'In Soviet Russia - History writes you'

Morlar

Russia has chosen to setup a historical commission (according to the article) with the specific intent to re-inforce the previous communist party line on the soviet version of World War 2.

I think this is a pretty interesting discussion, started by a very blunt move by the Russians who are seeking to control history and therefore prevent any revision /re-assessment of Soviet invasion and occupation of the eastern side of europe and considerable warcrimes particularly in the late war and post war period.

I also think it puts the academics who are opposed to this comission on a bit of a tightrope, with clear implications for how the holocaust is treated also. If no truth is absolute - does this apply equally you would wonder. In any event it does seem unlikely to succeed but it is a development which could have implications, if this for example leads to a black list of historians and refusal of access to non compliant historians it is a bit worrying in my view.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8166020.stm


Russia acts against 'false' history

What is worrying Russia? Why is the country convinced that it is the victim of a campaign to make it look bad?

President Dmitry Medvedev recently announced the setting up of a commission to counter the falsification of history. He said this was becoming increasingly "severe, evil, and aggressive".

"This is absolute poppycock," says Robert Service, professor of Russian History at Oxford University. "History is all about argument. There is no absolute historical truth about anything big in history."

Mr Service dismisses the Russian leader's suggestion that his country is facing some kind of academic aggression.

Instead, he sees a desire to dominate, worthy of the most repressive totalitarian regimes of fiction.

"President Medvedev, following in the path of his predecessor President [Vladimir] Putin, wants to control history," he says.

"And he wants to control history as a means of controlling the present. This is the classic George Orwell scenario."

'Hysterical reaction'

Many Russians, though, agree with their president.

Natalia Narochnitskaya, a former deputy in the Russian parliament and now a member of the new Historical Truth Commission, says that she is surprised by what she terms the "almost hysterical reaction" in the West.

"In the Western media especially, there is a certain prejudice against Russia and Russian history," she says.

"They always feel that Russia since, you know, Ivan the Terrible, is a certain country which is off the European civilisation."
Ask a few more questions, though, and these two apparently separate views begin to converge.

At least, they agree on what the key issue is - World War II. And here lies the clue as to the real reason for the establishment of the new commission.

This is what appears to anger today's Russian historical establishment: accounts of Red Army crimes on the march to Berlin; assertions by the Baltic countries and others in Eastern Europe that Soviet forces came as occupiers as much as liberators; any suggestion that Stalin's Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were anything but complete opposites and bitter enemies.

Here, perhaps, there is a clue as to the timing of the commission's founding.

Next month sees the 70th anniversary of the non-aggression pact between the USSR and Hitler's Germany, something Ms Narochnitskaya expects the West to make a lot of noise about.

"In August there will be such a yelling about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, saying that that was the step that led to the Second World War, and that Germany and the Soviet Union were two equal, disgusting, totalitarian monsters."

Nationalist sentiment

Why does this matter today? Do these arguments have any great importance beyond the walls of universities? In Russia, the answer is yes.

The country sees its victory over Hitler's forces as the greatest moment of the 20th Century.

The war is sometimes discussed in the news media as if it were a recent event, not increasingly distant history.

Any attempt to tarnish the glory of that triumph is seen as a deliberate attempt to make Russia look bad.

Russia's past haunts its present. Recognising that, the authorities want to rule the version of the past which dominates today.

Tamara Eidelman, who teaches history at a Moscow High School, feels surrounded by nationalist sentiment.

"So many people are speaking about strong, Orthodox Russia, military power," she says.

"It is something that is very strong in historical tradition and in popular opinion. This commission is partly a response to this atmosphere."

The creation of this commission seems to go to the heart of what troubles modern Russia.

The chaos which followed the collapse of communism left many Russians deeply distrustful of politics and officialdom.

President Medvedev has complained of the corruption and "legal nihilism" which plague his country.

Russia's leaders today know that they need this shining, sacred, memory of victory to give their people something to believe in.

In the near future, it may even be backed up in law.

The Russian parliament is on its summer break at the moment, but legislation is being considered - legislation that would make it a criminal offence to "infringe on historical memory in relation to events which took place in the Second World War".

James Rodgers was formerly the BBC's Moscow correspondent.

FiSe

Nothing surprising in Russia...

Russia is on it's own, always was and always will be...there's been no change since, perhaps, 1914.
The changes of regime always were cosmetic and had nothing to do with changes of the minds....it's a different planet.
So only the lonesome nations of the Soviet Union did conquer the 'Fascism' without any help from the outside and despite the obstructions from the side of the 'other' allies. :rolleyes:

Morlar

I think they have a lot to be proud of in that they suffered more than any other country in europe and not just survived but were able to turn the tide against an almighty onslaught (even if it was blunt force attrition rather than tactics).

Considering the trauma to the national psyche of their 'close call' with being annihilated it is not surprising that their ww2 era history is a central part of their national identity and something they hold sacred. Particularly in the post-communist era (as the article observed).

Having said that, they have a lot that they need to face up to as well, much like the Turks over the armenians.

The Holodomor, the invasion of Finland & Poland before war with Germany. The gulags, organised famines and purges, the wide scale warcrimes (Neustettin, Katyn, Warsaw, rape of berlin and so on), invasion, & brutal suppression of and occupation of most of east europe right through the cold war, continuing purges, mistreatment of prisoners of war, mass rapes and mass murders all authorised at senior levels by party commissars and leading figures like Beria.

There just does not seem to be any kind of desire to deal with any of that in the same way that, for example, Ireland has moved to re-assess it's role in WWI, the specifics of the Famine, or the Rising, War of Independence, Civil war etc.

I think it would be a healthy process for them to engage in, if they could lose the chip on their shoulder and persecution complex there is a lot there for them to be proud of in my view.

Overall I think the commission is a very unhealthy move with all sorts of potential negative consequences. Different countries have different versions of their shared history and the thoughts of other countries in europe following suit (and outlawing neighbouring countries versions of history) is a bit much. Once we start to see fines and prison sentences and despite the best of intentions i believe that authors who need access to soviet archives and who have mortgages to pay will take a 'politically corrrect' approach of treading softly and by omission or otherwise not being truthful to the histories they write for the sake of avoiding ostracisation within russia and persecution.

marcsignal

just came across these today

http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/02/16/stalin-makes-a-comeback-with-russias-youth/4076/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-big-question-why-is-stalin-still-popular-in-russia-despite-the-brutality-of-his-regime-827654.html

apparently the youth of Russia are being told that Stalins brutality was 'necessary' at the time, for the good of the country, and that comparing him to Hitler is a prosecutable offence.

ejmaztec

marcsignal wrote: »

just came across these today

http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/02/16/stalin-makes-a-comeback-with-russias-youth/4076/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-big-question-why-is-stalin-still-popular-in-russia-despite-the-brutality-of-his-regime-827654.html

apparently the youth of Russia are being told that Stalins brutality was 'necessary' at the time, for the good of the country, and that comparing him to Hitler is a prosecutable offence.

I suppose that they think that the only good Georgian is a dead Georgian.

marcsignal

ejmaztec wrote: »

I suppose that they think that the only good Georgian is a dead Georgian.

LOL! Good point I wonder how they're going to deal with the fact old Joe was a Georgian. There's probably a clause that airbrushes that out.

RedPlanet

marcsignal wrote: »

apparently the youth of Russia are being told that Stalins brutality was 'necessary' at the time, for the good of the country, and that comparing him to Hitler is a prosecutable offence.

Is that any different then claiming that dropping the atom bomb on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagaski were necessary to "end the war", and "saved more lives than they took"?

RedPlanet

Or even, former General Suharto of Indonesia.
Who is that you say?
Why he was only a mass-murderer of Pol Pot's calibre, supported by USA.
Review the following

Whitewashing Suharto:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1433

Good and Bad Genocide:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2749

The point is that mass-murder and genocide are only labels applied to one's enemies. When it occurs on your side, it's generally rationalised.
Exactly like Russia may rationalise the brutality of Stalin's era.

Morlar

apparently the youth of Russia are being told that Stalins brutality was 'necessary' at the time, for the good of the country, and that comparing him to Hitler is a prosecutable offence.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Is that any different then claiming that dropping the atom bomb on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagaski were necessary to "end the war", and "saved more lives than they took"?

You are not comparing like for like.

America did not use mass-rape during ww2 or after it. There were approx 200 rapes of french women post d-day by americans, literally a drop in the ocean compared to what russia did after Germany was defeated in Berlin. How exactly did that save russian lives ?

Katyn where russia systematically executed 20,000 poles was not a move designed to save russian lives either. It was cynically designed to weaken the country so that it could be more easily occuppied & effectively colonised post war.

Neustettin where they systematically raped and mutilated german girls on Beria's orders did not save russian lives and is unjustifiable.

The pre-war crimes of stalin like the Ukranian Holdomor can not be justified by comparing it to nagasaki or hiroshima either. 4,000,000 ukranians (by some estimates) who died of a manufactured famine. This is not to mention the purges, & mass executions of their own citizens, nor their treatment of german and even russian pow's post war when no reasons of 'necessity' could be applied unlike in the case of the bombs dropped by the americans on Japan to force a surrender and prevent a long drawn out hopeless war where large numbers of americans would pay the price.

RedPlanet

Morlar wrote: »

You are not comparing like for like.

No, it's not exactly the same thing, but the jist remains the same.
It's rationalising the bad stuff that your side did.
What the Russians are doing today, in the OP, is the same as the American's do with the their crimes.

The rest of your post simply reads as a pet rant of yours.

Morlar

RedPlanet wrote: »

No, it's not exactly the same thing, but the jist remains the same.
It's rationalising the bad stuff that your side did.
What the Russians are doing today, in the OP, is the same as the American's do with the their crimes.

The rest of your post simply reads as a pet rant of yours.

No you are the one with the rant here.

You tried to equate Hiroshima and Nagasaki described as warcrimes justified by necessity, and said that this is exactly what the russians did with 'theirs'.

'Theirs' which you neglected to list or specify.

I listed off some of their more prolific ones and then asked you directly in what way could any of these actions possibly be excused on the basis of necessity or survival ?

Something you still have not answered.

And as you had no answer to that you instead accused me of being on a rant.

I am not the one with the axe to grind here you clearly are out to try to paint the soviet union in a positive light whereas there is no one trying to do the opposite to them.

Most people here try to understand what went on and not to whitewash over it which is precisely what you have tried to do on this forum in relation to the soviet union behaviour during ww2.

marcsignal

RedPlanet wrote: »

Is that any different then claiming that dropping the atom bomb on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagaski were necessary to "end the war", and "saved more lives than they took"?

the thing i'm most curious about is, if a time will ever come in Germany, when the war will be taught in history classes, minus the enforced guilt factor.

During the Nuremberg trials, the Allies were very worried because Hermann Goering was presenting what seemed to be an 'acceptable' case for the Enabling Act and other draconian measures taken by the nazis on gaining power, to eliminate all opposition.

He claimed that arbiturary arrests of subversive elements (Commies and Jews) was necessary to stabilize the country. Just as the British enforced Defence Regulation 18b to round up British Fascists, because it was believed they would act as a possible fifth column on the outbreak of war.

During his trial, Goering was even heard to say:

'one day there will be little statues of Hermann Goering in every German home'

Considering this Russian 'Epiphany' over Stalin, I wonder will anything like this ever happen in Germany??


.

Morlar

marcsignal wrote: »

During his trial, Goering was even heard to say:
'one day there will be little statues of Hermann Goering in every German home'

I wonder will that ever happen ??


.

I think that was probably the cocaine talking

RedPlanet

And yet, i am not the one ranting.
Regardless, it was not my claim that the decisions to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski is the same as whatever litany of "crimes" you claim Russia commited.
That's not what i'm saying.
What i am saying, is the act of whitewashing said crimes by Russia, is the same thing as the USA does/has done regarding it's own crimes against humanity (in this instance Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Claims of "necessity" or "ending the war" are merely the rationalisations employed for propaganda effect. I care for niether.

I also am not out to "paint the Soviet Union in a positive light".
And i would like to see you backup that statement.
What i am doing is demonstrating a particular whataboutery at play here (Its OK for the West to whitewash it's history but it's sensational news when Russia does)

marcsignal

He's got a point Morlar.

the Americans would also have to take on board, Vietnam for one, and the other 50 odd countries they have attacked, or threatened to attack since the end of WW2

culminating, most recently, in conning a coalition of countries to invade Iraq, on the basis of a few dodgy satellite photos.

edit*

however i can see your point that when we (or rather 'many people') think of WW2, the first thing that springs to mind are 'Dead Jews'. The crimes of the Allies are often overlooked on the basis of them being 'necessary'

FiSe

When I hear WWII, the first thing I see is KdF Wagens, or Volkswagens as we know them... But that's just me...

marcsignal

FiSe wrote: »

When I hear WWII, the first thing I see is KdF Wagens, or Volkswagens as we know them... But that's just me...

you can buy them as a Kit Car now too fookin wicked !!!

If i had the spons right now i'd defo have one :)