiable to label the original relationship between the USSR and Nazi Germany in the early days of World War II as more or less of an alliance for the following reason. When one nation publicly proclaims its hate and recommendation for extermination of the political party that exclusively runs your state as well as the peoples living within your state, and when your state signs a pact to strategically split military targets with that first nation anyway, that relationship is giving more than tacit consent to the initial state's actions. From the objective non-Nazi, non-Soviet point of view, the Nazis and Soviets may not fire at each other as they move to divide Eastern Europe, but their actions in-concert are too flagrantly out of line to ignore.

Regarding your second point, Stalin was a master of doublethink. Not only did he regularly flip-flop on both domestic and foreign issues, but he always found some twisted justification for it, and insisted that, in fact, his policies had always been the same. To be honest, though, he really shouldn't get all the credit, since he had many propaganda experts doing the work for him - their mission was to find ideological justifications for every act of realpolitik, which wasn't easy. The Soviet foreign policy towards Nazi Germany can be described as:

1933-1939: The Nazis have come to power, therefore Germany is our worst enemy. (the Soviet Union and Germany even fought a proxy war in Spain during the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939)

1939-1941: Germany is our friend. Germany has always been our friend.

1941-1945: Germany is our worst enemy. Germany has always been our worst enemy.

Regarding your first point, Stalin's apparent blindness to the fact that a Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was imminent in 1941 is inexplicable. For a man who knew (or should have known) all to well that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would only delay, not prevent, the eventual German attack, it seems incredible to have been caught so unprepared by Operation Barbarossa. The Russians wouldn't have had to fight so hard and pay such a terrible cost if they had prepared better. So why didn't they? We may never find out, because very few of the Russian eyewitnesses of Operation Barbarossa survived to tell the tale.

However, who read Mein Kampf, knew that we were not supposed to be treated as allies...

Indeed. Here is some useful information on Generalplan Ost, the overall Nazi plan for the reorganization of Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

What we now call the "Holocaust" was the main part of the Kleine Planung ("Small Plan"), which was to take place during the war (and, for the most part, was successfully implemented). A much more ambitious project, the Gro

[Davidu]

I really fear the next World War. It will be one, rest asured... the energies of the world have been caged for over 50 years... they'll burst at some point. I hope I'll be able to build my castle deep in Sahara by then, and command the space exploration from there. :)

[VigilVirus]

Stalin was not a great man, but he was in my opinion a great leader. He was simply the right man for the job at the time. Sacrifices had to be made, but no doubt he went overboard with the investigations of his own people due to his well known paranoid tendencies. I doubt however that anyone would be willing to dispute that without him Russia would not even have the strength to stand up to Germany.

[Caid Ivik]

You can be sure there could be thousands much better leaders than Stalin... Emperor Alexander stopped the French by same way and his deed was also forgotten, as he wasn't the brain of the war. For example Churchill, de Gaulle and Hitler were clear and willing to solve the things, they had exact plans, what we cannot say about Stalin or ie Roosevelt.

[VigilVirus]

Well, yeah, much of the credit for Alexander's victory goes to general Kutuzov, cause he was responsible for the majority of the war plans. But I never said that Stalin was responsible for the war plans either - the credit for those goes to Zhukov. But Stalin is responsible for modernizing the russian industry and weapons of war. Stalin's modernization of USSR's industry was one of very few such effective plans (albeit not on the front of agriculture) in history. Would another leader be able to accomplish that? One who wasn't willing to sacrifice a lot of lives for it? I don't think so. I'm sure Hitler could do it as he did it for Germany in a similar manner. But that's a bit irrelevant.