Russia Moves to Ban Criticism of WWII Win

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by parapauk, May 8, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  2. They did win WW2, at least in Europe. An uncomfortable truth, but a truth non the less.

    They did use crazy/desperate/short sighted tactics. But hey, against the likes of Hitler, who's to say that the ends don't justify the means?

    The idea that they liberated Eastern Europe, after they themselves invaded & occupied it, is frankly, f**king absurd.
  3. Who did then?
  4. 9 out of 10 german soldiers killed in WW2 died on the eastern front , the red army without doubt won the war in europe
  5. Why don't you ask those Latvians and others who say they were as bad as the nazis and as welcome. Occupation was not liberation as the occupied states were that; occupied, but by new imperial masters. Polish leaders disappeared by STAVKA in '47, Hungary '56, Prague '68. Take your pick.

    Stalin was an imperialist; which is why he is being rehabilitated by modern imperial Russia.
  6. mercurydancer

    mercurydancer LE Book Reviewer

    I'm a little biased towards the Russians anyway, but they have a slightly different viewpoint than that posted above. I would like to have 7 May as a national holiday anyway as VE Day here in UK.

    As with lots of things that are Russian, there is a sweet/sour mix, its a day of victory but its also a day of remembrance for those who died in that conflict. I know lots about D Day and such, and not a lot about the eastern front, but from what I can tell the eastern front was horrific. The Ukrainians and the Russians suffered at the hands of the Germans in terrible ways and they did what they could to survive. That Stalin was going to be a tyrant who exceeded Hitler wasnt known at the time.

    No doubt there is the soviet-style publicism but the pride the Russians have for their country is enormous and if it has such an outlet then thats fine by me. Red flags outside stores is OK. I would get more unsettled if there were tactical missiles paraded.
  7. Why don’t I ask Latvians? Because those Latvians who are now saying they were occupied by “new imperial masters” are the ones who fought on a side of Hitler in locally formed SS units, doing German Nazi’s dirty work: murdering local civilians and partisans. Just because these people are now in power doesn’t mean Latvia will not celebrate tomorrow.

    Poland itself is up to its ears in sins; Soviet actions in Hungary '56 and Prague '68? Same as UK actions in Greece; and let’s not talk about the US actions around the world.

    Stalin was an imperialist? Who wasn’t?

    With regard to modern imperial Russia, care to name its colonies (direct or indirect)? Stalin was rehabilitated not because of his dark side, but because he pulled a huge country through industrial revolution in astonishingly short period of time! Compare it with industrial revolutions in UK or France.
  8. Complete and utter bullsh1t. Not heard of the Holodomor, the Great Terror, the GULAG or the Population Deportations then?

    Russia (and the other countries of the former USSR) have a right to be fiercely proud of the central role they played in the allied victoy in World War II. However, banning criticism and discussion of events leading up to and following on from that victory would be a retrograde step. Modern Russia is far better than that.
  9. Command_doh

    Command_doh LE Book Reviewer

    Why would they allow any criticism of "The Great Patriotic revenge raping, torturing and murdering of Nazi' Great Patriotic War"?

    Russia isn't exactly well known for allowing its citizens to think for themselves and exercise free speech. So carry on as normal then.
  10. The fact that you compare the UK's intervention in Greece with the Soviet's actions shows how clueless you are. And I can't think what might have happened to the Latvians in the couple of years before siding with the Nazis that might have made them willing...

    In any case, you're changing the subject. The issue at hand is Russia's banning of questioning the nation's conduct in WW2.
  11. Like the murder of tens of thousands of Poles by the NKVD, a systematic attempt to wipe out the intelligentsia of a nation on the orders of Uncle Joe? Well Domovoy? Didn't happen in your world did it? You still trot out the bullshit that the Soviets liberated eastern Europe, all that happen was that the fascist murders were pushed out to be replaced by Communist ones.

    This is what the "New Democratic Russia" wants to sweep under the carpet
  12. Many Polish Jews didn't know which way to run in 1939. The ironic thing is many fled west into German occupied Poland when the soviet troops took over from their German allies after September 20th 1939.

    Stalin would have happilily tried to stay best mates with Hitler. It's ironic that Hitler is really the only man he ever seemed to have really trusted!
  13. Firstly, famine was rife throughout the whole of the USSR, Ukraine was one of the regions affected, and what is not reported in the West is the fact that Ukraine received more help from the central government than any of the other regions: in 1933 Ukraine was given 501 000 tones of wheat, by comparison all the famine-affected regions of Russia got 990 000 tones.

    Secondly, do you really believe that death was asking its victims their ethnicity? Just because people lived on the territory called Ukraine, doesn't mean they were all Ukrainians; and considering that Ukraine was recently re-branded part of Russia, the majority of the so-called Ukrainians were in fact Russians.

    There is a world of difference between famine and Golodomor as presented by "Ukrainian patriots" and the West. It was our COMMON tragedy that knew no ethic borders.

    It also must be said that around that time famine was claiming its victims in Poland, Baltic states, in Africa, etc. The reason “Golodomor” was trotted out is because… well, see for yourself: Hearst's relationship with the Nazis in 1934 is of critical importance in understanding a major element of American anti-Communist propaganda. In 1934 Hearst published a number of stories about the 1932-1933 famine in Ukraine. Nazi Germany had been waging a major anti-Communist propaganda campaign as part of its agenda, fascism being the "sworn enemy" or communism.
    As part of this larger propaganda campaign the German Ministry of Propaganda created a story about a Soviet program of genocide in Ukraine. This was all part of the larger German plans to not only put down Communist support in Germany, but justify later invasions to the east under the banner of "liberation."
    The Germans manufactured stories about the famine in Ukraine and used false photographs to depict the famine conditions as worse than they really were, including pictures from a 1920-22 famine in Russia during the Russian Civil War and pictures of famine conditions during World War I of regions that were not even Russian.
    The Germans wanted to expand this propaganda campaign against the USSR to potential rival states which it hoped to build support in, such as the United States and Britain. This is where Hearst came in.
    Hearst's role for the Nazis was to try and build Nazi sympathy in America, which was to be achieved by both portraying Nazi Germany in a good light, as well as portraying Germany's primary target, the Soviet Union, and Communism in general, in an exaggeratedly negative light.
    Hearst picked up the Ukraine famine story in 1934, about a year after the famine actually took place. In a press like the Hearst Press everything relied on "breaking news." Had Hearst had a real interest in covering the Ukraine famine it would have been covered in 1932 and 1933 when it was taking place, however it was not covered in Hearst presses until 1934, after he picked up the story for the Nazis.
    Hearst's Ukraine famine stories have proven to have had a huge impact among Americans, and even today the majority of Americans believe that there actually was a "Ukraine Holocaust." Common figures are that 6 million people died in Ukraine under Stalin's rule in what was an intentional starving to death of these millions of people. This 6 million figure is in fact a pure fabrication of Nazi propaganda. The idea that Ukrainians were intentionally starved to death is likewise a product of Nazi propaganda, picked up by Hearst and spread to the United States, where it was accepted at truth, and for the most part still is today.
    For more on the Ukrainian famine and the role of the Hearst Press in creating the myth of a Ukrainian genocide see: Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard

    The populations deported were Germans – for obvious reasons; Crimean Tatars, Chechens, some Ingush – for siding with Hitler en-mass and engaging in genocidal activities against other ethnicities on their lands. These populations were NOT send to the camps, but were given monetary help, land and assistance in building their homes in new locations. Tough? Not as tough as for ethnic Japanese in the US who were send to concentration camps.

    Yes, it was part of life of the USSR in 1930-1940-s. But have a look at what was life like for the rest of Europe and the US! There was no remotely ideal place, leader or political system to live under.
  14. Why shouldn't I compare UK turning on to its allies in Greece just to keep it in UK sphere of influence with the Soviets helping local communists in order to keep Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the USSR sphere of influence? Because you don't like it? Because it's not what you were taught to think?

    With regard to the "issue at hand": It's not "questioning nation's conduct" (typical Cold War reporting), but a denial of the role the USSR played in the WW2 that was banned. Rightly so.
  15. Kin ell that last lot was like Reading Pravda, only Pravda has a better cartoons page