PDA

View Full Version : Parades to honour 27 million Soviet dead


Onan the Clumsy
9th May 2005, 12:34
but no mention of how many of these were killed by Stalin,

airship
9th May 2005, 12:43
...little mention of how many exactly of these were killed by Adolf Hitler either. When you consider that 27 million is about half the population of either GB or France. Or all the people in Australia and NZ today. That's a lot of people...:sad:

I imagine that Jews came 2nd on the list of "who lost most"? What about the rest?

Capt.KAOS
9th May 2005, 15:43
Of these 27 million, 17 million were civillians.

The parade has everything to do with the utter suffering of the Soviet people under the Nazi regime and it's heroic fight against it.

Only recently Zhukov is finally given the honors he should have long time ago. But being too popular with the Soviet people he was a threat for both Stalin and Khrushchev.

Dead_Heading
9th May 2005, 16:36
5 millions Jews died in the holocaust, 1 million gypsies, gays etc. If memory serves me correctly.

Lou Scannon
9th May 2005, 19:12
I have heard the estimate of those murdered by Stalin to be upwards of 26 million. Whole families were sent to the Gulags to ensure that one "undesirable" would not be missed.

I find great difficulty in not pointing that out to the pratts I see selling the Socialist Worker!

Caslance
9th May 2005, 20:17
It was the Soviet Union that defeated the overwhelming bulk of Nazi Germany's war machine on land in Europe.

This is a fact - no ifs, buts, or maybes.

It may well be an unpalatable fact for some of you but, hey, life's a bitch sometimes. Deal with it.

That the USSR prevailed in their theatre of the war despite the extra burden of being ruled by a paranoid psychopath makes it all the more remarkable, not any less so.

Trying to score petty debating points by diminishing the sacrifice of any of those that fought to rid the world of the Nazis is an affront to the memory of all that shared in that struggle, IMHO.

WE Branch Fanatic
9th May 2005, 20:33
Where was Blair? Why wasn't he at the ceremony? Beneth him, was it?

tony draper
9th May 2005, 20:39
Yup they removed the Nazi jackboot from the necks of many European countries and replaced it with their own.

Caslance
9th May 2005, 22:07
Did I say otherwise, Mr D?

And yet all of those Soviet servicemen and servicewomen who died in the war against the Nazis remain stubbornly dead.

Typical lowdown commie trick, eh?

tony draper
9th May 2005, 22:43
Sorry Mr C one did not mean to decry the sacrifices of the ordinary Russian people,in fact one has had a grudging admiration for Russia for many years,they achieved in forty years what took the west 200 years to achieve, went from a backward agricultural horse and cart driven society to a Industrialised Nuclear power with the first foothold in space, the trouble is it took someone as ruthless as Stalin to do this, and the price the Russian people payed was enormous.

Onan the Clumsy
10th May 2005, 01:14
Like China really.


Are we really debating who had more millions killed? If so, it should be done on a percentage basis, not an absolute basis.

RaraAvis
10th May 2005, 04:43
Nazi regime was defeated but Soviet terror started for the Baltics and many other East European nations. Not much of a victory day for those countries. From the frying pan into the fire....:(

Caslance
10th May 2005, 07:12
Agreed, RaraAvis.

I'm not seeking to defend any of Stalin's actions - the man was clearly a monster - but you're talking about countries that initially welcomed the invading German forces as liberators in 1941. At least, until the SD and Gestapo moved in.

One can at least understand the desire on Stalin's part to settle old scores in that respect without condoning it in any way.

Were the Soviet regimes that ran these countries post-war really worse, or even as bad as, the Nazis turned out to be?

Really? :hmm:

eal401
10th May 2005, 07:34
The difference is that Russia puts on huge parades/concerts/parties etc to honour those who served in the war each and every year.

We just do it for the big numbers.

:rolleyes:

Capt.KAOS
10th May 2005, 08:08
Hindsight is always 20/20. In 1945 when Roosevelt came back from the Yalta Conference, he told members of his cabinet that he found in Stalin’s nature “the way in which a Christian gentleman should behave.” The future of the world after WW2 was decided in Yalta, with the full backing of FDR and Churchill (who had little to say in this actually).

kluge
10th May 2005, 09:01
Capt KAOS - I seem to recall reading somewhere that Winston wanted to continue on to Moscow and was branded a 'war monger' for it - or is Gen Patton ?

tony draper
10th May 2005, 09:42
As I recal Churchill saw the way the world was going a lot earlier than the cousins and was exceedingly pissed off at Trumans apparent indifference even his giving a tacit nod to Stalins plans for the likes of Poland , but by then Churchill had been removed from the loop as they say.

Capt.KAOS
10th May 2005, 09:56
Kluge, Churchill had been to Moscow already in 1942 to cement the allience with Stalin and being a classic Realpolitiker I very much doubt whether he wanted to march on to Moscow after the defeat of the Nazis.

Like FDR, Churchill had a good relation with Stalin during the War and believed that Stalin would held his promises for a free election in the Soviet occupied countries soon after the war.

In fact this is what Churchill said in 1956 with regard to the partition of Europe:

"Stalin never broke his word to me. We agreed on the Balkans. I said he could have Rumania and Bulgaria; and he said we could have Greece…He signed a slip of paper. And he never broke his word. We saved Greece that way. When we went into Greece in 1944 Stalin didn't interfere".

maxy101
10th May 2005, 10:05
Even so, you have to admire the average Russian. Most had or have virtually nothing and yet are fiercely proud and patriotic of Mother Russia. The Brits who also have a lot to be proud about should take note.
(Having said that I choose to live abroad 'cos I can't stand this poor excuse of a UK government)

419
10th May 2005, 10:27
Has anyone seen the official photograph of the Russian meeting.

Front row.
Leaders and representatives from Japan, Italy, Germany, France, Russia, USA.

Next 3 rows.
Leaders and representatives from other countries.

Where was the UK? John Prescott, right at the back. To me, this just about sums up how the UK is now viewed by the rest of the world.

I suppose Blair had other things to do, rather than honour the millions who died (and those still living).

bear11
10th May 2005, 12:14
Life can get complicated - from memory, the Latvians have 2 WWII celebration days per year - one for the Latvians who fought with the Germans (many in the SS), and the other for the Latvians who fought with the Russians. However, since 1991, the 40-odd% of the Latvian population who are of Russian origin aren't allowed a Latvian passport, they have a different-coloured piece of toilet paper which says they are a "permanent resident of Latvia" - people with these "passports" don't have the right to travel freely in the EU and work in the UK and Ireland since last year unlike their Latvian brethren.

ORAC
10th May 2005, 12:20
419,

The Brits are the only ones the Yanks and the Russians trust out of their sight at the back..... ;)

OneWorld22
10th May 2005, 12:27
As a famous historian once said, the war was won on the eastern front, the rest was just mopping up.

SmilingKnifed
10th May 2005, 12:35
The ground war maybe. But this was facilitated by a bomber offensive which crippled Germany's infrastructure.

Capt.KAOS
10th May 2005, 13:07
ORAC, Stalin once said, that whilst both Churchill and FDR needed to be watched, FDR would pickpocket a rouble and Churchill a copeck..."

Helli-Gurl
10th May 2005, 13:34
Tut tut tut Mr Maxy101

Are you sure you're not really living abroad like so many other Brits do.....to stop Mr Brown getting even more lardier than he already is? ;)

Argonautical
10th May 2005, 14:13
quote :

I imagine that Jews came 2nd on the list of "who lost most"? What about the rest?

end quote

----------------------------------
The human cost of the war fell heaviest on the USSR, for which the official total, military and civilian, is given as more than 20 million killed. The Allied military and civilian losses were 44 million; those of the Axis, 11 million. The military deaths on both sides in Europe numbered 19 million and in the war against Japan, 6 million. The U.S., which had no significant civilian losses, sustained 292,131 battle deaths and 115,187 deaths from other causes. The highest numbers of deaths, military and civilian, were as follows: USSR more than 13,000,000 military and 7,000,000 civilian; China 3,500,000 and 10,000,000; Germany 3,500,000 and 3,800,000; Poland 120,000 and 5,300,000; Japan 1,700,000 and 380,000; Yugoslavia 300,000 and 1,300,000; Romania 200,000 and 465,000; France 250,000 and 360,000; British Empire and Commonwealth 452,000 and 60,000; Italy 330,000 and 80,000; Hungary 120,000 and 280,000; and Czechoslovakia 10,000 and 330,000.

source : Encarta

-----------------------------------------

Poland suffered more than any other country on a percentage of population basis.

B Fraser
10th May 2005, 16:18
I choose to live abroad 'cos I can't stand this poor excuse of a UK government

I did it for tax reasons :}

Compared with the rest of Europe, our government seems reasonably effective although that's not much of a recommendation.

I could always try Jersey or the Isle of Man. ;)

tony draper
10th May 2005, 17:11
In terms of money it has to be the UK, the French welshed on it by revaluing as did Ivan, I think we just recently finished paying the cousins the cash we borrowed.
We were well skint I can remember when the sweets came off ration,we thunk christmas had come early.

scrubed
10th May 2005, 20:57
Trying to score petty debating points by diminishing the blah blah blah blah.... WTF????? You tryin to start a fight Casslance???

Anyway, notice how it's always the tyrannical motherfloggers who run regular parades of jack-booted, goose-stepping armies carrying nickel-plated AKs (or SKSs) and followed by row after row of tanks and missile-launchers???? Always the commies and other unfavourites:

N. Korea
China
the old USSR
Cuba
Iran
Iraq before...... you know
the Indons

I guess their rulers like to constantly remind everyone who holds the reins, especially their neighbours.

@rseholes.

Peaceful piss-drinkers like Aussies can't be bothered unless it's ANZAC Day.

Loki
10th May 2005, 21:54
It is undeniable that the regime in the USSR was, under Stalin and most of his successors, despicable.

That should not take away from the heroism and sacrifices made by the ordinary Soviet citizen. Without Stalingrad, Kursk, the defence of Moscow and other appalling events, we would be living in a very different and I believe, worse world.

I`ve just been looking at a russian photography site, with lots of photos of veterans with their incredible collections of medals, tough old warriors! How sad that the cold war obscured their valour and the propagandists belittled the Soviet war effort for so long.

scrubed
10th May 2005, 22:11
Speaking of guns and medals, Gunnery Sgt. Tom "Gunny" Highway had more than a chestful of them... and he ain't no damn pinko red commie.

Speaking of guns and commies:

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party"

- Mao Tse Tung, Problems of War and Strategy Nov 6 1938

Biggest commie of them all.

Caslance
10th May 2005, 23:30
Full moon again so soon? :hmm:

RaraAvis
11th May 2005, 00:16
Caslance

Was it really that bad under the Soviet terror you ask ? What do you really know about the atrocities commited by that evil regime ???

Don't forget - history is written by the winners... Emphasis on 'written' as in 'history books'...

The people in the Baltics would find your comment most offensive and quite ignorant.
And what made me the expert on the issue ? I have many relatives there who lived through the gulag's and death camps. The 'russian horror' will not be forgotten and likely, not forgiven in that part of the world for many, many generations to come, if ever...:(

However, this is a separate issue altogether. :suspect:

Caslance
11th May 2005, 06:53
I see.

And now perhaps you'd care to answer the question that I actually posed?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do just fine. :hmm:

RaraAvis
11th May 2005, 08:01
Read your own post:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not seeking to defend any of Stalin's actions - the man was clearly a monster - but you're talking about countries that initially welcomed the invading German forces as liberators in 1941. At least, until the SD and Gestapo moved in.

One can at least understand the desire on Stalin's part to settle old scores in that respect without condoning it in any way.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever think why they 'welcomed' the German forces as liberators ? How about so they could get rid of the Soviet occupation ?:mad:

And to answer your question - yes.

As for the ordinary russian men and women who fought and died - they are heroes.
Russia suffered under socialism just as much as the occupied countries.

Caslance
11th May 2005, 13:14
Ever think why they 'welcomed' the German forces as liberators ? I know perfectly well why they welcomed the invading Germans as liberators, thank you, and I presume that you do not dispute this fact - despite your adversarial tone.
How about so they could get rid of the Soviet occupation ?What? You mean they didn't like being ruled by one of the most volatile, vengeful and unpredictable tyrants that Europe has ever known? Wow! Lucky you were around to show me the error of my ways, eh? :rolleyes:
And to answer your question - yes Hmmm. Consider the well-documented atrocities carried out by the SD, SS, Gestapo, and Arajs Kommando - such as the slaughter of 25,000 Latvian Jews at Rumbula in just 2 days on 8 November and 8 December 1941 - and ponder the meaning of what you are saying.
As for the ordinary russian men and women who fought and died - they are heroes.Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

:confused:

airship
11th May 2005, 13:24
Uhmmm, unlike Vietnam vets, everybody knew what they were fighting for in that war didn't they...? :sad:

Caslance
11th May 2005, 13:25
Indeed so, airship.

Survival, mostly..... :(

Capt.KAOS
11th May 2005, 14:11
In times o' war best and worst of people's behavior is exposed, in extremis, anywhere, anytime...

airship
11th May 2005, 14:16
...and anyplace. A bit like Coca Cola I guess. :(

scrubed
11th May 2005, 15:57
27 million Soviet deadNot all through fighting the good fight.

Half of them either froze to death or caught a bullet in the bubba-goose because they tried to fight Germans with wooden guns.

Let's get real..... anyone can sacrifice cannon fodder.

airship
11th May 2005, 16:19
Let's get real..... anyone can sacrifice cannon fodder. Oh really, just back then, or today also?

Half of them may have "merely frozen to death" in your words, but that shouldn't debase their contribution to the conflict or the ability anyone here has in expressing their opinions today... :mad:

Caslance
11th May 2005, 16:19
Yep.... it's definitely full moon again. :rolleyes:

Grandpa
11th May 2005, 19:26
.......while all Europe was occupied by Wehrmacht, Gestapo and its allies searching for Jews, arresting and torturing resistance fighters....................my parents were living in Paris, where food was hard to find, and harder for people in the hiding.

Everybody knew there was a fierce battle in Russia, in a town named Stalingrad.

When the news came that Russians had defeated German Army, taken hundreds of thousands prisoners including General Von Paulus, a red flag was pinned on the map..............and millions of people began to raise their head.

This was a moment for hope, and even after disillusions came, we still pay respect to the people of Russia because they managed to stop the invader.

In Paris underground, there is still a station with that name: "Stalingrad"

kluge
12th May 2005, 03:37
Grandpa - here here. Well said.

At the time my father was being force marched together with a few million other Soviet POWs to death camps from what is now Belarus - operation Barbarossa Icourtesey of the Nazi's. In his case he survived Dachau. The Soviet direction at the time was 5 rounds for the germans one for self. He opted for survival.

That similar atrocities are still allowed to happen - Bosnia, Rwanda - is what is really unforgivable but this is getting off thread.

The Russian people have throughout history have been oppressed and have been oppressors. It is still a nation with a serf/peasant mentality and will remain so for generations to come. That it has developed a race of people that possess incredible hospitality, self reliance and ingenuity is what is really the celebration. That it took 27 million deaths (at least) to mold this character is what is being remembered. The western world as those who grew up in it should realise - is how furtunate we have been compared to those in former Communist bloc states who have not had the liberties we seem to take for granted.

Ok off my soapbox. Time for noodles........

RaraAvis
12th May 2005, 03:42
Caslance

14 June 1941 - over 11000 estonians, mostly women, children & elderly deported to gulags, 90% die.

25 March 1949!!!!! - over 21000 estonians are deported to gulags, vast majority of whom were again women, children and elderly .

We're talking about a small nation with a total population of 1.3 million .

So - my answer to your original question remains the same.

Caslance
12th May 2005, 07:01
Not a lot of point in continuing the debate then, RaraAvis.

Your mind is very clearly made up.

You insist on drawing a distinction between the actions of monsters as though atrocities perpetrated at the behest of one monster are, somehow, less reprehensible than those committed by the forces of the other.

I, however, lack your sophistication and can see only monsters.

A small point on closing....

Evidence was presented at the trial of Adolf Eichmann showing that, out of 100,000 Jewish people in Latvia when the Nazis invaded, only 800 survived the Nazi occupation.

800.

Worse for whom, RaraAvis? Worse for whom? :hmm:

RaraAvis
12th May 2005, 10:52
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You insist on drawing a distinction between the actions of monsters as though atrocities perpetrated at the behest of one monster are, somehow, less reprehensible than those committed by the forces of the other.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In your original post you asked the question : Was the life under Soviet regime really as bad as it could've been under Nazis ?

Were the Soviets really as bad as the Nazis ?
Seems to me you made a quite a clear distinction between the two evils, no?

And the answer to your question is still - yes !