|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on May 12, 2020 15:05:27 GMT
I've been seeing a fair bit of argument recently relating to the Red Army's role in saving Europe after the Second World War. Some Czechs (for example) are raging that they're even credited with anything. They only recently got rid of the statue of Marshall Konev in Prague 6 (right next to where I used to live!) and replaced it with a toilet...   It fascinates me that Stalin was regarded as a friend to the US for a short while ('Uncle Joe'). Yet what they got up to in Berlin in 1945 would shock even the Tobiest of people.  |
|
|
|
Post by tory on May 12, 2020 15:21:24 GMT
I got into a bit of a facebook argument last year (surprise surprise!) when Steve Bell produced a cartoon about the lack of Russian presence at a D-Day memorial. The issue with the "Soviets save Europe" narrative is that it has stuck. It's a load of rubbish and was propagated by Soviet well-wishers after WW2, most of whom had no idea what Stalin got up to. Firstly, the Soviet Union was in cahoots with Nazi Germany between 1939 and 1941 when they carved up Poland together. Stalin was terrified that Germany would invade as his Army was useless after the purges of the late 30's. When the Nazis invaded in '41, two Totalitarian states engaged in an apocalyptic battle to destroy each other. Inevitably, the Soviets won by marching through Eastern Europe and conquering Berlin. They did not "save" Europe. No Soviet soldier thought about Europe - all they were interested in was, understandably, destroying Hitler and gaining revenge on the Germans for what they did in Belarus, Ukraine and everywhere else. They had no interest in what Europe was, in particularly how we see it today. The issue I guess is that the Soviet Union and the Allies were on the winning side, so people tend to think that the objectives of the Soviet Union were the same as the US. True, they both wanted to get rid of Hitler, but the motives of the Soviets after the War were plain to see for everyone. It was a grim dictatorship that put Eastern Europe back 50 years sadly. Would the Russians have pushed on if the Allies hadn't already got into Germany in March or April '45? I don't think so. There was no real revolutionary zeal about the Red Army.   |
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on May 12, 2020 17:38:25 GMT
It’s partly the desire to attack Britain and America by suggesting it woz the Russians that won it
Lefties strike again
|
|
|
|
Post by fonz on May 12, 2020 18:13:28 GMT
The race to Berlin!
|
|
|
|
Post by cousinlou on May 12, 2020 18:53:43 GMT
I got into a bit of a facebook argument last year (surprise surprise!) when Steve Bell produced a cartoon about the lack of Russian presence at a D-Day memorial. The issue with the "Soviets save Europe" narrative is that it has stuck. It's a load of rubbish and was propagated by Soviet well-wishers after WW2, most of whom had no idea what Stalin got up to. Firstly, the Soviet Union was in cahoots with Nazi Germany between 1939 and 1941 when they carved up Poland together. Stalin was terrified that Germany would invade as his Army was useless after the purges of the late 30's. When the Nazis invaded in '41, two Totalitarian states engaged in an apocalyptic battle to destroy each other. Inevitably, the Soviets won by marching through Eastern Europe and conquering Berlin. They did not "save" Europe. No Soviet soldier thought about Europe - all they were interested in was, understandably, destroying Hitler and gaining revenge on the Germans for what they did in Belarus, Ukraine and everywhere else. They had no interest in what Europe was, in particularly how we see it today. The issue I guess is that the Soviet Union and the Allies were on the winning side, so people tend to think that the objectives of the Soviet Union were the same as the US. True, they both wanted to get rid of Hitler, but the motives of the Soviets after the War were plain to see for everyone. It was a grim dictatorship that put Eastern Europe back 50 years sadly. Would the Russians have pushed on if the Allies hadn't already got into Germany in March or April '45? I don't think so. There was no real revolutionary zeal about the Red Army. Whatever anybody’s agenda was, it must be clear that without the Soviets the war wouldn’t have ended when it did. Regardless, any coubtry that was party to the war had an agenda. Speculation about alternative outcomes is neither here nor there- there is no alternative to the history we have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 19:10:52 GMT
Three points here which would have been given more elaboration if I had more time/brainpower/willingness
A. The whole "save Europe" argument is propaganda on any side which isn't given any serious worth by real historians but it's become a foundation myth of post war Britain. Where was the concern for Nazi crimes when the Allies politely gifted Hitler the Sudetenland in 1938? We went to war to protect our Empire. Franco got away with everything because he was good enough to stay in his corner.
B. Yeah Stalin was a bad man and his regime was appalling. I wouldn't argue if anyone said it was as bad as the Nazis. The Red Army put more of a dent against the Nazis than any of the other Allies, that is a statistical fact. Newsflash: in war, often both sides are bad.
C. The man most responsible for the defeat of Hitler was Hitler.
|
|
