Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-18 19:21:14

Okay, but my thoughts are this matter are fairly mundane. From an objective view looking only at number of victims and suffering caused, the Soviet Union was worse than Nazi Germany at the time. But as Cindy points out, the Nazis by their nature draw more attention. Nazism was kinda flashy, communists are just drab. When you think of Nazis you picture rows of uniformed goons with red swastika armbands and standards with big silver eagles on them. Soviets, more likely to picture slightly unhealthy-looking people in dirty grey or brown clothes surrounding by run-down filthy cities with a giant red banner bearing Lenin's mug. The spectacle of Nazism is very memorable and they scare the hell out of some people on a deep level. Anyone can invade their neighbors and kill people, but few did it so efficiently and with such singular purpose.

Also, the Nazis lost which plays heavily into it. Had we been allied with them against the Soviets the common view would be quite different.

As it stands, Hitler ruined fascism for everyone.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-18 21:12:23

Just a couple of brief comments.

I tend to take the "Stalingrad was wonderful" thing at face value. As everyone knows, Stalingrad was the high-tide mark and turning-point for Nazi Germany. After Stalingrad - at which the entire German 6th Army was obliterated, the first-ever capture of a German Field Marshal occurred, and 250,000 of Germany's finest troops were killed or captured - it was an almost uninterrupted retreat to Berlin for German forces.
Although it was a horrible bloodbath that dragged on for months, Stalingrad's conclusion, in January 1943, marked the beginning of the end for Hitler - ample cause for celebration among anti-Nazis everywhere.

I thought I saw a comment from someone (was it CC?) to the effect that America beat Nazi Germany, then handed the country back to the Germans.
I think it's often the case that the Soviet Union's contribution to the defeat of Hitler is overlooked or at least grossly underestimated. 3 million German troops invaded Russia in 1941 and drove hard and fast into the heart of the Soviet Motherland. By the time of the D-Day landing in June 1944, the Red Army and Soviet industry had recovered from this almost unimaginable mauling at the hands of the cream of the Third Reich's military forces, including the notoriously effective Waffen-SS Divisions.
Even if D-Day had failed, it's extremely unlikely that the release of some 50 German Divisions, stationed in France, to fight on the Eastern Front, would have done any more than delay the inevitable march of Soviet troops into Berlin.
In fact, it could be construed that the landing of Allied troops at Normandy was as much to prevent Stalin taking over all of Western Europe as it was to establish a second front against Germany.

Palomar · 2005-02-18 21:13:45

But as Cindy points out, the Nazis by their nature draw more attention. Nazism was kinda flashy, communists are just drab. When you think of Nazis you picture rows of uniformed goons with red swastika armbands and standards with big silver eagles on them. Soviets, more likely to picture slightly unhealthy-looking people in dirty grey or brown clothes surrounding by run-down filthy cities with a giant red banner bearing Lenin's mug. The spectacle of Nazism is very memorable and they scare the hell out of some people on a deep level.

*Thanks Cobra, sincerely.

Around 5 years ago a group of people turned the corner at the end of the block, into our neighborhood. They all wore black hooded cloaks and many were tall adults. They instantly reminded me of drawings I'd seen in religious (Protestant) books of Inquisitors in torture chambers or leading a victim to a stake. No kidding.

I felt instant dread and fear, like I've never felt before...because I'd never actually seen such a thing except, of course, as a drawing.

And never mind that it was Halloween night and it was a group of adults -- a family -- all dressed in a specific costume taking their children around trick or treating; it gave me a genuine chill.

So yeah, Image can be extremely powerful. I know everyone here knows this...I just wanted to share an example from my own experience.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-02-18 23:05:42

Just a couple of brief comments.
I tend to take the "Stalingrad was wonderful" thing at face value. As everyone knows, Stalingrad was the high-tide mark and turning-point for Nazi Germany. After Stalingrad - at which the entire German 6th Army was obliterated, the first-ever capture of a German Field Marshal occurred, and 250,000 of Germany's finest troops were killed or captured - it was an almost uninterrupted retreat to Berlin for German forces.
Although it was a horrible bloodbath that dragged on for months, Stalingrad's conclusion, in January 1943, marked the beginning of the end for Hitler - ample cause for celebration among anti-Nazis everywhere.
I thought I saw a comment from someone (was it CC?) to the effect that America beat Nazi Germany, then handed the country back to the Germans.
I think it's often the case that the Soviet Union's contribution to the defeat of Hitler is overlooked or at least grossly underestimated. 3 million German troops invaded Russia in 1941 and drove hard and fast into the heart of the Soviet Motherland. By the time of the D-Day landing in June 1944, the Red Army and Soviet industry had recovered from this almost unimaginable mauling at the hands of the cream of the Third Reich's military forces, including the notoriously effective Waffen-SS Divisions.
Even if D-Day had failed, it's extremely unlikely that the release of some 50 German Divisions, stationed in France, to fight on the Eastern Front, would have done any more than delay the inevitable march of Soviet troops into Berlin.
In fact, it could be construed that the landing of Allied troops at Normandy was as much to prevent Stalin taking over all of Western Europe as it was to establish a second front against Germany.

For the record, I agree with Shaun on these points.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-19 01:14:25

I think it's often the case that the Soviet Union's contribution to the defeat of Hitler is overlooked or at least grossly underestimated. 3 million German troops invaded Russia in 1941 and drove hard and fast into the heart of the Soviet Motherland. By the time of the D-Day landing in June 1944, the Red Army and Soviet industry had recovered from this almost unimaginable mauling at the hands of the cream of the Third Reich's military forces, including the notoriously effective Waffen-SS Divisions.

I for one don't underestimate the Soviet contribution, but neither do I consider it a positive contribution in the sense of improving the overall situation. Tyranny is tyranny, Soviets vs. Nazis, either way bad guys win. From my perspective it washes out.

Around 5 years ago a group of people turned the corner at the end of the block, into our neighborhood. They all wore black hooded cloaks and many were tall adults. They instantly reminded me of drawings I'd seen in religious (Protestant) books of Inquisitors in torture chambers or leading a victim to a stake. No kidding.
I felt instant dread and fear, like I've never felt before...because I'd never actually seen such a thing except, of course, as a drawing.

That reminds me of my wedding.

I suppose even the most dreadful imagery can actually be positive to some.

Considering that a certain major religion has as its icon a guy nailed to a cross. ???

BWhite · 2005-02-19 10:16:30

I think it's often the case that the Soviet Union's contribution to the defeat of Hitler is overlooked or at least grossly underestimated. 3 million German troops invaded Russia in 1941 and drove hard and fast into the heart of the Soviet Motherland. By the time of the D-Day landing in June 1944, the Red Army and Soviet industry had recovered from this almost unimaginable mauling at the hands of the cream of the Third Reich's military forces, including the notoriously effective Waffen-SS Divisions.
I for one don't underestimate the Soviet contribution, but neither do I consider it a positive contribution in the sense of improving the overall situation. Tyranny is tyranny, Soviets vs. Nazis, either way bad guys win. From my perspective it washes out.

I agree with Cobra to the extent that Stalin's evil and Hitler's evil are so extreme any attempt to compare becomes nonsensical. There also are rumors that Stalin was murdered in the 1950s by close aides because he was on the verge of launching a Jewish extermination campaign that was very Hitler-like.

Sure, it would have been "better" if Patton could have driven his Sherman tanks all the way to Kiev. Yet, was that feasible?

Read about Operation Bagration launched by the Soviets in June 1944. (Wikipedia has a great article) Normandy was largely a pinprick in comparison. Would I prefer that the Brits under Montgomery had liberated Warsaw? Of course. We lacked the power to do that.

Was Yalta a bad deal for the United States? Perhaps.

But by analogy, my current fears for US foreign policy are very much related to my historical belief that if WW2 had morphed into "Red Star vs White Star" or "Patton vs Zhukov" on the plains of central Germany, we may very well have lost with or without a handful of A-bombs.

= = =

The popularity of http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/ … pg]posters such as these with rabid Freepers is a large part of why I fear George W. Bush.

He is going to get us (already getting us?) into fights we cannot win. ???

Palomar · 2005-02-19 10:33:51

Shaun: I tend to take the "Stalingrad was wonderful" thing at face value. As everyone knows, Stalingrad was the high-tide mark and turning-point for Nazi Germany. After Stalingrad - at which the entire German 6th Army was obliterated, the first-ever capture of a German Field Marshal occurred, and 250,000 of Germany's finest troops were killed or captured - it was an almost uninterrupted retreat to Berlin for German forces.
Although it was a horrible bloodbath that dragged on for months, Stalingrad's conclusion, in January 1943, marked the beginning of the end for Hitler - ample cause for celebration among anti-Nazis everywhere.

*I'm not sure I've been familiar with those details. Have heard of "the fall of Stalingrad," but perhaps I simply don't recall the finer points. Unlike you -- wow, you really know your history.

I thought I saw a comment from someone (was it CC?) to the effect that America beat Nazi Germany, then handed the country back to the Germans.

Yep, it was CC.

I think it's often the case that the Soviet Union's contribution to the defeat of Hitler is overlooked or at least grossly underestimated...

Yeah, I think you're right. And the remainder of your points too. This is starting to get a bit out of my league (head starts to reel); I don't have point-by-point knowledge about WWII -- just some broad swaths of familiarity. Interesting comments, thanks Shaun.

--Cindy

P.S.: Bill's link to that poster; Bush could only wish to look that good. What, he's 30 again? LOL.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-19 11:52:20

Well, no one said it had to be current political potpourri so here goes heresy.

While I would have greatly preferred an American advance through Germany and across half of the Soviet Union I also am not certain it would have been achievable. It certainly would have required a total commitment from the entire nation, something difficult to achieve within a war-weary representative republic turning on an ally.

Had it been my call, I most likely would have moved as far East as possible without incident, including trying to take Berlin first, then sitting tight until we know if the atomic bomb will work and how many we can produce. The nuclear ace would give a great deal of leverage had someone been willing to pull it a bit harder.

Yet all things being equal I would just as soon let Germany and the Soviet Union pound each other, if my enemies want to fight amongst themselves I'll happily egg them on and enjoy the show, provided there is a plan to deal with the winner.

But then I admit that when it comes to Soviets vs. Nazis I would prefer ever so slighty the Nazis for a number of fairly subtle reasons. Perhaps the most glaring of them, while both systems were evil, the conduct of the regular armed forces was quite different. The German Army (regular army, not Waffen SS which itself comprised a ridiculously wide range of quality between units) conducted itself honorably for the most part. The Red Army made a habit of acting exactly like the barbarian horde the Nazi Propaganda Ministry made them out to be. In the case of Germany at the time it was a leadership problem, I'm of the opinion that the problem was deeper with the Soviets.

Of course most people take that as latent anti-semitism when in fact it's nothing of the sort. I have a big problem with the murder of millions of people, whether or not they're Jews is of no relevance either way.

Quote
I thought I saw a comment from someone (was it CC?) to the effect that America beat Nazi Germany, then handed the country back to the Germans.

Yep, it was CC.

Not exactly what I said, more contrasting the American treatment of a defeated enemy to that of the Soviets rather than ignoring their contribution.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-19 18:35:50

Hi CC.
I'm afraid I've been having trouble with my interpretation of posts quite a lot lately, so if I've emphasized the wrong aspect of one of your posts, I apologise. Now that you've clarified it, I see your point, which is certainly a valid one.
But, just in passing, I think it's only fair to recognize the contribution of the Soviet people to Hitler's downfall - a contribution I feel isn't always fully acknowledged. The reason for that comparative lack of recognition of the Soviet effort in the eyes of the West is no doubt tied up with the point you make, that the Soviet Union was really a thinly disguised enemy in allied clothing; a regime every bit as detestable as the one we were all fighting.
I fully accept that aspect of your comment.

Thanks, Bill, for going on record as agreeing with me about the Soviet contribution etc. :up:
Not unnaturally, I think, this gave me pause for thought and I stopped dead in my tracks to think over what I'd actually said. I couldn't help feeling that, if you agreed with me about this, I may have inadvertently said something I didn't mean! [Just kidding.]

Hi Cindy!
It was very kind of you to make flattering comments about my knowledge of history but they're undeserved, I'm afraid. There are only certain areas of history I have a degree of familiarity with, most of the rest being as much a blur to me as it is to any other amateur, of course.
Some years ago, though, simply because it interested me, I made a fairly extensive study of WWII in Europe and the period leading up to it. I'm sure I've forgotten most of what I learned but some points still stand out clearly in my mind - something I cling to, with an air of quiet desperation, as evidence that Alzheimer's hasn't quite gotten the better of me just yet!

Just to tackle the other main point of these recent posts, I think it's very difficult to paint portraits of alternative histories in Europe in 1944/45, or alternative histories anywhere, anytime, for that matter!
But, in this case, we should remember that the Soviet forces in spring 1945 were formidable, to say the very least. And Soviet industry was in full war-production mode. As I think I've touched on before, they had upwards of 40,000 T-34 tanks (and were producing 2000 more each month), tens of thousands of artillery pieces, and millions of battle-hardened troops. Patton may have thought he could roll them back to Moscow, as the Germans managed to do in 1941, but I think it would have been the mother and father of all battles to try it.
An allied drive into Russia might just have succeeded if the German Army could have been pressed into service on the West's side. Although it was a defeated force, the Wehrmacht's main problem was largely one of military supplies and fuel. The Reich's supply of raw materials had been effectively choked off and its industrial base badly damaged. But, if the German military machine could have been resupplied and re-organized quickly enough, their addition to a hypothetical latter-day Grande Armee might well have turned the tide. In fact, many German soldiers, perhaps largely unaware of the grisly excesses of their own government, were convinced that the Allies would do exactly that - amalgamate, at the last minute, with the German Army and press on against the Bolshevik hordes, the 'true enemy of European civilization'.
But of course, with the liberation of the Nazi death camps fresh in everyone's mind, joining forces with an army that had made genocide possible just wasn't morally and politically feasible.

Palomar · 2005-02-19 21:51:53

Quote
I thought I saw a comment from someone (was it CC?) to the effect that America beat Nazi Germany, then handed the country back to the Germans.

Yep, it was CC.
Not exactly what I said, more contrasting the American treatment of a defeated enemy to that of the Soviets rather than ignoring their contribution.

*Sorry Cobra; didn't mean to misconstrue what you'd said.

That reminds me of my wedding.

:-\ Erm...okay. My ideal: White and sunshine yellow as predominant colors, with lots of daisies. And a pristine, towering white cake loaded with buttercream frosting (white, with frosting daisies). Back on topic...

Shaun: It was very kind of you to make flattering comments about my knowledge of history but they're undeserved, I'm afraid.

Now you're being far too modest. As your post goes on to prove. I've seen you sound like a scientist and a historian...more than once.

Shaun: the Soviet Union was really a thinly disguised enemy in allied clothing; a regime every bit as detestable as the one we were all fighting.
I fully accept that aspect of your comment.

Based on what I know about the intentions and post-war behavior of each side, I agree.

Some years ago, though, simply because it interested me, I made a fairly extensive study of WWII in Europe and the period leading up to it...

Apparently.

There are only certain areas of history I have a degree of familiarity with, most of the rest being as much a blur to me as it is to any other amateur, of course.
.... I'm sure I've forgotten most of what I learned but some points still stand out clearly in my mind - something I cling to, with an air of quiet desperation, as evidence that Alzheimer's hasn't quite gotten the better of me just yet!

Yeah, right. :;): Too modest.

Bill: And I also agree (at least as to potential developments) which is why Euro-bashing by US media is counterproductive, or "not useful" to use a term I sometimes hear today.

What Euro-bashing? Maybe I've been missing something...If anything, Europe is on a pedestal in many respects currently, based on what I'm reading and hearing "in general."

So who's going to start the 3rd Political Potpourri thread?

(The history stuff is far more interesting than current events)

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-20 10:55:33

Saved for posterity before imploding, feel free to continue any discussion of the previous 19 pages in "Political Potpourri III"

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2005-02-18 19:21:14

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#277 2005-02-18 21:12:23

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#278 2005-02-18 21:13:45

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#279 2005-02-18 23:05:42

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#280 2005-02-19 01:14:25

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#281 2005-02-19 10:16:30

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#282 2005-02-19 10:33:51

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#283 2005-02-19 11:52:20

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#284 2005-02-19 18:35:50

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#285 2005-02-19 21:51:53

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#286 2005-02-20 10:55:33

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Board footer