Posted on 05/07/2005 4:37:28 PM PDT by Lessismore
MOSCOW, May 7 (RIA Novosti) - The Soviet people not only defended the Motherland from the Nazi aggression, but also liberated 11 European countries during World War II, announced Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday during the opening ceremony of the memorial on the Poklonnaya Hill dedicated to the Victory in the Great Patriotic War.
"During fierce battles on the front that stretched from the Barents Sea to Caucasus, the Soviet Union broke the backbone of the German military machine. It was on the Eastern front where the Nazis suffered three-quarters of their losses," Putin said.
"Courage, resilience and unity of the multi-national people became the major force that destroyed Nazism," Putin stressed.
He said the world has never seen such an example of mass heroism, such a spread of partisan movement, such enthusiasm and effort of workers at the home front that provided the army with all necessary means to defeat the enemy.
"We will always remember and respect the feat of the generation of victors," the Russian President stated.
"They defended our right to live, to preserve our statehood and culture. They defended the future of our children. Their heroic deeds will always serve as a moral model for us," Putin said.
The Russian President concluded his speech with the words, "May the glory of those who perished for the freedom and independence of our Motherland live forever! We bow deeply to the veterans of the Great Patriotic War!"
The new memorial is a gigantic colonnade consisting of 15 bronze steles.
Ten of them represent the feats of Red Army soldiers and officers. Three are dedicated to courage, resilience and heroism of the Navy personnel. One of the steles is dedicated to fearless partisans and members of underground resistance, and the last one - to workers at the home front.
Here's a little bit about what they were up to between the "revolution" and WWII:
At the very dawn of the Soviet state, the Russian Communist leaders were too well aware of the fact that this country could not permanently exist unless it received some foreign support. The only socialist island washed by hostile waters of capitalist countries had little chance to survive. And the 1917 Socialist revolution in Russia was carried out with expectations of outside support.
Those revolutionaries who gained power in Russia believed they were at the threshold of a revolutionary movement sweeping all countries worldwide, they were possessed with the idea of "the world revolution." They flattered themselves with the thought that they were pioneers in the universal breakthrough into happiness. There could be hardly another reason to explain the rush and lightness of rulers to throw the country into the pit of a bloody Civil War in Russia in the ensuing years after the Great War.
"During the Civil War, the Bolshevik party believed that the revolution in Russia was just a beginning of transformation of the entire world, and that socialist revolutions would happen in many developed capitalist countries."1
As the economy of the newly emerged Soviet Russia needed close collaboration with its neighbors, hopes of economic advancement were also linked with the goal of world revolution. For example, Zinoviev, one of the chief leaders and a coworker with Lenin, set the date for it: as early as 1927. No wonder the Communist leadership was surprised and upset with reluctance of foreign proletariat to use the experience of Russia and carry on the struggle for the Communist cause.
Expressing his confidence in the forthcoming revolution in Europe, Lenin made remarks that "all our hopes of the ultimate socialist victory are founded on this confidence and on this scientific foresight."2 He also wrote, "There cannot be a shadow of doubt about the ultimate outcome in the world struggle. In this aspect the ultimate victory of socialism is wholly and certainly secured."3
There have been some very interesting stories on the "History Channel" this week on the last days of WW II in the European Theater. The fall of Berlin was especially good.
Operation Barbarossa dragged on until 1943 and was ham-strung by Field Marshal Goering's inability to air-lift sufficient supplies to the German troops. And a frustrated Hitler assumed military command of the 'Russian Front' and made some incredibly bad decisions. Plus, Stalin was receiving information by spies which gave him, among other things, the German battle plans for what became the world's biggest tank battle at Kursk
But in the final analysis, it was the determination of the Russian people to fight back - no matter what - that turned the tide.
As a German officer wrote in his diary:
At Stalingrad, the Wehrmarcht had met its match. The soldiers had an uneasy feeling they were fighting men of nearly superhuman strength and resilience. The wounded Russian rarely cried out. Hoffman, a German officer, confided to his diary that Russian's displayed an "insane stubbornness." He said they are, "fanatics...wild beasts...not men, but some kind of cast iron creatures; they never get tired and are not afraid of fire."
Yes, those untermenschen Slavs took on the German soldiers and tore them apart. click
The "extermination camp" was the majority of the Ukraine when Stalin imposed a forced starvation. In total numbers Stalin murdered more people than Hitler, second only to Mao.
Putin speaks the truth. If Eisenhower wasn't such a pussy, the Western front could have been over months earlier, saving millions from Soviet tyranny.
Nyet... BULL Squish..
You're right about that. It was worse.
While I agree that communism in East Germany wasn't "just as bad" within the scope of East Germany (ie, vs Nazism in Eastern Germany), when the larger picture is looked at, and Nazism and Soviet Communism are compared, I think it is very reasonable to say that they were approximately equal on the evilometer. Stalin exterminated large parts of eastern Europe by starvation as a means of maintaining control.
Hitler and Stalin= the bloodiest butchers in history.
Putin speaks the truth. If Eisenhower wasn't such a pussy, the Western front could have been over months earlier, saving millions from Soviet tyranny.
I don't see how. Stalin wanted us to invade earlier, as it would have taken the pressure off him. Even after the war he criticized us for not coming in earlier. I don't think it was a coincidence that the Russians started seeing gains in the East at the same time we were coming in from the West.
And Eisenhower was probably about the earliest advocate among the Allied command for opening a western front.
There is no doubt that the Soviets deserve more credit than the western powers for destroying the Nazi war machine. But it isn't like they did it out of any kindness in their own heart- they had to do it.
Also, in addition to the courage of the WW2 Russians, add in a good solid measure of fear of the political commisars and soviet secret police. Further, the Germans, by committing atrocities, didn't exactly endear themselves to many eastern europeans and ukrainians, and revenge became a motivating factor for many.
Certainly the war on the eastern front was on a far larger scale than the war in the west, and the Russians suffered huge casualties. They deserve credit for that.
It's not certain if they could have held out without supplies provided by the West via the Murmansk convoys, which were marked by extreme courage on the part of our merchant marine.
I draw the line, however, at that word "liberated." Bush just made a statement in the Balkans, reported on NPR, that the Yalta conference should be held to blame for turning the free people of Eastern Europe over to tyranny, something we should never do again. I don't think Yeltsin will be pleased by Bush's remarks, and I didn't think the snot-nosed NPR commentators were pleased, either.
Methinks Bush understands history better than the liberals do. I was just delighted to hear about these remarks, the first time, I believe, that an American president has ever said anything of that kind about Yalta.
This debate about who did more is foolishness. Hitler sealed his fate when he decided to do away with his non-agression pact with Stalin and fight on two fronts. Had he left Russia alone and consolidated his victories in the west, he might have been able to finish off Britain and then the inevitable face off with Russia over the east could happen under far more favorable terms for Germany. Russia needed us as much as we needed them.
I had a college professor, a Russian, that I believed consulted for the CIA. Anyway he said that the U.S. supplied Russian soilders with about a pound of foodstuffs for everyday of the war. I don't know where he got the information from, but since he was an anti-communist I'll take his word for it. The russians sacrifed their blood to defeat the Nazis. But they didn't operate in a vaccum, without help for the corrupt imperialist powers.
The Ukraine famine occurred before the war. The quote was that "Stalin replaced Naziism with something just as bad." Which is just not true for the areas that the Nazis controlled. Even after suffering through the Stalin-imposed famine, the Ukrainians stopped welcoming the Nazis and switched over to fighting them once they found out what they had in store for them. And that says a lot. Even after suffering all that Stalin could dish out, they still preferred him to Hitler. So the post-war communists were indeed not "just as bad" as the Nazis they replaced.
If you want to go by sheer numbers stalin had hitler beat.
Not so sure that it was all heroism. There's a fairly well know story about an Allied general, who after seeing the Red Army forces in action, turned to Stalin and said, "It must take a brave man to fight in the Red Army." Stalin turned to the general and calmly said, "It takes a brave man to run."
I think that what was being referred to was Eisenhower's over-generalship of the western campaign. Many people think that if Patton had been given more support (particularly instead of Monty) that the war in the west would have been won sooner. I tend to agree, but who knows?
I agree, but given the choice between a post-war communist East Europe or a post-war Nazi East Europe (and that was the only choice we had), I think most people (Churchill and Roosevelt certainly) would go with a post-war communist-dominated east. Patton alone was probably the sole dissenter to that decision in any position of power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.