The Russian cause in WW2 (Part II) !, Dragos , this is non-political ..please!

First of all Dragos the Russian soldier was not fighting for Ideology but in defence of his country. (He wouldn't have won the war otherwise)

-You know much about Tanks and Planes and Technology yet you overlook this fact

If you think the average Russian peasant soldier in WW2 was fighting for Marxist Leninist Ideology you got a problem..

In defending his soil in ww2, he is no different then the Romanian soldier who has fought for the most part of history at home on his native soil too...

I just want to know from people here what they think about this subject considering that the enemy on the other side wanted to Colonize and populate his country with his own, push him far beyond the Ural mountains, raze Leningrad, flood Moscow & built a water reservoir there, and erase its name from History...

* This is why I also created the topic of "What Romania's objectives were on the Eastern Front" - because I believe her Objectives were very very different then that of her Ally..

If Barbarossa was in fact a Colonial War of Occupation and not a "struggle against Ideology", or a "Liberation War" as claimed I think we should talk about it !

don't be Intolerant and don't close my topic again
I have not broken any of your forum Rules, - and this is a good and legitimate subject!

I don't think your topics will be very successful here.

When you write a bunch of truisms and expect someone to challenge them is usually some kind of flamebaiting. Of course the common Soviet soldier was not fighting for ideology.

I'll leave the topic open at least for a while, but it's useless IMO.

So, Anton, what is your point, then?
Before answering, remember a couple of facts, though:
1. The Soviets were the real master of deportation, moving away from their original places millions of people - inhabitants of Moldavia, Bukovina, Tatars, and so on.
2. Have you ever heard about Kaliningrad? What about Konigsberg?
3. Do you know anything about Sudetenland and/or about the approximately 3 millions German speakers from there who were deported back to Germany after ww2?
(My point with the 3 questions above: the winners were sometimes worse than the Nazis)
4. Initially, the Red Army soldier was fighting for communism, also with the prospect of being shot by the political comissar who was behind at every unit's level (starting from company upwards, IIRC); only form summer/autumn 1942, in the meantime with the "no step back" speech from Stalin, were the comissars removed; what's more, even the Orthodox Church was - for a short time - allowed.
Barbarossa wasn't just "a colonial war"; IMO, it was also a war between two systems whose existance was mutually condemned and hence excluded; of course, the Ribentropp-Molotov Pakt was just a temporary thing.
Cheers - and study history a little, ok?

The Russian soldier had the enemy in front and the osobist (political officer) behind. Who was worse?
Radu

Yes, I know all about "Kaliningrad", East Prussia, the Teutonic Knights and the German Expansionism to the East from 1242 onwards...and the "Drang nach Osten" politic... and Germans who have been dreaming of conquering Russia and settling there for the last 800 years...

So the crusade against bolshevism was in fact a Colonial war... its clear now

And If the Germans had not embarked on their colonial war of Russia and had not treated the local Slavic population like dumb animals, the Russians would not have raped everything from 7 to 70 on their way to Berlin, much less..reached Berlin.
In 1940-1941 they had no motivation to do so, could not even beat Finnland..

Have YOU heard about "GeneralPlan Ost"?s
To slowly move the Slavic nations, Polish, Czechs far to the East? "

Im not talking about the unjust things Russians did to Romanians... Im talking about German Colonialism.. the 1941 war that had as objective the conquest of Russia and remaining there for the next 1000 years


If Barbarossa was a Colonial war, with that, as its primary Objective, I think we should know about it..and talk about it.

I never hated Hitler too much, but if he was going to do to the Russians what the Spanish did to the native Indians of the American continent.. then we had no business being in Russia at all and helping him do that.

Romanians only want what is theirs, not to colonize other countries or deport people from their native soil.

I have my own theory, but I believe Hitler should never have attacked Russia but should have stayed home where it was nice and warm..
1941 should have been a defensive struggle, not a war of aggression, and not COLONIAL WAR!

====================================================
You know what...
I just don't like the idea of deporting "Inferior races" away from their native countries..
Some day someone will think my brown hair and my Romanian blood is inferior to his... or that my country is too nice and rich in gold, oil and other natural resources to be inhabited but such an "inefficient Gypsy scum" like the Romanians... and he'll take over

I'm not surprised at all why they lost the war.
He became a colonialist, and that's why

This post has been edited by Anton88 on July 30, 2010 03:41 pm

Radub

I just know this
If they had lost the war, they would probably not exist as a nation today.
And its Patriotism and Nationalism that won the Russians the war, not the Comissar
They would not have won the war otherwise if they all had a comissar behind them, but no fighting spirit or will

sorry,
but from their own point of view they did what was right
They fought for their own existence,..

bad for us, we got screwed (literally)

This post has been edited by Anton88 on July 30, 2010 03:33 pm

Prejudice, whether stamped with a swastika or a sickle and hammer is still prejudice.
Radu

Prejudice or not, I didn't see an answer: what's your point, Anton?
If they did, if we had, if the Earth was flat and so on...
Fact 1: the very doctrine of the Nazis prevented them from allying with the inferior races - as they did in the Baltic states
Fact 2: sometimes the diffrerence between the brown totalitarian regime and the red one is effectively minimal
Fact 3: the Germans lost the war with their own skills/blunders; as consequence, the winners wrote the history and instrumented Nurenberg.

Hard to say...
The "Osobîi Otdel" guy at least spoke the same language (most of the times); on the other hand, if a Russian (or German) soldier deserted, his family would have suffered. So, another reason to stand up and fight

Anton88, are we talking about the common Russian/German peasant soldier or the political leaders like Hitler and Stalin and their goals and ideals? You can equate bewteen them but can't equate them with the common foot soldier.

Somebody, a month ago, put a link to an extraordinary documentary, Soviet Story is called. Look at it, and will understand a lot about this.

I agree with Dragos. This topic adds no value to the forum. It merely induces flame war.

People who have strong ideological believes usually cannot be convinced, no matter how many arguments (or proofs) one raises.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 30, 2010 06:35 pm

In my opinion it cannot be called a colonial war because Germany and SU were European great powers.

Hallo Anton88,
I don't know if you talk with this apparent sympathy for the russian soldiers after reading the book Stalingrad by Antony Beevor (If you do, than I understand you very well) but if you don't, remember the cruelties against the Romanian population from Bessarabia between 1940-1941, totally unjustified... Agree, ordinary Soviet soldiers were not responsible for those cruelties but talking about the ordinary soviet soldier without talking about the soviet army in which they were part is nonsense... When you talk about their patriotism, we can agree it was there and real, and a lot of fear also... The cause they were fighting for was probably more morally justified -they fight on their own soil- than the germans, and probably many atrocities committed against German civilians or POW were understandable, but not justified... If we talk about efficiency of the German military between 1941-1942, we have to talk also about terror, hunger, abuse and murder of russian civilians... Russian reply will be even more cruel and indiscriminate in 1944-1945... I agree, we agree, but what's the point of all this? That the Russians were also victims of the war... obviously yes! And we were too! But SU win the war... we don't... Germany don't... and here lies the difference! The counterfactual history of what happen if Germany win the war and the fate of russian people is nonsense, since this was impossible... Personally I do not think Germany could crush Russia, but if she succeed, could not control it...

I agree with Dragos. This topic adds no value to the forum. It merely induces flame war.

People who have strong ideological believes usually cannot be convinced, no matter how many arguments (or proofs) one raises.

Gen. Dénes

Denes, I'm not politically motivated here. Let's get this straight
I'm far from being a Communist or even a Russian sympathizer. (the fact that I admire them how they managed to turn the tide of that war and defeat the best army in the world and their allies from all countries in Europe, is something else)

If you want to be mad at someone you can blame the Westerners for getting involved
British and Americans helped Russia with all their industrial might.. they got in between. You can't blame the Russians for "resisting".. under these circumstances
If you were Russian, you would have done the same

Look at this poster...Where do you see Lenin or Marx or World Communism?
This is the kind of thing that made them fight.
And Germany with her extreme Racial Ideology could never win over the Poppulation


======================================================
Like I said..
If the Russians were going to attack and go deep into Europe in 1941 with the intent to impose their system by force, or to Colonize Europe and populate it with their own...
I'm telling you, I'd be the 1st to go to War... anytime - It would have been a JUST defensive struggle

But to go there like we all did... to cause so much unnecessary destruction and death...
That only made them stronger, and it united them!
We had no business being there!
(especially allied with their historical enemy, the Germans which they have fought previously more than a couple of times...
This was not going to be easy - and they would not crumble in 4 weeks as Hitler had predicted - Antonescu should have known this!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Germans (more than us) had no business being there!
(Germans should have been invading England at this time, ... if they knew what was good for them)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Put it this way...

If Romania had no territorial issues with anyone whatsoever
If Romania had Transylvania, Bassarabia, Bukovina within her borders...
If there were no issues with Hungary at all, or with the Soviet Union...
or was even on good terms with either of these 2 countries...

Would Romania still have followed Germany deep into Russia, or her ""Holy Fight against Communism""?
Hmm I doubt it ....

And if Barbarossa had as its main objective the Colonization of Russia, and making Germany an invincible World Empire that now has all it needs...
Then all this propaganda Bull about "Europe's Crusade against Bolshevism" is void and nil

Germany should not have invaded and dragged all the nations of Europe along with her ..


And this medal here, should really have been called "Medal for the Crusade against Slavs and the acquisition of new land,"



This post has been edited by Anton88 on July 30, 2010 11:08 pm