Soviets, Nazis, etc

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Soviet Empire.

 

As a teenage admirer of "scientific socialism", I spent nearly two months in Soviet Russia (Moscow and Crimea). To say I was disillusioned would be an understatement--far from a worker's paradise, it was a paradise for the lazy, the drunk, the stupid, and the evil. Everyone good I met in Russia (and there were many intelligent, good, and wonderful people) loathed it; every rotten bastard I met loved it. My best friends who emigrated from Russia still talk about communism with a bitterness and loathing you can't imagine.

 

How to destroy such a beastly regime? Turns out it should have been the easiest thing in the world. We didn't need James Bond and all the other instruments of the Cold War. All the West had to do was just to quit helping them--to quit handing over territories (like most of Eastern Europe), to quit claiming that something is morally superior about Communism (nothing is), to quit loaning them money, and above all to quit romanticizing them. Once Western sympathy and credit to the Soviets dried up, the crash was inevitable.

[phil25]

And yet Cato, without the USSR's sacrifices in 1941-45, Europe might still now be under Nazi domination.

 

Evil, even worse than Hitler, Stalin and his regime may have been, but both the UK and USA were prepared to work with him to overcome what was perceived as something even worse. Churchill spoke of supping with the devil, but sup he, and FDR, did.

 

The extent of the Rusian contribution to the final vistory, and the extent of their losses, dwarf those of the western powers.

 

But I agree, communism was an awful trick played on the ordinary man, by unscrupulous, immoral and self-serving leaders. I do not mourn its passing. But on 11/11 it is worth pauing, I think (though I apologise for being off topic) to remember one shining valuable thing they did.

 

Phil

[Gaius Octavius]

"... to quit loaning them money,...."

 

"...to quit lending them money,...."

 

But otherwise agreed. After the Axis powers were beaten, we should have had Patton lead our armies against the USSR, along with the Germans, from the west; Mac Arthur team up with Hirohito and Chaing Kai Sheck and attack them from the east; Churchill come up from India and Iran. All this while 'A' bombing them back to the stone age from the Northern Route.

Result: No oil problem; no Castro, Chavez, Morales, Tito, Lumumba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc., etc., et al.

 

Kool?

 

[phil25]

Result: No oil problem; no Castro, Chavez, Morales, Tito, Lumumba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc., etc., et al.

 

But a hugely negative and immoral legacy that would simply have stored up greater troubles for the future. And hardly realistic.

 

I hope you are being ironic GO, though I see no sign of it in your post.

 

In 1945, the Wehrmacht was defeated, destroyed - where would the german force in your alliance have come from - and who would have led it?

 

Indeed, why wait til 1945 - why not ally yourself with Hitler and join in Barbarossa!! It's what many fascist's in the 30s wanted to do - communism was the greater evil. The Nazi's could be controlled, couldn't they?

 

And is bombing anyone "back to the stoneage" a recipe for anything?

 

If you are serious in your post, GO, then it confirms why to many in the world it is the USA that is the "rogue state" and the centre of the "axis of terror" in the world today. Not a sentiment I yet share, I can assure you - though I welcome Rumsfeld's ignominious departure - but one I understand more and more.

 

If a MOD wants to split off this digression into another thread to allow GO to respond and avoid spoiling this one, then I have no objection at all.

 

Otherwise just bomb me back to stoneage!!

 

Phil

[Julius Ratus]

The Soviet Empire.

 

As a teenage admirer of "scientific socialism", I spent nearly two months in Soviet Russia (Moscow and Crimea). To say I was disillusioned would be an understatement--far from a worker's paradise, it was a paradise for the lazy, the drunk, the stupid, and the evil. Everyone good I met in Russia (and there were many intelligent, good, and wonderful people) loathed it; every rotten bastard I met loved it. My best friends who emigrated from Russia still talk about communism with a bitterness and loathing you can't imagine.

 

How to destroy such a beastly regime? Turns out it should have been the easiest thing in the world. We didn't need James Bond and all the other instruments of the Cold War. All the West had to do was just to quit helping them--to quit handing over territories (like most of Eastern Europe), to quit claiming that something is morally superior about Communism (nothing is), to quit loaning them money, and above all to quit romanticizing them. Once Western sympathy and credit to the Soviets dried up, the crash was inevitable.

 

The only reason the West supported them as much as it did was because the Nazis were considered to be the greater of two evils (though I would consider them to be equals, the Soviets killed more people but had more time to do it). Since the Nazis were infinately more efficient than the plodding Soviets they had to be dealt with quickest. Soon after the Second World War the U.S. quickly began to contain the C.C.C.P. and some Britons did too, espescially Churchill.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The only reason the West supported them as much as it did was because the Nazis were considered to be the greater of two evils (though I would consider them to be equals, the Soviets killed more people but had more time to do it). Since the Nazis were infinately more efficient than the plodding Soviets they had to be dealt with quickest. Soon after the Second World War the U.S. quickly began to contain the C.C.C.P. and some Britons did too, espescially Churchill.

 

I don't have a problem with our setting two devils against one another, as was done with Stalin and Hitler. My concern is that Stalin was portrayed as a benevolent "Uncle Joe" during the war and that significant (though clearly not universal) Western support and friendship was extended to the Soviets between 1945 and 1990. Today, you can still walk into some Western liberals' houses and see Soviet posters and hear apologetics for the Soviet regime, whereas no one would even consider hanging Nazi posters or apologizing for the Third Reich. This double standard is simply appalling, and it is sympomatic of the support that the West provided for the Soviet empire, which was far bloodier and just as evil as the Nazis.

[The Augusta]

I don't have a problem with our setting two devils against one another, as was done with Stalin and Hitler. My concern is that Stalin was portrayed as a benevolent "Uncle Joe" during the war and that significant (though clearly not universal) Western support and friendship was extended to the Soviets between 1945 and 1990. Today, you can still walk into some Western liberals' houses and see Soviet posters and hear apologetics for the Soviet regime, whereas no one would even consider hanging Nazi posters or apologizing for the Third Reich. This double standard is simply appalling, and it is sympomatic of the support that the West provided for the Soviet empire, which was far bloodier and just as evil as the Nazis.

 

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Cato, but sadly you are wrong in this. There are quite a few neo-Nazi organisations in our neck of the woods, and throughout other countries in Europe. One only has to go to any football (soccer) game on the continent too - especially Spain - where hardline supporters not only chant racist rubbish at black players, but actually stand there offering fascist salutes and sporting bare arms full of SS tatoos. The only good thing one can say about these morons is that they are a handful of fanatics at a sporting event - bad enough in itself, but they are not in politics. However, over here in Britain we have the BNP - British National Party - who claim not to be racist, but a quick look at their website might convince people otherwise. Getting into conversations with these people (and they are a recognised party who have won political seats throughout the country, albeit - thankfully - in small numbers) you would be surprised how they introduce Hitler into the proceedings - almost as an apology. Some of them also jump on the Holocaust Denial bandwagon too.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Yes, I realize there are neo-Nazis, but they have a very different place in society. In my comment above, I meant no one among Western liberals (nor intellectuals nor polite society nor even anyone with two neurons to rub together) support Nazis today, whereas I have walked into the homes of faculty members who have Soviet posters hanging in their living rooms. Or: though a Joseph Goebbels t-shirt would invite near universal social ostracism, a Che t-shirt is still considered totally acceptable to wear. Do you not think, Augusta, that this represents a double-standard?

[The Augusta]

Yes, I realize there are neo-Nazis, but they have a very different place in society. In my comment above, I meant no one among Western liberals (nor intellectuals nor polite society nor even anyone with two neurons to rub together) support Nazis today, whereas I have walked into the homes of faculty members who have Soviet posters hanging in their living rooms. Or: though a Joseph Goebbels t-shirt would invite near universal social ostracism, a Che t-shirt is still considered totally acceptable to wear. Do you not think, Augusta, that this represents a double-standard?

 

Ah, I see where you are coming from now, Cato. Yes, I do agree that there is a double standard. It's the whole 'trendy lefty' bit (as we say over here). There has been something of a tendency for the middle-classes to romanticise communism - and not just since its overthrow in eastern Europe. What always makes me laugh about this double standard is that the extreme right and the extreme left have more in common than they would dare to admit, and IMHO, both were examples of totalitarianism. But what do I know? I'm one of those wishy-washy moderates (Come to think of it, I shouldn't really apologise for that, even in fun.)

[Rameses the Great]

The USSR was far more superior than any nation in its time. I hope you guys realize fighting a war in Russia and expecting to win is nearly impossible; even if you decide to be agressive and even put an H bomb on them.

[M. Porcius Cato]

What always makes me laugh about this double standard is that the extreme right and the extreme left have more in common than they would dare to admit, and IMHO, both were examples of totalitarianism.

 

I agree. There was a saying in Weimar Germany that the followers of Hitler were like a beefsteak--brown on the outside, red on the inside. And many of the former Communist stooges in Russia (such as Zhirinovsky) have proven that the inverse proposition is probably also correct.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

The USSR was far more superior than any nation in its time. I hope you guys realize fighting a war in Russia and expecting to win is nearly impossible; even if you decide to be agressive and even put an H bomb on them.

 

It would be safe to say that if the Soviets were to use the same strategy in a war against us as they did in WWII, they wouldn't stand all that great of a chance. If it weren't for 'the second front' we don't know what would have happened to the Red Army. In comparison to the Nazis, the Reds were poorly equipped and had terrible logistics. They had the "Not one step back" policy, disasterous considering most men had barely a clip of ammo for each battle. Sure, the Reds reached Berlin first, but they lost thousands in their sprint to get to Berlin first. Their tactics were disasterous. THe soviets could not afford another war of that magnitude.

[Julius Ratus]

If it weren't for 'the second front' we don't know what would have happened to the Red Army.

 

-- This I agree with but Normandy was not the second front, Italy was. Kursk was the turning point. When Tunisia fell, the 1st and 2nd SS (and maybe the 3rd too IIRC) were pulled out of Kursk. One more day and the Whermacht probably could have pulled it off, but the Grossdeutschland could not have done it alone. By the time of the Normandy invasion, Bagration was underway. Bagration is what destroyed Army Group Center. Normandy just speeded up the inevitable.

 

They had the "Not one step back" policy...

 

-- Order 227, aka "Not One Step Back", while brutal, it in part led to Soviet victory at Stalingrad. Stalingrad was a holding action. With its sucessful defense, the Soviets had Paulus' 6th Army trapped, and it was soon encircled and destroyed by Soviet attacks.

 

...disasterous considering most men had barely a clip of ammo for each battle.

 

-- This was only true for the early part of the war. As the war progressed the RKKA (Workers and Peasants Red Army) became better and better equipped. The tanks the Soviets were using at the end of the war were better than American and British tanks, and even better than the nasty German panzers.

 

Sure, the Reds reached Berlin first...

 

-- And only because we let them. If Ike had allowed Patton to lead the offensive instead of that clod MOntgomery, the U.S. would have taken Berlin before the Russians. The poorly concieved Operation Market-Garden cost the Western Allies men, months, and material.

 

Their tactics were disasterous.

 

-- See Bagration and the post-Stalingrad encirclements. Often their tactics were brutal and costly, but they were disasterous only for the Germans. Early on, though, you are right with Rzhev and such, but they fixed themselves later on.

 

THe soviets could not afford another war of that magnitude.

 

-- True. The Soviets lost in the ballpark of 20 million people in the war. Their population did not recoup these losses until the 70's. IIRC

 

Sorry for the lengthy response, I know this is a Roman forum but WWII is one of my interests.

[DecimusCaesar]

QUOTE

They had the "Not one step back" policy...

 

 

-- Order 227, aka "Not One Step Back", while brutal, it in part led to Soviet victory at Stalingrad. Stalingrad was a holding action. With its sucessful defense, the Soviets had Paulus' 6th Army trapped, and it was soon encircled and destroyed by Soviet attacks.

 

Strangely enough I saw a Russian website about the war (I would post it but the link has since broken) which had an animated timeline of the Russian front (pictures, videos, testomonies, sound clips and animated maps) and on the website they had interviews with several Russian soldiers who had fought in the war, and they claimed that despite the brutality of Order 227, they believed it helped Russia overcome the Nazis. Is this true, or is it just an exaggeration or perhaps a downplaying of Stalin's brutality?

 

The website was excellently made, I only wish it was still up and running. Julius R, seeing as you are familiar with WWII history, have you come across this site?

[Virgil61]

It would be safe to say that if the Soviets were to use the same strategy in a war against us as they did in WWII, they wouldn't stand all that great of a chance. If it weren't for 'the second front' we don't know what would have happened to the Red Army. In comparison to the Nazis, the Reds were poorly equipped and had terrible logistics. They had the "Not one step back" policy, disasterous considering most men had barely a clip of ammo for each battle. Sure, the Reds reached Berlin first, but they lost thousands in their sprint to get to Berlin first. Their tactics were disasterous. THe soviets could not afford another war of that magnitude.

 

You underestimate the quality of the Soviet Army, especially circa '43 and after. By that time the 'not one step back' policy was replaced by a general staff overseen by Stalin but whose operational decisions were generally left to the generals unlike the German high command. Most of the horror stories of Soviet armed forces being poorly equipped were limited to the first year and a half of the war. By '43 the Soviets production lines were pushing out more quantity and a decent amount of quality such as numerous T-34 varients.

 

A West Point study showed that 75-80% of the German army (and a majority of their best units) were devoted to the Eastern front at all times. You can quibble about lend-lease and a second front but the fact is the Soviets took on the bulk of the German army and beat them.