Maybe the West misunderstands USSR history?

Site Issues 2007 Archive Room
#1

Lately I’ve been doing a bit of superficial research, stimulated largely by Egorka’s resolute opposition to my confident opinions. It’s possible that my confident opinions might be based on common misunderstandings in the West rather than informed historical evidence, depending upon the reliance one places on various sources.

Maybe Western perceptions confuse some quite distinct issues to produce a distorted picture of the USSR in WWII.

Maybe the West confused the deaths under Stalin’s regime caused by bad management in executing great plans and the existence of harsh or brutal labour gulags with the intentional extermination of people by the Nazis in death camps, to see both regimes as similar.

Maybe the West confused the well publicised high rates of death of, for example, Stanligrad POW’s with a generally lower but unplublicised rate of death for German POW’s overall. Not that the lower overall rate of 15 to 30% suggests a benevolent approach by the Russians, but it’s quarter to a half of the German rate.

Maybe the West confused a lot of things because of the secrecy in the USSR, and maybe it confused or it governments simply distorted a lot of things because of its strong opposition to communism.

Anyway, would anyone like to put the arguments for either or both sides of the case about whether the USSR mightn’t have been as bad as it was generally regarded in the West?

#2

Maybe… maybe… maybe… not a good start for thread! :wink:

If I may drop my answer before others… Not to be an arshole, but “generally regarded” picture of USSR in the West (I guess you think of Australia as a western country, right? :slight_smile: ) is BOUND to be distorted! Just like the “generally regarded” picture of West in USSR was distorted.

Do I need explain why? :roll:

#3

‘Maybe’ issues can also be presented as a definite statement for contradiction, for or against either case. I specifically wanted to avoid that, to avoid generating a yes / no division.

I’m interested in discussion to challenge what may be a distored view of the USSR in WWII, both then and now.

I don’t want to get into the Cold War stuff, even if it influenced views of WWII, because we’ll be all over the place if we do that.

#4

Some members of this site seem to prefer to be disagreeable when they disagree, and I find it most disagreeable when they disagree with me! :slight_smile:

#5

Rising Sun,

I am a bit confused about the exact topic of this thread.
You say:

Anyway, would anyone like to put the arguments for either or both sides of the case about whether the USSR mightn’t have been as bad as it was generally regarded in the West?

and then say:

I don’t want to get into the Cold War stuff, even if it influenced views of WWII, because we’ll be all over the place if we do that.

So we are talking about WW2, right? But I do not think, correct me if I am wrong, that West thought that USSR was “bad” during the WW2. Except Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Othervise they underestimated USSR effort (USSR did the same).

So what is it exactly we are talking here about?

#6

I suppose you read newspapers, watch TV news, etc. Just think about it - when last time you heard something good or even neutral about Russia?
West doesn’t misunderstands USSR and Russian history; it just writes own version of history which suits its needs.

#7

Agree. If there is info - it is a negative one.

#8

No one would be tolerated writing the top post about the Nazis, so why is it tolerated about the communists?

Why is the deliberate extermination of a class any different from the deliberate extermination of a race? The USSR deliberately killed millions of its own citizens through slave labour, forced deportations to inhospitable places without providing the necessities of life, deliberately man-made famines, and through plain old-fashioned execution.

Fact.

#9

Ok, I’ll try to make a point about the Soviet Union without mentioning the Cold War or even the negative stuff of today.

When I first began serious war/eronautical research in the 1970’s there was a dearth of good material and what there was a good deal of it was inaccurate and in some cases wildly so.

The point is, even subject material say, on the Allied bombing offensive was fairly rudimentary and getting your hands on government documents was well nigh impossible. Only the release of archival and private material which began in earnest in the 1980’s did things begin to change and challenge the ‘accepted view’.

Now think of any information on the fighting of the Eastern Front. Much of that material was based on German sources or retold from a modern western viewpoint.

My first exposure to the true horrors of the Eastern Front were two novels by a guy called Plevoir-Pievor? The subjects were Moscow and Stalingrad and I learned more from reading these books, than all the research material I had.

But even today with an absolute wealth of material available, old attitudes die hard, ignorance remains and there are still gaps in the story.

But this is the wonderful thing about history, it never dies and I dare say thirty years from now new material will be still unearthed from the WWII era.

WWII IN COLOR plays a part in this process. Look at the exchanges of views, the new information that is shared here. This is a meeting place for some great brain storming and while some subjects can raise the heat at times, for the most part discussions are healthy and informative.

This is a very apt thread and many thanks to Rising Sun’s enquiring mind.

Regards digger.

#10

Yes, you are right. So what is your point? What do you want to prove and for whoom?

#11

Western society is generally suspicious of the East as a result of so many years of the East being closed to the West. Yes, of course, there has been much rubbish written and aired in the West and, yes, we are probably ignorant of a lot of that which is good in the East. However, our media tends to focus more on the bad news than the good, even when reporting on our own society, which, at times, can be rather depressing.

After seventy years, or so, of suspicion, these suspicions have become deep rooted in both Eastern and Western cultures and both societies probably consider themselves to be the victim of the other at some time or other. In time, as there is more inter-action between our societies, and the people that populate them, then things ought to improve.

Our historians usually work independently and, therefore, they report things as they find.

Finally, I work among a number of ladies who possess enquiring minds. When they are unable to discover anything to enquire about, they usually resort to ‘Heat’ or ‘Okay’ magazines. :smiley:

#12

I suggest any apologists should read the recent work by Anne Applebaum: GULAG. it is based on research in recently opened archives.

#13

I’m glad I only discussed this issue from a WWII perspective;)

Regards digger.

#14

Applebaum says millions of people passed through the gulags.

What percentage does she say died there?

#15

I haven’t read Applebaum, but as she’s based her work on recently opened archives I’m assuming that Russia has opened more archives than the ones that have been the basis for the previous gulag figures covered in articles such as:

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Scale_Repression.pdf
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Secret_Police.pdf
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Do you have any links to the latest archives she’s used?

#16

It is different because extermination of a class is not neccesarily physical.
Man can not change his race; thus any jew in 3rd Reich was doomed. Man can change his class; thus, for example, many aristocrats, officers of Russian empire, served in RA. Man in communism has a choice; man in fascism has not.
More to that, class struggle and ‘extermination’ of ‘parasite’ classes officialy ended in early 30s. It was declared that new community was formed - ‘soviet people’.
What i don’t quite understand, how is your post connected with the topic in the first place.

#17

it WAS generally physical though, for 10s of millions of people.

#18

I hope she did not forget to write in his book that her far relatives Grigory Zinoviev (indeed the Hirsch Apfelbaum) was closly involved in the genocide of native population of former russian imperia by the bolsheviks murders;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Zinoviev

#19

As you know, symbol of Russian empire and modern Russia is a 2-headed eagle which looks at east and west simultaneosly.
Western countries, Europe, fought with eastern muslim invaders and waged war with East; it was nothing dangerous to the west except ocean. Middle East countries fought with crusaders from the West. What is unique about Russia? It faced onslaught from both sides in its entire history.
You say that West is suspicious of Russia, that means that West sees Russia as a threat.
Now, does Russia sees West as threat?
There are bones of many western invaders in Russian soil; french, german, sweden, english, austrian, not mentioning many eastern europeans. Kinda strange potential threat to west - potentional invader which fought all major battles in its history on own territory, defending.
Strangely enough, probably most anti-Russian state in Western Europe is Britain. I say strange, because no russian soldiers ever set foot on british isles. Come on, after 2 world wars, one of them being war of total destruction between Germany and USSR, today relations between our countries is much warmer than with GB.
Sad irony of all this is that all the time while west thought about Russia as ultimate enemy, Russia always respected west, west christianic culture, but it was never accepted as equal and i doubt that Europe will ever forget about it’s not so clever preassumptions.

#20

If you are referring to my previous post, then, I apologise!
If not, then I’m truly sorry! :smiley: