The West rewrites history, too

Asia Times ^ | June 2, 2005 | Alexander Bukh

[robowombat]

Alexander Bukh waxes nostalgic for the lost charms of the most longlived tyranny of the 20th century, the USSR.

[frogjerk]

Russia's victory in the Great Patriotic War, as World War II is known in that country, was probably the most important national celebration during Soviet times, and the "historical memory" related to the "great victory of the Soviet people" has been hammered into the minds of the citizens of the Soviet Union starting from kindergarten. I spent only the first third of my life in the Soviet Union, but the grandiose parades, the never-ending stories about heroes who sacrificed their lives on the front, the patriotic war movies, the songs ... all these memories are still very vivid in my mind.

And he condemns the west of pumping up their victory?

[pierrem15]

that were hardly more humane than those of imperial Japan

Ahem. Bullpappy. Moral equivalency was always one of the best weapons in the Soviet arsenal: like spider venom, it paralyzes its prey before it is devoured.

[liberallarry]

You can't read.

He doesn't deny the tyranny of the Soviet Union, or the Nazis. He merely tells the truth about WWII, and about Western attitudes toward the Nazis and Western colonial policies.

[Onelifetogive]

And he condemns the west of pumping up their victory?

I didn't read it that way. He condemned the West for forgetting the Soviets role in that victory.

I am forced to wonder, did we take the wrong side in the war? Hitler was BAD, but wasn't Stalin worse?

I understand that many Germans couldn't figure out why we weren't supporting them in their struggle against the Communists.

Could Hitler have been negotiated with? Would he have agreed to leave Europe alone for assistance in defeating the Soviets??? If FDR's administration had not been so PRO-COMMUNIST, would we have defeated them 50 years earlier and saved 60,000,000 lives or so?

[robowombat]

The Soviet-Nazi war was a duel between totalitarian orders over who would control eastern Europe. Hitler and the German armed forces did the west an inadvertent favor by mauling the Soviet colossus to the degree that they did. The Soviet Union was the one adversary we have had that actually did contain all the elements geographic, military, and ideological that could have made it capable of actually invading the western hemisphere. Whoever or what ever could inflict significant damage on this Moloch was doing an indirect service to the west.

[liberallarry]

And he condemns the west of pumping up their victory?

Unfortunately, very few among the general population in Western Europe and the US seem to know that historians do not debate whether the war was won by the Soviet or Anglo-Saxon effort, but on how long the Soviet victory would have been postponed if the landing at the beach in Normandy, France, had not taken place. How many know that at the time of the celebrated landing, in June 1944, four-fifths of the German forces were on the Eastern front, trying in vain to stop the mounting Red Army offensive? How many of those Western European international relations or history students know that 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in this war, compared to the 295,000 Americans killed mostly in the war against Japan and the 380,000 British civilians and soldiers killed on both fronts? How many Western school textbooks teach about the strong pro-Nazi sentiments in Europe and the US, the collaboration with the Nazis and the indifference with which news about the mass killings of Jews, Slavs and Romanians was treated in the US and the UK?

There's a very big difference.

The Russians beat the Germans but the Soviets attempted to portray it as a victory of Communism over Nazism - which was only incidentally true.

The West successfully stood by while the Russians and the Germans annihilated each other, then entered the fray and limited the Russian victory to Eastern Europe. But it greatly exagerated its military role - the the victory of freedom over tyranny which was only incidentally true.

[varyouga]

As a former Soviet citizen who escaped, I'm not a big fan of Stalin and communism but I do think that the sacrifice of the citizens should be taught here.

I remember in US history class, the only thing mentioned was a number on a chart that showed allied/axis deaths. They should at least get more recognition than the French for fighting on their own soil and not surrendering despite heavy losses.

[ckilmer]

any fool knows that modern wars are fought on logistics. while it is trued the russians supplied their own blood. the author leaves out the massive aid the US sent to the soviet union through murmansk and vladavostok. It was something like 100 billion in current US dollars.

[liberallarry]

You have only to read post#5 to see the essential truth of the article.

The Soviet-Nazi war was fought for control of ALL Europe...and, if there had been a clear winner, for world dominance. The damage done to the Soviet Union was neither incidental nor inadvertant. This was the strategy of the Western powers from the outset.

[robowombat]

I have no problem with that. The vast size and scope of the Soviet-German war is as unknown as the massive military operations on the Eastern Front in the First World War to most US citizens.

[frogjerk]

I am forced to wonder, did we take the wrong side in the war? Hitler was BAD, but wasn't Stalin worse?

I understand that many Germans couldn't figure out why we weren't supporting them in their struggle against the Communists.

Could Hitler have been negotiated with?

I see your tagline but I am forced to ask: are you serious?

[Mr. Jeeves]

How many of those Western European international relations or history students know that 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in this war, compared to the 295,000 Americans killed mostly in the war against Japan and the 380,000 British civilians and soldiers killed on both fronts?

A sizeable portion of those 27 million were killed by Stalin himself, through both internal purges and by the use of battle tactics that forestalled the death of the regime but were cruelly wasteful of soldiers' lives.

[frogjerk]

A sizeable portion of those 27 million were killed by Stalin himself, through both internal purges and by the use of battle tactics that forestalled the death of the regime but were cruelly wasteful of soldiers' lives.

Ping!

[Restorer]

The Soviet Union was the one adversary we have had that actually did contain all the elements geographic, military, and ideological that could have made it capable of actually invading the western hemisphere.

I think this is very much not true. Had the Nazis conquered the USSR, they would have controlled all of Europe and the Middle East. With all these human and natural resources under the control of the undeniably efficient Germans, they could quickly have built a military that would have been impossible for the British and eventually the Americans to resist.

Especially when Japan would probably have been in control of everything over to Oz and India.

USSR, on the other hand, would have found mounting an actual transcontinental invasion almost impossible. A superior navy could blockade USSR quite easily, as their ports are few and often blocked by ice.

In addition, the Commie system was much less efficient than the modified free-market system the Nazis allowed.

I think the Nazis, in the early 40s, were a much greater long-term threat than the Commies, who could never have been a true military threat to America without ICBMs (which in 1941 nobody knew were just around the corner).

[Congressman Billybob]

Notice that this sanctimonious academic makes exactly the same mistake for which he condemns others. Hitler did not begin World War II until he had in hand a nonaggression agreement with Stalin. Of course, Hitler later broke that agreement by attacking the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarosa. But the USSR played a central role in the BEGINNING of WW II.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Hunting the Great White ... Minivan"

[frogjerk]

Hiltler most definitely could have been negoitiated with...

[varyouga]

Absolute power corrupts all. If we sided with Hitler he would have been much worse later on.

[liberallarry]

A sizeable portion of those 27 million were killed by Stalin himself, through both internal purges and by the use of battle tactics that forestalled the death of the regime but were cruelly wasteful of soldiers' lives.

The regime was incompetent in many ways - WWII was preceded by the annihilation of the officer corp - but it was the fate of the country which was at stake. Had the Russians lost at Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad they would have accompanied the Jews to the ovens.

[robowombat]

If so then more power to them At the end of World War 2 the security position of the US was more perilous than in 1939 by several factors. The Soviet Union dominated the European landscape. The United Kingdom was near financial collapse. A fact that would be revealed in the winter of 1947 when extraordinary cold paralyzed the British economy and led to a formal British note to the US that he could not cover financial and military aid to Greece and Turkey. France and Italy fairly swarmed with communist party members and seemed in one or both cases to be destined to come under the control of crypto-communist regimes. The only factor that kept Stalin from exploiting the window of opportunity present in the 1946-49 time frame to have the Red Army replace the Wehrmacht watching the Cliffs of Dover was the US nuclear monopoly (and the Russians weren't that impressed with the A-bomb) and the need to recuperate from the massive damage done to the Soviet Union by the German War.