Soviet treatment of Germans during WW2

[RNK]

I'm sure we've all heard the prolific testaments to the behaviour of the Red Army as they blasted their way into Germany in the closing months of WW2. The mass destruction, killings, rapes, etc. A lot of it is true; a lot is exhaggerated, or made up, or skewed.

First, a brief history:

In 1939 the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, a non-aggression pact ensuring temporary inhostility towards one another. This act is one of the most controversial of the war, for obvious reasons. The two nations, and the two ideologies which each professed, were fundamentally opposed to one another, so it came as quite a shock when the world first found out.

The nature and origin of the pact is murky at best, but it was essentially an agreement to disagree. The Soviet Union would never allow Germany to be able to place troops on Poland's border with the USSR, and Hitler knew it. What's more, there's mountains of evidence which seem to indicate that the Soviet Union was itself readying for some sort of military action into Europe. In 1939, however, neither country was as yet prepared to fight one another, so some sort of agreement to avoid hostilities was necessary.

In the end, the Soviets got the lion's share of the deal. While Germany did all the fighting, the USSR got a comfortable buffer zone between it and the Nazis; infact, days before the invasion of Poland, the Soviets laid down a last-minute demand for even more concessions and got it almost without question due to the importance Germany held for abating them.

Anyway, fast forward to 1941; Poland fell within a month, France and the rest of Western Europe fell within two, and now it was time for Germany to invade the Soviet Union, Operation "Barbarossa".

Everyone expected the invasion to play out like it had in Poland, France, the Low Countries, and Norway, and at first it seemed as if it would. The German armies raced across Russia at break-neck speed, capturing or killing hundreds of thousands of Red Army troops and sending the survivors reeling back towards Moscow with their heads spinning. Eventually, though, the Soviets managed to do something nobody else, until that point, had; halt the advance. They were helped as much by Hitler as by the immense advancement in skill displayed by several key Generals (ie General Zhukov). The German advance, ironically enough, was stopped in three locations, almost simeltaneously; Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow.

All three cities were given a death sentence by Hitler, who ordered his armies to wipe them off the map, destroy them utterly and everyone who lived there. Moscow suffered the least. Stalingrad and Leningrad were ruined, utterly. And throughout the entire German advance the Nazis had pursued a scorched earth policy; they took everything they thought useful and destroyed everything else, killing tens of millions of civilians in the process. Afterall, it was Hitler's dream to conquer western Russia, enslave its people and replace them with nice, quaint German families who would peacefully mind the fields and grow crops while Russian "untermensch" slave-labourers provided the German 'race' with untold physical freedom.

The plan failed, however. In Moscow, the German advance was halted at the gates of the city by a determined mix of Red Army troops and civilian volunteers who built and then manned miles of defenses around the city. In Leningrad and Stalingrad, brutal urban fighting leveled almost every single building, but the people fought on. Workers manned their stations despite the threat of imminent death, churning out improvised weapons that they themselves manned; factories which built agricultural tractors before the war were building armoured fighting vehicles and driven straight into battle as they left the production line - battles which raged blocks away. Everyday citizens joined the fight; those who were unable to pick up arms shuttled ammunition and food and water to frontline units, tended the wounded and buried the dead. Despite the carnage that was raged upon their cities, many -- maybe even most -- stayed to help the fight and it is just as much their effort as the Red Army's which stopped Hitler dead.

Eventually the defensive siege turned into offensive counter-attack. In Stalingrad, an enormous pincer pierced through the flanks of the German lines, encircled the city and trapped 230,000 Nazi troops inside. Over the next two months, the German troops within this pocket were annihilated as the Soviets pushed in from all sides. At one point, the Soviets made a rather generous offer; if the Germans in Stalingrad surrendered, they would be guaranteed their safety, their possessions and would be given plenty of food and water. The offer was rejected on Hitler's orders. It's reported that the Soviet envoy sent to the German HQ in the city attempted to convince, even plead with the Germans to surrender, but the rejection of the offer had sealed their fate. In the end, only 5,000 survived.

Leningrad, the "Hero City", had suffered perhaps a worse fate. Unlike Stalingrad, which was pushed against by the Germans from west to east, Leningrad was bypassed and encircled, and then sieged. The Germans brought every available gun and bomb to destroy the city and the result was, essentially, genocide. Daily death tolls peaked at nearly 10,000; in a single month, as many as 150,000 civilians were killed, and this went on for 29 months. As in Stalingrad, the people of Leningrad rose up to fulfill their moral duty. Despite the rampant starvation and epidemics which swept over the remaining population, the people fought on, with the help of the Red Army (an interesting point to note is that during the siege and the lack of food resulting from it, universal rationing was instituted, which saw that workers received a higher ration of food than even soldiers). But the horrors of what they faced are hard to grasp, even today. During all of 1943, only 700 children were born in Leningrad, compared to 175,000 in 1939. Human losses in this one battle surpassed those of the battles of Moscow or Stalingrad, and the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Out of a population of two and a half million, about one half died; when the siege was lifted, only 400,000 people remained, the remaining survivors having fled.

In early 1944 the siege was finally lifted. Leningrad was ruined; to this day, there are barren, empty lots in St Petersburg (modern Leningrad) where entire neighbourhoods had been flattened by the Nazi's bombardment. Tons of mines left in the city by the Germans killed returning civilians for over a year. For this, Leningrad was given the title "Hero City" (corny, but passionate).

It was at this point that the Soviet Union truely began to exact its revenge. Over the next year, from January 1944 to April 1945, the Red Army swept across western Russia, through the Ukraine, through Poland, and through Germany, and into Berlin, essentially bulldozing its way straight into the heart of Hitler's empire.

So, now that I've laid a little groundwork (sorry if I went on too long; WW2 is somewhat of a passion for me), back to the topic of the thread...

As I said, there's a lot of controversy, discussion and debate that goes on about the true nature of the war between Germany and the Soviet Union, and I'm here to talk about one particular topic, that being the treatment of Germany by the Soviets.

According to most reputable historical sources (both Soviet and non-Soviet), the final invasion of and conquest of Berlin happened as so:

First, the citizens of Berlin were already in a state of perpetual misery by the time the Soviets came. Ironic, considering the number of cities and the number of people who had faced this exact same ordeal (and much worse) at the hands of the German army. Second, the initial thrusts into the city were made by quite well-disciplined, well-trained forces, with such titles as "Guards" and "Shock" Armies. After the surrender of all German forces and the end of hostilities, it is apparent that the Red Army actually mounted an immense operation to bring tons of food, fresh water and medical supplies to the German citizens of Berlin. Red Army soldiers manned soup kitchens on street corners to hand out hot food (a rarity) to hungry Berliners and helped in rebuilding critical infastructure.

Then came the abuse. Whereas the highly-disciplined soldiers of the Guards and Shock armies acted quite nicely, second-rate soldiers brought in after the battle are widely reported as acting with often extreme brutality to the civilian population. Rapes, lootings, thefts, beatings and killings were reported in high numbers. There was an attempt by the Red Army to crack down on these acts, which saw many soldiers arrested and, in some instances, officers were forced to shoot offending soldiers. The situation was not entirely settled until 1947 when all red army troops in Berlin were restricted to their camps.

It's an almost comedic situation; on the one hand, the Soviets have just occupied the capital city of a nation that had just attempted to exterminate them. On the other, to do the same would probably be a little bit hypocritical. In some instances, unwarrented kindness is shown; in others, deserved brutality. So what are the opinions of RevLefters on how the Soviet Union acted, or should have acted?

Personally, a large part of my thinks that had I been Stalin, I just might've ordered the complete destruction of Berlin. Afterall, the Soviets had about 50,000 pieces of artillery stationed around Berlin at the time of the offensive. After the war, the Soviets claimed that in the last two weeks of April they had dropped more explosives onto Berlin than the Western Allies had done in 4 years of bombing. So it was certainly possible...

But how should the Red Armies have acted? It's easy to observe from afar and judge that they should have acted disciplined; but remember, we are talking about an entire society of Nazis here, and the vengeance of a people who were on the brink of genocidal annihilation not three years earlier.

[spartan]

You forgot to mention that Russians of German origin were discriminated against by the USSR, who saw them as a potential threat to security because of their German origins, and sent lots of them to central Asia and Siberia.

The same fate also befell the Chechens, who were all (Yes the entire people) sent to Siberia and were only allowed to return to their homeland when Khrushchev became leader.

[Andres Marcos]

You forgot to mention that Russians of German origin were discriminated against by the USSR, who saw them as a potential threat to security because of their German origins, and sent lots of them to central Asia and Siberia.

The same fate also befell the Chechens, who were all (Yes the entire people) sent to Siberia and were only allowed to return to their homeland when Khrushchev became leader.

I think the deportations were already covered and if not they were dealt with as to prevent collaboration with the Nazis, since many in these groups had indeed collaborated with the Nazis, They however, were under order to not be treated cruelly and to be treated humanely, if anyone has objections to this they are understandable in the context that your nation is not being invaded. Now for the USSR treatment of German Civilians by the soldiers that of course is appalling, yet I do not know how it feels like to lose a family member because they were murdered by German soldiers(at least 1/4 people lost one or more family members) and that most likely had something to do with it, doesn't justify anything but they were most likely enraged by the loss of a loved one.

[Raúl Duke]

We are talking about an entire society of Nazis....

???

Although it's true that the people allowed (although there was some struggle here and there mostly from the KPD) Hitler to gain power...this sounds too harsh.

Although, Stalin should of done is get all the Nazi leaders, concentration camp officers/etc, etc and executed them before breaking Berlin into parts (or maybe it would have been better if Berlin was never broken in 2); since, once Berlin was split between the allies the other allies began to hire ex-Nazi's for many purposes. Than they should have done what the Guard/Shock battalions did and kept the "second-rate" soldiers "at bay".

[Holden Caulfield]

step up NKVD and Beria
even German card carrying communists were treated poorly by the Soviets,

[RNK]

You forgot to mention that Russians of German origin were discriminated against by the USSR, who saw them as a potential threat to security because of their German origins, and sent lots of them to central Asia and Siberia.

Funny, I've only ever heard that their property was confiscated and they were expelled to Germany.

Also, this has nothing to do with the topic, so please try and not derail the threat. Thanks.


Although it's true that the people allowed (although there was some struggle here and there mostly from the KPD) Hitler to gain power...this sounds too harsh.

I don't think it was. We are not talking about apathetic complacency here. Most Germans at the time thoroughly enjoyed the feeling of being "superior people" and most gave their unconditional support, right up to the end .

[Raúl Duke]

I don't think it was. We are not talking about apathetic complacency here. Most Germans at the time thoroughly enjoyed the feeling of being "superior people" and most gave their unconditional support, right up to the end .

Where do you get this bit of info?

[Comrade Rage]

This is an interesting topic for me, particularly since I'm reading a book about the Battle of Berlin (The Last Battle by Cornelius Ryan).

It played out exactly the way you stated it: when Zhukov's troops came into the city they started a humanitarian effort that headed off a probable crisis in the city. Most of Berlin had no running water, and vast tracts of the city had been leveled.

Of course, due to the deaths of vast numbers of Soviet troops, most of the divisions that made up the rear guard of the invading forces were poorly trained and disciplined. The accounts of rape and looting were unfortunate and unavoidable.


As for what I would have done, I would have acted compassionately like Stalin. What the Reich did to the USSR was repugnant, but I wouldn't feel comfortable taking vengeance on a whole nationality.

[SamiBTX]

The truth is that ALL attacking forces, armies etc. commit atrocities no matter what the situation is, the reason or the political affiliation.
No one's military is clean, or 100% heroic. Every army did ghastly things in
WWII whether we like to admit it or not. You can point out one crime comitted by let's say a Brit or American during WWII, & they'll (US or Britain) say "That doesn't matter, what the Germans did was far worse.'
The only way to prevent these awful things from occuring is to stop the wars & insurgencies in which they occur, but most people prefer to support the wars & insurgencies & ***** when their guys or civillians get killed.

:o

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

step up NKVD and Beria
even German card carrying communists were treated poorly by the Soviets,

Many Soviet citizens wondered- where the German working class and Communist party was through all of this. After the massive net of prisoners at Stalingrad, one German officer remarked(in might have been Paulus or Schmidt) "I had no idea there were so many Communists in the German army!"

From a Western, hindsight perspective, the treatment of German Communists and anti-fascists may seem unfair, but to the average Soviet soldier, many of whom lost family members and sometimes their entire family, claiming to be a Communist might have seemed like a sick joke to them.

But hell, if Trots can't put themselves in the shoes of workers in general today, I would be unfair if I expected them to put themselves in the shoes of working-class soldiers from another country in the 1940s.

[spartan]

http://www.rferl.org/features/2002/05/08052002104901.asp

Heres a few excerpts from this article:



"From a Russian point of view, the most shocking thing perhaps that we came across was this very detailed report by the deputy chief of the political department of the first Ukrainian front -- basically one is talking about one million men on the Ukrainian front -- reporting back to the Central Committee of the Komsomol on the widespread rapes of Russian and Ukrainian and Belarusian women and girls who'd been taken to Germany by force by the Wehrmacht for forced labor, slave labor. And these young women, who had been praying after two or three years of appalling treatment in many cases -- had been praying for liberation by the Red Army -- then found themselves being raped and abused by Red Army soldiers."



"Stalin, one can tell, thought -- partly in the remarks made to [Yugoslav military and political leader Miloslav] Djilas -- that troops should be allowed to have their 'fun,' and there was no question of interfering in that as far as he was concerned. And you can see from all the reports -- it's a question of seeing the reports in all these different archives and getting an overall impression of the attitudes of not just the people reporting but even the people they were reporting to. One gets the general impression that basically, one is dealing with an army that -- despite all of our impressions of Soviet society and how controlled it was -- was out of control. Alcohol was one of the major problems, and in fact, what one finds is that many Red Army soldiers really needed to get themselves fueled up before they went out raping in the evening -- it was almost as if they needed the courage to do it, in a curious way."

Oh and in case any of you question the authenticity of these claims then i would like to direct you to this:


Beevor, in describing sources for his latest work, mentions Natalya Gesse, a Soviet war correspondent and close friend of former scientist and later dissident Andrei Sakharov. Gesse described Soviet soldiers in Germany in 1945 as "an army of rapists."

Beevor says an examination of Soviet archives confirms Gesse's allegations. He describes where he got his source material.

"A certain amount from the archives of the Ministry of Defense, a large amount from the Central State Archive -- and this is very significant because one has reports from the NKVD chiefs of the army groups of the front advancing on Germany and into Germany reporting back to [NKVD chief Lavrentii] Beria, and these reports are then passed to Stalin stating that Germans interrogated by the NKVD say that virtually every woman left behind in East German territory is being raped by Red Army troops. There is no indication, there is no comment on this. There is nothing to say that this is slander or a lie or anything like that. This is presented as fact."

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Sure, Milovan Djilas, there's a reliable source. This is a guy that betrayed TITO of all people. Traitor of the biggest traitor.

Strange how you guys are supposedly anti-capitalist, and yet you rush to defend the capitalist narrative of history at every conceivable opportunity.

Hey here's a GREAT alternative: Soviet Union follows anarchists ideas with decentralized, autonomous communes and such, no party, etc. Hitler invades, crushes everything from the Bug to the Urals in a matter of a few months or less, and harnesses the vast natural resources of Russia to create an unstoppable war machine which means the Nazi Empire in conjunction with the Japanese virtually dominate the world.


Think about that the next time you want to spit at the RKKA.

[spartan]

Sure, Milovan Djilas, there's a reliable source. This is a guy that betrayed TITO of all people. Traitor of the biggest traitor.

What so you Stalinists are now defending the "traitor" Tito?

Or is it only when the right opportunity presents itself to suit you and your arguement?

Strange how you guys are supposedly anti-capitalist, and yet you rush to defend the capitalist narrative of history at every conceivable opportunity.

Hey here's a GREAT alternative: Soviet Union follows anarchists ideas with decentralized, autonomous communes and such, no party, etc. Hitler invades, crushes everything from the Bug to the Urals in a matter of a few months or less, and harnesses the vast natural resources of Russia to create an unstoppable war machine which means the Nazi Empire in conjunction with the Japanese virtually dominate the world.


Think about that the next time you want to spit at the RKKA.
Why not actually try to refute the claims in that article?

Or cant you?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

What so you Stalinists are now defending Tito?

No, just pointing out that the traitor of a traitor is not really trustworthy.



Why not actually try to refute the claims in that article?

Or cant you?

I have refuted these claims in a number of discussions on military forums. There was no official encouragement of rape, based on studies done recently, the amount of rapes when compared with the forces involved in the area(considering that a rapist was probably a repeat offender) involved a small minority of the Red Army as a whole. The studies also show that a majority of the rapists were from formerly occupied areas. The Germans raped as well, no matter how hard they want to sanitize this. A Soviet rape-victim's eyewitness account is no less credible than that of Nazi Germany.

The thing is that this has nothing to do with state policy or Marxist-Leninist theory in the time of Stalin. You are so obsessed with Stalin that you see any possible opportunity to attack the Soviet Union as fair game.

That, is why you are no Marxist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Screw morality; frankly I don't care what happened to SS or Nazi officers. However, the mistreatment of all Germans was a bad strategy that helped PROLONG THE WAR because Germans saw that loosing was not a better alternative. A revolutionary strategy for the USSR would have been to promote desertion and Germans turning against Hitler and the NAZIs.

The fact that antifas emerged as the NAZI and Italian regimes collapsed, proves that the USSR could have used this strategy and it may have even helped to make it more difficult for the UK and US to run West Germany. But the USSR at that point was more interested in a "patriotic war" and having post-war influence and power rather than a revolutionary war and worker power.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Screw morality; frankly I don't care what happened to SS or Nazi officers. However, the mistreatment of all Germans was a bad strategy that helped PROLONG THE WAR because Germans saw that loosing was not a better alternative. A revolutionary strategy for the USSR would have been to promote desertion and Germans turning against Hitler and the NAZIs.

The fact that antifas emerged as the NAZI and Italian regimes collapsed, proves that the USSR could have used this strategy and it may have even helped to make it more difficult for the UK and US to run West Germany. But the USSR at that point was more interested in a "patriotic war" and having post-war influence and power rather than a revolutionary war and worker power.

The Soviets did not do this as a matter of policy, unlike the Germans when they invaded the USSR. Furthermore, the argument that this made the Germans fight harder has also been argued in regards to Roosevelt's demand for unconditional surrender in 1943, long before the Soviets even crossed their borders. Goebbels' "Total War" speech took place long before a single Soviet soldier even set foot outside the USSR.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Oh yeah, Roosevelt and Churchill also had no intention of ending the war if it wasn't on terms that helped them control the post-war world - hence the A-bomb on Japan and total destruction of many working class neighborhoods in Germany. But I would expect this from capitalist countries - just not from a country that was supposed to be "revolutionary".

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Oh yeah, Roosevelt and Churchill also had no intention of ending the war if it wasn't on terms that helped them control the post-war world - hence the A-bomb on Japan and total destruction of many working class neighborhoods in Germany. But I would expect this from capitalist countries - just not from a country that was supposed to be "revolutionary".

You can't make that call in full awareness- you did not suffer what millions of Soviet citizens suffered under Axis occupation, nor did you witness combat on the Eastern front.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I never saw the horrors of slavery in the American south, but I can still develop opinions about it and condemn it.

Like I said, I think the mistake was the the USSR made the war a "patriotic war" rather than an "anti-fascist" war and therefore treated all Germans as the enemy rather than trying to cause class war inside Germany to undermine the embattled NAZI regime. The fact that peasants and workers lynched Mussolini in Italy and that there was no underground NAZI resistance after WWII while there were anti-nazi worker groups that kicked out their former town rulers (many of whom were later re-installed by the Allies).

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

I never saw the horrors of slavery in the American south, but I can still develop opinions about it and condemn it.

That is a different analogy. To make it more accurate, we must compare it to the way whites might view something like a noose. They may know that it has some kind of connotation for black people, but it doesn't have the same effect.



Like I said, I think the mistake was the the USSR made the war a "patriotic war" rather than an "anti-fascist" war and therefore treated all Germans as the enemy rather than trying to cause class war inside Germany to undermine the embattled NAZI regime. The fact that peasants and workers lynched Mussolini in Italy and that there was no underground NAZI resistance after WWII while there were anti-nazi worker groups that kicked out their former town rulers (many of whom were later re-installed by the Allies).


Alas, the structure of Italy was much different, the NSDAP was far better at building loyalty and it had a stronger grip on the state than Mussolini. Plus the NSDAP had a long streak of victories it could show its people. Italy's few victories usually came at a high price.

[Comrade Rage]

Like I said, I think the mistake was the the USSR made the war a "patriotic war" rather than an "anti-fascist" war and therefore treated all Germans as the enemy rather than trying to cause class war inside Germany to undermine the embattled NAZI regime. Well, if you've read any of the propaganda, and speeches of the time you will see that it was a patriotic war in addition to an anti-fascist war. Stalin rejected bourgeosie nationalism, but the Germans wanted to eliminate more than Communism, and the USSR, they made it QUITE clear that they wanted nothing less than the total annhilation of the Russian people.


"The Slavs are not human beings, merely a conglomeration of animals."
Hitler, 1942

"The war in the East is not a conventional war, rather it is a war of total destruction."
Hitler, 1943

You can't deny that the workers in the USSR were fighting for their mere survival.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, workers in the USSR were fighting and should have fought, that's not my point. Neither is simple revenge - I can understand an individual wanting to take horrible revenge against a German for all the horrors the Germans caused to people in Russia.

My point is that by fighting the war in a nationalistic way rather than a revolutionary way, the USSR - probably unknowingly - helped prolong the war.

When Lincoln promised to free slaves in southern states, he helped to turn the Northern strategy U.S. civil war into a war with revolutionary elements. The North was then kicking the feet out from under the confederacy by encouraging slaves to run away or even revolt and join the Union army.

It's not far-fetched to say that if the USSR had made it clear that it was out to destroy the NAZI regime in order to "free" workers in NAZI germany and occupied territories, it could have encouraged revolt at the end of the war. Again, the regime was stretched thing and could not forcibly repress militant worker actions in Germany (as it had before the war) let alone in occupied areas. Secondly, this was only 20 years after the militant revolts in Germany that happened at the end of WWI.

[Comrade Rage]

Yes, workers in the USSR were fighting and should have fought, that's not my point. Neither is simple revenge - I can understand an individual wanting to take horrible revenge against a German for all the horrors the Germans caused to people in Russia.

My point is that by fighting the war in a nationalistic way rather than a revolutionary way, the USSR - probably unknowingly - helped prolong the war.

When Lincoln promised to free slaves in southern states, he helped to turn the Northern strategy U.S. civil war into a war with revolutionary elements. The North was then kicking the feet out from under the confederacy by encouraging slaves to run away or even revolt and join the Union army.

It's not far-fetched to say that if the USSR had made it clear that it was out to destroy the NAZI regime in order to "free" workers in NAZI germany and occupied territories, it could have encouraged revolt at the end of the war. Again, the regime was stretched thing and could not forcibly repress militant worker actions in Germany (as it had before the war) let alone in occupied areas. Secondly, this was only 20 years after the militant revolts in Germany that happened at the end of WWI.While I agree that such a scenario would have been preferable, you have to realize that there was literally no chance of such a people's struggle. The people of Germany were under the scrutiny of the most feared secret police in history-the Gestapo-who had even branched into foreign intelligence work.

[spartan]

My point is that by fighting the war in a nationalistic way rather than a revolutionary way, the USSR - probably unknowingly - helped prolong the war.

Not only that but they also built up a hell of alot of resentmant from the peoples who they conquered.

With the setting up of these pro-USSR regimes in eastern Europe after WW2, One form of tyranny (Fascism) had simply been replaced by another (Stalinism), and it shouldnt really be any surprise to us that when these regimes fell, the majority of people in those nations were happy.

And lets face facts here because if the majority of people, living under these regimes, werent happy, then why didnt they defend their old system in the face of unrest and upheaval?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree that any worker's fight-back would have been difficult in the early years of the NAZI regime since crushing this power was the stated purpose of fascism. But I believe that it was clear that the NAZIs would not have been able to put down an internal revolt by the time they were stuck on the Eastern Front.

Again, local antifas were able to chase NAZI officials away in Germany; also, the NAZI puppet governments were no longer able to control their populations and had to be replaced by SS agents - so control in Eastern Europe and Italy was even weaker than it was in Germany.

Internal revolt would have been preferable in saving the lives of Russian and German workers and grunt-soldiers, but it also could have led to workers having much more power in post-war Europe and possibly workers taking power after overthrowing some of the weaker NAZI puppet-states.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

With the setting up of these pro-USSR regimes in eastern Europe after WW2, One form of tyranny (Fascism) had simply been replaced by another (Stalinism), and it shouldnt really be any surprise to us that when these regimes fell, the majority of people in those nations were happy.

I'm sorry are you some kind of leftist? Because this sounds like something Anthony Beevor or Max Hastings would write.



And lets face facts here because if the majority of people, living under these regimes, werent happy, then why didnt they defend their old system in the face of unrest and upheaval?

And what exactly are you basing that on?

[spartan]

I'm sorry are you some kind of leftist? Because this sounds like something Anthony Beevor or Max Hastings would write.
Are Stalinists leftists?

I hate Capitalism as much as the next Socialist, but even you have to admit that there must have been something seriously fucked up with these eastern European states and their systems, for the majority of people to welcome Capitalism as a liberating force?


And what exactly are you basing that on?

Uh, the lack of a huge resistance to the destruction of these regimes might have something to do with it?

Have you seen the images of happy East Germans when the Berlin wall fell?

Or is that all Bourgeois propaganda?

Hell one of the regimes (Romania) fell because the people had simply had enough of all the lies and revolted.

Surely if these were Socialist states, then there would be no reason for the majority of the people in these states, to hate their countries system, and welcome its destruction, whilst at the same time embracing Capitalism as a liberating force from what they themselves (And i think that they are most qualified seeing how they were the ordinary working people who had to live under these systems everyday) called "tyranny"?

[chimx]

I think the deportations were already covered and if not they were dealt with as to prevent collaboration with the Nazis, since many in these groups had indeed collaborated with the Nazis, They however, were under order to not be treated cruelly and to be treated humanely, if anyone has objections to this they are understandable in the context that your nation is not being invaded.

I'm sorry. Perhaps I misunderstand. Are you arguing for "humane" ethnic cleansing?

This forum's membership should re-read Mr. Marcos' statements very carefully.

[Comrade Rage]

Are Stalinists leftists?
And it begins!

I hate Capitalism as much as the next Socialist, but even you have to admit that there must have been something seriously fucked up with these eastern European states and their systems, for the majority of people to welcome Capitalism as a liberating force?
Revisionism and opportunism. Rather than implement the teachings of Marx/Lenin/Stalin they deviated from this philosophy and embarked on something completely different in nature. This path BTW, is the same one you want us to take, ironically.
Surely if these were Socialist states, then there would be no reason for the majority of the people in these states, to hate their countries system, and welcome its destruction, whilst at the same time embracing Capitalism as a liberating force from what they themselves (And i think that they are most qualified seeing how they were the ordinary working people who had to live under these systems everyday) called "tyranny"?Which one of Reagan's biographies did you cut & paste that out of?

[spartan]

Revisionism and opportunism. Rather than implement the teachings of Marx/Lenin/Stalin they deviated from this philosophy and embarked on something completely different in nature.

Of course i was waiting for the old "Revisionism" to come up, but lets face facts here.

The Bureaucracy (Which is the spine, heart and brain of every system that has named itself Marxist-Leninist) realized that they could make more money by adopting an international free market Capitalist system, similar to the west, instead of the State Capitalist sytem that they had in the USSR.

Why did they want to change from their State Capitalist centralised planned economy?

Well because a State Capitalist economic system limits how much money the controllers of all the productive forces in a State Capitalist economy (In the USSR's case the Bureaucracy) could make, by how much profit could be made from production in these industries under their control (Which wasnt alot by the time the USSR was nearing its end).

Thus the Bureaucrats realized that instead of flogging a dead horse, they could transform their economy to an international free market Capitalist economy (But with themselves conveniantly still in control of most industries in the former USSR states, hence the emergence of the "Oligarchs" after the dissolution of the USSR in the former USSR states) and buy up other countries industries as well to make even more money for themselves (Which is something that they couldnt do in their State Capitalist economy, which limited them to all productive forces in their territory, hence the "State" part in "State Capitalism", and not internationally like in a free market Capitalist economy, which has no boundaries).

Why do you think that this same Bureaucracy allowed Gorbachev (A Social Democrat) to become leader of a self described "Socialist" state with a "Socialist" economy?

It was simply to make the transition to fully fledged Capitalism that much easier, instead of having a civil war, when the workers would realize that they were being screwed out of their pensions, because the Bureaucrats could now throw off the facade that they were Socialists.

That is the reality of the failure of the USSR, and the systems that they implemented in over one third of the world, not "Revisionism", which, lets face it, is an all to conveniant excuse for Stalinists attributed to the failure of their State Capitalist political and economic system.

[Comrade Rage]

You realize you just described revisionism, right?

[spartan]

You realize you just described revisionism, right?

Then Revisionism was made possible by Stalins Bureaucracy? (Which Kromando33 denies even exists).

The only good thing about Marxism-Leninism is that they modernised (Politically and socially) and industrialized countries which had just come away from Feudalism and primitive forms of pre Capitalist production (Russia and China immediately spring to mind).

But that is exactly why we should leave Marxism-Leninism there, because it eventually ended up leading to Capitalism for every single self described Marxist-Leninist state that has existed.

Thats why i cant understand your upholding of Marxism-Leninism, because as a political and economic model for a future Socialist society in a world that is, for the most part, near fully industrialized, it is all but redundant except for maybe in non-industrialized areas of Africa, which still hold backward beliefs and practice primitive forms of production (Which wont lead to the material conditions necessary for Socialism).

[Comrade Rage]

Then Revisionism was made possible by Stalins Bureaucracy.So I presume you are anti-Statist?

It wasn't the beauracracy that was the problem, it was a few people he mistrusted, and put in wrong places (Khruschev). Beauracracy doesn't act on it's own.

We need to regularly retrain and (if necessary) purge people from the beauracracy frequently.

[Comrade Rage]

I didn't mean to further derail the thread. The subject here is about Soviet Soldiers' treatment of Germans in territories liberated by them in WWII.

Obviously, any debates about Stalin can be continued in the 5,667,244,234,455 Stalin threads on this board.

Peace.

[Andres Marcos]

I'm sorry. Perhaps I misunderstand. Are you arguing for "humane" ethnic cleansing?

This forum's membership should re-read Mr. Marcos' statements very carefully.

Yes you did misunderstand because I NEVER even said the word ethnic cleansing nor even anything remotely close to executions, since they were relocated not exectuted. I suggest you read someone's statements before trying to accuse them of anything

@ Spartan

your posts have nothing to do with this topic.

[spartan]

@ Spartan

your posts have nothing to do with this topic.

Then i will ask a mod to split my post from this thread, into its own thread, and you can try to refute there.

Or are you looking for a conveniant excuse ("This has nothing to do with the topic, so i wont bother answering") to not answer my post, as you are unable to actually refute anything in my post?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Then Revisionism was made possible by Stalins Bureaucracy? (Which Kromando33 denies even exists).

Actually revisionism is made possible by idealistic types like you who believe that there is some third way between Communism and capitalism, based on idealistic concepts.



But that is exactly why we should leave Marxism-Leninism there, because it eventually ended up leading to Capitalism for every single self described Marxist-Leninist state that has existed.

What would have happened had mankind looked at the thousands if not millions of failed attempts at flight and decided it couldn't work?

[spartan]

Actually revisionism is made possible by idealistic types like you who believe that there is some third way between Communism and capitalism, based on idealistic concepts.

Idealism is something that Russians are experts on (As my father would say).


What would have happened had mankind looked at the thousands if not millions of failed attempts at flight and decided it couldn't work?

Marxism-Leninism was never implemented in states that were already industrialized and modernized (Examples being Russian Empire, China and south east Asia).

Marxism-Leninism served its purpose of modernizing (Politically and socially) and industrializing the states that it was implemented in, but after that it had served its purpose and there was no more need for a Bureaucracy, centralism, planned economy or any of that other authoritarian crap associated with Marxism-Leninism.

Indeed Marxism-Leninism probably would have died out had it not been for the cold war, which gave the leadership of these Marxist-Leninist states an excuse to linger on even further, until the majority of people in these states had enough and actually welcomed Capitalism (Of all things) as a liberating force!

What does that tell you about the systems that you support and want to implement?

The thing that most astonishes me about followers of Marxism-Leninism is their complete lack of faith in the ability of the working class (The people that they are meant to "liberate") to govern themselves in a post revolutionary society.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Marxism-Leninism was never implemented in states that were already industrialized and modernized (Examples being Russian Empire, China and south east Asia).

So? Anarchism and a lot of other Third Way ideologies weren't either. Should we just settle for capitalism as the end of history then? Oh wait I just remembered, Fascism worked in industrialized capitalist countries. Do we need that then?



Marxism-Leninism served its purpose of modernizing (Politically and socially) and industrializing the states that it was implemented in, but after that it had served its purpose and there was no more need for a Bureaucracy, centralism, planned economy or any of that other authoritarian crap associated with Marxism-Leninism.

If you don't want a planned economy, you get the anarchy of the market- aka capitalism(at least a major part of it). A planned economy without centralization leads to total chaos and breakdown, as it began to do after decentralization was introduced in the early 60s. This has nothing to do with "authority", is has everything to do with efficiency.



Indeed Marxism-Leninism probably would have died out had it not been for the cold war, which gave the leadership of these Marxist-Leninist states an excuse to linger on even further, until the majority of people in these states had enough and actually welcomed Capitalism (Of all things) as a liberating force!

These states, by the mid Cold War, had more or less reverted to state-capitalist countries and cannot be called Marxist-Leninist. The people were getting angry at the system, but at the same time because of the many social benefits, people were getting fat and happy in a way. They forgot what struggle it took to establish that system, regardless of its flaws. They had poor political education and they never considered what would happen if that system, despite all its problems, was overthrown.

Still, after all this, many of those countries relied on rigged elections with foriegn money, violence, strongarm tactics, gangsters, and the banning of Communist parties to secure their rule. That's the part they didn't show on the news.

[spartan]

Still, after all this, many of those countries relied on rigged elections with foriegn money, violence, strongarm tactics, gangsters, and the banning of Communist parties to secure their rule. That's the part they didn't show on the news.

And where exactly is the huge resistance force to bring back these Marxist-Leninist societies, if they are so popular with your average person in these former Marxist-Leninist states?

I ask you again, did you ever see those happy East Germans when the Berlin wall fell? (Or did state censorship prevent you from viewing such "sensitive" material?).

Or even the thousands who attempted to escape to West Germany and were killed for it by the border guards?

How about the mass of angry Romanians during Ceausescus last speech, who then later went on to overthrow and kill him?

Why has China fully embraced Capitalism only 40 years after Maos death? (Which coincedentally is the same amount of time it took the USSR to fully embrace Capitalism after Stalins death).

All of that is the reality of Marxism-Leninism, and no amount of nostalgia or Idealism on your part will bring it back, because the majority of people simply wont allow it again.

I mean for fucks sake the majority of people in these Marxist-Leninist states welcomed free market Capitalism as a liberating force!

Yes thats right folks, Capitalism being welcomed as a liberating force!:eek:

Thats how great your Marxist-Leninist systems were.

They were so great that the majority of people living in these Marxist states welcomed free market Capitalism (As oppossed to State Capitalism) with open arms.

Of course modern Marxist-Leninists (Who have probably been exposed to too much Soviet propaganda) say that the next time they get into power (As if there is going to be a next time), things will be different and wont be done as brutally, but do you really expect the majority of peolple to believe that when you uphold a system that drove the majority of people living under it to welcome Capitalism as a liberating force?

Because i dont think that they will!

Do you even take into consideration the majority of peoples thoughts on Marxism-Leninism?

Or is Marxism-Leninism an elite club for nostalgic old fools wishing they were born in the 1930's and executing "Anarcho-Trot Liberal Revisionists" who are "enemies of the state"?

One can only see it as relief that the majority of people on the left no longer wish to use the Marxist-Leninist example as a blueprint for any future Socialist state established.

[chimx]

Yes you did misunderstand because I NEVER even said the word ethnic cleansing nor even anything remotely close to executions, since they were relocated not exectuted. I suggest you read someone's statements before trying to accuse them of anything

Ethnic cleansing does not just mean executions. It can also means the forced displacement of an ethnic group. For example, the trail of tears in the united states was the ethnic cleansing of an Indian tribe.

What you just clearly advocated was the ethnic cleansing of a specific ethnic group.

Here's a dictionary just so you're sure:

ethnic cleansing
n. The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.

[Andres Marcos]

Ethnic cleansing does not just mean executions. It can also means the forced displacement of an ethnic group. For example, the trail of tears in the united states was the ethnic cleansing of an Indian tribe.

What you just clearly advocated was the ethnic cleansing of a specific ethnic group.

Here's a dictionary just so you're sure:

ethnic cleansing
n. The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.

I can read just fine without the bolding and underlinings Chimx, th problem with your accusation is that the USSR relocated jews from the front behind lines to be prevented from being executed by Germans, in fact this was a high priority, was this 'ethnic cleansing' as well? According to the archives Out of 856 thousand resettled Germans in 1941, there were about 780 thousand in their settlements in 1945. Out of 225 thousand deported Crimeans in 1944, there were 195 thousand in their settlements in 1945. These people were not killed nor where they targeted by the USSR for 'ethnic cleansing' or anything else but was initiated for their safety(just as in the case of the jews) or to prevent them from assisting the Nazis, for the latter argument the relocation of the groups was because the USSR was in panic mode(the nazis were nearly close to Moscow) the relocations were not out of a 'hate' for caucasians in fact they were returned after the expulsion of the nazis! What they endured was little different from what the rest of the Soviet population endured in extraordinary circumstances. It was instructed that these settlers be treated humanely, allocated state aid, and provided shelter. In no way can the Soviet government be charged with 'ethnic cleansing' they were returned promptly after the Germans were pushed back. Please keep notice of what you are saying, ethnic cleansing is meant to exterminate people permantely not to save them from slaughter and have them return after its over.

[Andres Marcos]

Or are you looking for a conveniant excuse ("This has nothing to do with the topic, so i wont bother answering") to not answer my post, as you are unable to actually refute anything in my post?Actually Im more than willing to refute everything in your posts since they are not based in anything remotely close to history, I just did not wish to derail the topic. Anyway I will begin.




"Uh, the lack of a huge resistance to the destruction of these regimes might have something to do with it?
Have you seen the images of happy East Germans when the Berlin wall fell?

Or is that all Bourgeois propaganda?

Hell one of the regimes (Romania) fell because the people had simply had enough of all the lies and revolted.

Surely if these were Socialist states, then there would be no reason for the majority of the people in these states, to hate their countries system, and welcome its destruction, whilst at the same time embracing Capitalism as a liberating force from what they themselves (And i think that they are most qualified seeing how they were the ordinary working people who had to live under these systems everyday) called "tyranny"?"


"Are Stalinists leftists?

I hate Capitalism as much as the next Socialist, but even you have to admit that there must have been something seriously fucked up with these eastern European states and their systems, for the majority of people to welcome Capitalism as a liberating force?"
De-Stalinization occured in all the socialist states except in Albania by the end of 1968, Romania was not a ''Stalinist'' state. Accompanied with the destruction of leninism there were also economic changes in these areas as well which the ''Stalinists'' are very critical of Official figures show that in Poland the real wages of the workers fell between 1981 and 1984 by more than 30%., Inflation in Poland ran at 38% a year, in Yugoslavia at 57%., Unemployment in Yugoslavia stood at 13% of the work force (30% in the Albanian province of Kosova). .The so-called "economic reforms" instituted after the death of Stalin abandoned central economic planning; the profitability of each enterprise became the motive and regulator of production. True, these profits – as in orthodox "profit-sharing" schemes in the "West" – were shared among the whole staff of the enterprise. But they are distributed according to what is termed "responsibility in profit-making", which means that the lion’s share went to management. The statistics showed that 51% of the profits went to workers (who form 96% of the personnel), while 49% went to management (who form 4% of the personnel). Soviet economic journals did not speak of "unemployment", only of "surplus labour". To solve this problem a "youth employment scheme" was established, and an official campaign that "a woman’s place is in the home"! Letters published calling – not, of course, for "unemployment benefit", but for "stipends" for workers who are "between jobs".




"Of course i was waiting for the old "Revisionism" to come up, but lets face facts here.

The Bureaucracy (Which is the spine, heart and brain of every system that has named itself Marxist-Leninist) realized that they could make more money by adopting an international free market Capitalist system, similar to the west, instead of the State Capitalist sytem that they had in the USSR.

Why did they want to change from their State Capitalist centralised planned economy?

Well because a State Capitalist economic system limits how much money the controllers of all the productive forces in a State Capitalist economy (In the USSR's case the Bureaucracy) could make, by how much profit could be made from production in these industries under their control (Which wasnt alot by the time the USSR was nearing its end).

Thus the Bureaucrats realized that instead of flogging a dead horse, they could transform their economy to an international free market Capitalist economy (But with themselves conveniantly still in control of most industries in the former USSR states, hence the emergence of the "Oligarchs" after the dissolution of the USSR in the former USSR states) and buy up other countries industries as well to make even more money for themselves (Which is something that they couldnt do in their State Capitalist economy, which limited them to all productive forces in their territory, hence the "State" part in "State Capitalism", and not internationally like in a free market Capitalist economy, which has no boundaries).

Why do you think that this same Bureaucracy allowed Gorbachev (A Social Democrat) to become leader of a self described "Socialist" state with a "Socialist" economy?

It was simply to make the transition to fully fledged Capitalism that much easier, instead of having a civil war, when the workers would realize that they were being screwed out of their pensions, because the Bureaucrats could now throw off the facade that they were Socialists.

That is the reality of the failure of the USSR, and the systems that they implemented in over one third of the world, not "Revisionism", which, lets face it, is an all to conveniant excuse for Stalinists attributed to the failure of their State Capitalist political and economic system."
As Crum said you described the revisionist states not anything of what you said can be attributed to the USSR in Lenin's nor in Stalin's time.




"Then Revisionism was made possible by Stalins Bureaucracy? (Which Kromando33 denies even exists)."I am really surprised at this statement considering your profile says you are a ''democratic socialist'' which would make you charging anyone of revisionism not only hypocritical but ideologically wrong since the democratic socialists are known to promote a 'democratic' road to socialism and are notorious for class collaboration(keeping the bourgeois state intact) thus undermining class struggle.



"Marxism-Leninism was never implemented in states that were already industrialized and modernized (Examples being Russian Empire, China and south east Asia)."Which would be the majority of the world right there, I have yet to see any of your utopian ideologies manifest themselves anywhere besides in the heads of idealistic youth. The real world proves that Marxism-Leninism has had a 100% success rate compared to utopian ideologies since no where else has socialism been implemented besides the work of the 'Stalinists'. Oh and yes there was one industrialized state well at least half of it(Germany). Where have been the achievements of Trotskyism, Anarchism, democratic socialism etc.?


Marxism-Leninism served its purpose of modernizing (Politically and socially) and industrializing the states that it was implemented in, but after that it had served its purpose and there was no more need for a Bureaucracy, centralism, planned economy or any of that other authoritarian crap associated with Marxism-Leninism.This is the thing with utopian socialists, your ideal state is pointless if there is no means to protect it.

"The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organization of the state....But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries, and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris commune."

-Friedrich Engels



"Thats why i cant understand your upholding of Marxism-Leninism, because as a political and economic model for a future Socialist society in a world that is, for the most part, near fully industrialized, it is all but redundant except for maybe in non-industrialized areas of Africa, which still hold backward beliefs and practice primitive forms of production (Which wont lead to the material conditions necessary for Socialism)."
Not only is this social chauvinist(just exactly how are their beliefs backward) but wrong, as mentioned before Marxism-Leninism has had a 100% success rate compared to anything you espouse. Next.




"The thing that most astonishes me about followers of Marxism-Leninism is their complete lack of faith in the ability of the working class (The people that they are meant to "liberate") to govern themselves in a post revolutionary society."
Here is the most ironic statement of the day. The leaders and revolutionaries in Marxist-Leninist parties ALL had the proletariat at the front of the battlefield. Even in the victory of socialism, the Communist parties were made up of members from the working class, what I would ask is why you have no faith in the working class since they were the ones who were leading and fighting for socialism and Marxism-Leninism.

Now that I have answered your concerns Spartan can this be taken to another thread?

[chimx]

I can read just fine without the bolding and underlinings Chimx, th problem with your accusation is that the USSR relocated jews from the front behind lines to be prevented from being executed by Germans, in fact this was a high priority, was this 'ethnic cleansing' as well? According to the archives Out of 856 thousand resettled Germans in 1941, there were about 780 thousand in their settlements in 1945. Out of 225 thousand deported Crimeans in 1944, there were 195 thousand in their settlements in 1945. These people were not killed nor where they targeted by the USSR for 'ethnic cleansing' or anything else but was initiated for their safety(just as in the case of the jews) or to prevent them from assisting the Nazis, for the latter argument the relocation of the groups was because the USSR was in panic mode(the nazis were nearly close to Moscow) the relocations were not out of a 'hate' for caucasians in fact they were returned after the expulsion of the nazis! What they endured was little different from what the rest of the Soviet population endured in extraordinary circumstances. It was instructed that these settlers be treated humanely, allocated state aid, and provided shelter. In no way can the Soviet government be charged with 'ethnic cleansing' they were returned promptly after the Germans were pushed back. Please keep notice of what you are saying, ethnic cleansing is meant to exterminate people permantely not to save them from slaughter and have them return after its over.

You so eloquently shifted the Soviet Unions intention from removing an ethnicity that the Communist Party feared would collaborate with Germany, to saving them for their own good. In either case, the fact that there was mass deportations that were forced -- that is to say an entire ethnic group was coerced from their homeland -- it constitutes ethnic cleansing.

Not that we should be surprised by this. The Soviet Union has had a history of ethnic cleansing under Stalin which only dramatically increased during WWII. Stalin had already forcibly moved nearly 200,000 Koreans from eastern Asia to Kazakhstan.

It is also untrue and unfair of you to say that these victims of ethnic cleansing were treated well by the Soviet Union. If you read J. Otto Pohl's "Ethnic Cleansing In The USSR" (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SnLANpCfDn4C&oi=fnd&pg=PP15&dq=Ethnic+Cleansing+in+the+USSR&ots=4dhSn3lKFQ&sig=1x2GYnhzsuA_aVoXFHKbZ9Ig7ps#PPP11,M1) (link leads to the whole book), he points out that not only were the round-ups of ethnicities often done violently and abruptly, many of of these groups forced into exile died of diseases, malnutrition, and neglect.

And here is another reason for you to hate Khruschev, Mr. Hoxha. Khruschev acknowledged the reality of ethnic cleansing in his "secret speech" on Stalin:


All the more monstrous are the acts whose initiator was Stalin and which are rude violations of the basic Leninist principles of the nationality policy of the Soviet state. We refer to the mass deportations from their native places of whole nations, together with all Communists and Komsomols without any exception; this deportation action was not dictated by any military considerations.

Thus, already at the end of 1943, when there occurred a permanent breakthrough at the fronts of the Great Patriotic War benefiting the Soviet Union, a decision was taken and executed concerning the deportation of all the Karachai from the lands on which they lived.

In the same period, at the end of December 1943, the same lot befell the whole population of the Autonomous Kalmyk Republic. In March 1944, all the Chechen and Ingush peoples were deported and the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic was liquidated. In April 1944, all Balkars were deported to faraway places from the territory of the Kabardino-Balkar Autonomous Republic and the Republic itself was renamed the Autonomous Kabardian Republic. -K

And here is another quote by McKhrushchev that I whole-heartily agree with: "Not only a Marxist-Leninist but also no man of common sense can grasp how it is possible to make whole nations responsible for inimical activity, including women, children, old people, Communists and Komsomols, to use mass repression against them, and to expose them to misery and suffering for the hostile acts of individual persons or groups of persons."

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

You might find that the decisions made during a war of extermination tend to be different than those made under relative peace without the threat of such a war.

[Andres Marcos]

You so eloquently shifted the Soviet Unions intention from removing an ethnicity that the Communist Party feared would collaborate with Germany, to saving them for their own good. In either case, the fact that there was mass deportations that were forced -- that is to say an entire ethnic group was coerced from their homeland -- it constitutes ethnic cleansing.
absurd since many of the people were allowed to return to their homeland as I just pointed out. What genocidal nation deports people to only allow them to return only a year later? Im sure you would have blamed Stalin for being complacent in 'ethnic cleansing' had he not relocated jews or other minorities who were inevitably to be killed by the Nazis, in this situation for the ultra-left its a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.




Not that we should be surprised by this. The Soviet Union has had a history of ethnic cleansing under Stalin which only dramatically increased during WWII. Stalin had already forcibly moved nearly 200,000 Koreans from what is now North Korea to Kazakhstan.proof and context? and sure you are not ommitting anything(like deported for their safety, will etc.)? like the fact they were able to return to their homelands after the war or stay as Soviet Citizens(as was the case in Soviet-Korean fighting forces in the USSR who fought against Japan).



It is also untrue and unfair of you to say that these victims of ethnic cleansing were treated well by the Soviet Union. If you read J. Otto Pohl's "Ethnic Cleansing In The USSR", he points out that not only were the round-ups of ethnicities often done violently and abruptly, many of of these groups forced into exile died of diseases, malnutrition, and neglect.
So now we are blaming disease and malnutrition on the Soviets while they were being invaded, surely a shortage of supplies had nothing to do with this? Also the statement sounds typical of bourgeois authors to paint the USSR as a blood thirsty nation. In 1940 a nationalist revolt broke out which climaxed in 1942, with the Nazi army just 300 miles away. Chechen nationalist leaders Hassan Israilov and Mairbek Sheripov issued an appeal declaring that the Nazis would be welcomed as guests, providing, of course, they were prepared to support Chechnya’s independence. To prevent the intensifying of the situation the Chechens were relocated thousands of miles East. Had the many insurrections won fabulous success in the Caucasus, the Nazis would have rolled over them and exterminated them before they would have had time to put up anti-Soviet statues glorifying their war heroes.




And here is another reason for you to hate Khruschev, Mr. Hoxha. Khruschev acknowledged the reality of ethnic cleansing in his "secret speech" on Stalin..


And here is another quote by McKhrushchev that I whole-heartily agree with: "Not only a Marxist-Leninist but also no man of common sense can grasp how it is possible to make whole nations responsible for inimical activity, including women, children, old people, Communists and Komsomols, to use mass repression against them, and to expose them to misery and suffering for the hostile acts of individual persons or groups of persons."
Not only is that hypocritical of Khrushchev(since he supported the same damn policy) but I wonder what he would have done in Stalin's place. The real question is: given that context, what was the solution? Obviously Stalin could not just leave the Jews and others in place to face massacre if Hitler took control of a civilian population. Deportation is not a universal act of 'ethnic cleansing'. In that context, deporting Hitler's next victims is life-saving, and like I said the orders were to give full aid and support to the relocated people.

[chimx]

So because the USSR was at war, that justifies the ethnic cleansing of over 2 million people? And this forced displacement did not end at the end of the war, but only after the death of Stalin in the mid-1950s.

Not to mention, the USSR's ethnic cleansing of its Korean population -- which totaled around 180,000 people -- occurred simply because the Soviet Union feared the possibility of a war with Japan and took the racist view that Koreans had to be collaborating with the Japanese. If you knew about Korean history you would understand how absurd this is, given that mostKoreans fled to the USSR to escape Japanese imperialism following the suppression of the March 1st movement in 1919.

Please enlighten me Mr. Hoxhas, when else is it alright to ethnically cleanse a population?

[Andres Marcos]

So because the USSR was at war, that justifies the ethnic cleansing of over 2 million people? And this forced displacement did not end at the end of the war, but only after the death of Stalin in the mid-1950s.

This is a typical anti-communist statement with no regards to context or the facts. The Chechen group at this time had serious problems with the other caucasian groups and even the Russians, please don't act like the Chechens were treated as sub-humans because they were not. also a war in which you have to take precautions does have different actions than in non-war situations. also if we don't forget the Chechens also initiated mujahadeen like warfare even in the 1920s with no deportations taking place, the fact that the leaders of the chechens openly stated support for the nazis says nothing right?




Not to mention, the USSR's ethnic cleansing of its Korean population -- which totaled around 180,000 people -- occurred simply because the Soviet Union feared the possibility of a war with Japan and took the racist view that Koreans had to be collaborating with the Japanese. If you knew about Korean history you would understand how absurd this is, given that most Koreans fled to the USSR to escape Japanese imperialism following the suppression of the March 1st movement in 1919.
which you have not provided proof for, or taken into account that the Soviets had created a Soviet fighting force(made up of Soviet citizens of korean descent) to fight in Korea and that they were allowed to return home after the war.


Please enlighten me Mr. Hoxhas, when else is it alright to ethnically cleanse a population?considering no one ever said the word ethnic cleansing except you. Ethnic cleansing is meant to permanently exterminate a population it doesnt work if they return home nor the context is meant to save them from slaughter or religious wars(chechen case) now is it?

[chimx]

absurd since many of the people were allowed to return to their homeland as I just pointed out. What genocidal nation deports people to only allow them to return only a year later? Im sure you would have blamed Stalin for being complacent in 'ethnic cleansing' had he not relocated jews or other minorities who were inevitably to be killed by the Nazis, in this situation for the ultra-left its a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

Lets try to stay focused here so people don't get confused by your smoke and mirrors trick of changing what group we are talking about.

What you have said is false. Chechans and Ingush were forcibly relocated by Stalin due a fear that they would collaborate with Germany. They were not allowed to return to their homeland until around 1954! There was a state law prohibiting their return. When Stalin died, many returned home despite this law still existing, and the Sovet Government only made efforts do undo the damage by 1957 after Khrushchev made the speech above.

The vast majority of peoples that were victims of soviet ethnic cleansing were not allowed to return to their homelands until after the death of Stalin. This includes Chechans, Crimean Tartars, Koreans, etc.


proof and context? and sure you are not ommitting anything(like deported for their safety, will etc.)? like the fact they were able to return to their homelands after the war or stay as Soviet Citizens(as was the case in Soviet-Korean fighting forces in the USSR who fought against Japan).

See my above post


So now we are blaming disease and malnutrition on the Soviets while they were being invaded, surely a shortage of supplies had nothing to do with this?

Maybe good ol' Uncle Joe should have thought about that before he displaced over 2 million people.


Not only is that hypocritical of Khrushchev(since he supported the same damn policy) but I wonder what he would have done in Stalin's place. The real question is: given that context, what was the solution? Obviously Stalin could not just leave the Jews and others in place to face massacre if Hitler took control of a civilian population. Deportation is not a universal act of 'ethnic cleansing'. In that context, deporting Hitler's next victims is life-saving, and like I said the orders were to give full aid and support to the relocated people.

Less smoke and mirrors. Lets try to stay focused.

[chimx]

the fact that the leaders of the chechens openly stated support for the nazis says nothing right?

It says that both you and Stalin view ethnic groups as homogenous bodies and should be ethnically cleansed because of this.


which you have not provided proof for, or taken into account that the Soviets had created a Soviet fighting force

The book I linked you to does a very good job footnoting. You can also go research it on JSTOR or Google Scholar, as I have read scholarly articles that are subject to peer-review on the subject from both sites.


considering no one ever said the word ethnic cleansing except you. Ethnic cleansing is meant to permanently exterminate a population it doesnt work if they return home nor the context is meant to save them from slaughter now is it?

The state prohibited their return until after the death of Stalin. You can deny it is ethnic cleansing, but you would be wrong.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

It says that both you and Stalin view ethnic groups as homogenous bodies and should be ethnically cleansed because of this.





Hi there..war of extermination, expediency? Do you have any idea how much death was caused by collaboration in western Ukraine and the Baltics? Ever consider that perhaps the government(not "Stalin", since the Soviet state didn't simply run by the whim of Stalin) considered a proactive measure, that while being ultimately tragic, might have seemed more necessary from the point of view of those in charge during that time, and in the long run actually prevented millions more deaths?

Don't worry, if we ever have to refight WWII on the Eastern Front, we'll be sure not to do that again ok? I know how terribly relevant this is.

[Andres Marcos]

Lets try to stay focused here so people don't get confused by your smoke and mirrors trick of changing what group we are talking about.

What you have said is false. Chechans and Ingush were forcibly relocated by Stalin due a fear that they would collaborate with Germany. They were not allowed to return to their homeland until around 1954! There was a state law prohibiting their return. When Stalin died, many returned home despite this law still existing, and the Sovet Government only made efforts do undo the damage by 1957 after Khrushchev made the speech above.


That was part of the case as well, along with the fact that Chechens had problems with other caucasian groups and that they had revolted in 1942.



The vast majority of peoples that were victims of soviet ethnic cleansing were not allowed to return to their homelands until after the death of Stalin. This includes Chechans, Crimean Tartars, Koreans, etc.
That case would only be for the Chechens since I pointed out that most of the Crimeans were allowed to return home. As for the Koreans they were of Soviet Citizenship and the ones who fought in the Korean-Soviet Red Army were allowed to return home or to stay in the USSR, in fact this Soviet-Korean force was important in helping the native Koreans liberate themselves from the Japanese.



Maybe good ol' Uncle Joe should have thought about that before he displaced over 2 million people.
with many returning home except the chechens like I said. The situation for the Chechens being they would violently collide with Russians as well as other of the caucasian groups in the area.



Less smoke and mirrors. Lets try to stay focused.In the case of Chechens and Ingushes, Khruschev let them back into the Caucasus after their deportation to Central Asia. This supposedly closes the case on Stalin's supposed criminal nature? Yet, today we see Chechens and Ingushes fighting neighbors they did not used to have thanks to the relocation. Three reasons were cited for the relocation of the chechens

1. they had initiated revolt in 1942 coinciding with a nazi invasion
2. It was to prevent them from collaborating with the nazis as the leaders had fully intended to do.
3. To prevent fighting with other caucasian groups surrounding the area, which they had been doing with since the 1920s.


Hell I read there was a creation of nazi monuments that were torn down(not without full resistance from the population) and this was just in 2004, we can only imagine what Stalin was dealing with in 1944.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

And where exactly is the huge resistance force to bring back these Marxist-Leninist societies, if they are so popular with your average person in these former Marxist-Leninist states?

Thanks to years of propaganda and corrupt systems, as well as the propagation of ethnic nationalism, these movements have been suppressed in many countries(in some cases by being outlawed).

Yet where is your argument here? Marxism-Leninism is still far more of a force than your "anti-authoritarian" anarchism or whatever the hell you want to call it, and by that logic, capitalism must be great since the majority of the world seems to tolerate the system if not support it.




How about the mass of angry Romanians during Ceausescus last speech, who then later went on to overthrow and kill him?

Such is the price of revisionism.



Why has China fully embraced Capitalism only 40 years after Maos death? (Which coincedentally is the same amount of time it took the USSR to fully embrace Capitalism after Stalins death).

Mao already begun the transition to capitalism. That is the folly of Maoism, which in fact is a revisionist idea.



All of that is the reality of Marxism-Leninism, and no amount of nostalgia or Idealism on your part will bring it back, because the majority of people simply wont allow it again.

They will sooner "allow" that before they ever allow your backward anarchist type system.



I mean for fucks sake the majority of people in these Marxist-Leninist states welcomed free market Capitalism as a liberating force!

What are you basing this on? News footage? Were you aware for example, that polls and referendums showed overwhelming support against the dismantling of the Soviet Union for example?

You probably saw footage of people tearing down statues of Lenin(yet many Lenin statues remain to this day), but did you ever see the masses trying to block the route of tanks ordered to fire on the parliament? No.




They were so great that the majority of people living in these Marxist states welcomed free market Capitalism (As oppossed to State Capitalism) with open arms.

Again, you repeat things that are simply not true. Many people welcomed the fall of revisionism, but many of them didn't believe that capitalism was the only alternative. Those people found out the hard way.



Do you even take into consideration the majority of peoples thoughts on Marxism-Leninism?

For one thing, your claim does not hold water, and the states that fell were not practicing Marxism-Leninism anyway.

And I'm sure I must have been exposed to a lot of Soviet propaganda while growing up in America the whole time this was going on.

The collapse of revisionism PROVES how Marxism-Leninism was right, and attempts to create "states for the whole people" rather than maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat, or introduce "market socialism" have done nothing but lead back to capitalism.

Perhaps you'd like to offer your alternative.

[chimx]

with many returning home except the chechens like I said.

Wrong. Nearly all groups were prohibited from returning until after Stalin's death. Read the literature I provided.

--

And from what you said Mr. Hoxha, you still advocate the ethnic cleansing of people. You try to pretty it up by saying "relocation", but it amounts to ethnic cleansing.

[Andres Marcos]

Wrong. Nearly all groups were prohibited from returning until after Stalin's death. Read the literature I provided.


According to your bourgeois author, excuse me but I do not consider anything that the ultra-left, Trotskyites, nazis, and bourgeoisie fully support as anything as proof. The soviet statistics state otherwise.



And from what you said Mr. Hoxha, you still advocate the ethnic cleansing of people. You try to pretty it up by saying "relocation", but it amounts to ethnic cleansing.The situation was to prevent the groups from either being slaughtered or to collaborate with the nazis which like I said the leaders of the groups had advocated so long as they accepted their national independence. your definition of 'ethnic cleansing' is a loaded one, and deeply exaggerated ethnic cleansing tends to also be synonymous with stripping civil and cultural rights away from the victims which was not the case as they were treated humanely and to be given full aid and never had their citizenship revoked. Like I said you would still charge Stalin of ethnic cleansing if he did not relocate(yes relocate since they were not meant to be exterminated) people while they were being butchered, so its a damned if you do and a damned if you don't situation like I said.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Wrong. Nearly all groups were prohibited from returning until after Stalin's death. Read the literature I provided.

--

And from what you said Mr. Hoxha, you still advocate the ethnic cleansing of people. You try to pretty it up by saying "relocation", but it amounts to ethnic cleansing.


How does a rational explanation of expedient solutions made under extreme duress during a very unique historical war equal advocating ethnic cleansing?

[chimx]

According to your bourgeois author, excuse me but I do not consider anything that the ultra-left, Trotskyites, nazis, and bourgeoisie fully support as anything as proof.

That sounds very convenient.

What makes him a bourgeois author?


How does a rational explanation of expedient solutions made under extreme duress during a very unique historical war equal advocating ethnic cleansing?

I'll rephrase: justify ethnic cleansing.

[Andres Marcos]

That sounds very convenient.

What makes him a bourgeois author?

The fact that much of his rhetoric is rooted in anti-communism and trying to portray Communism as equal to nazism which bourgeois authors are notorious for using loaded words like ethnic, deportation, and extermination and not putting nearly anything into context, or the situation that the USSR was in(invasion by Nazi Germany), Obviously according to the author all actions taken by the Soviets must be considered sinister and irrational and not for the prevention of violence.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

I'll rephrase: justify ethnic cleansing.


No. Why should we? We could just as well justify Operation Bagration, Jassy-Kishenev, or any other action that was taken during a certain time and context. But these have no bearing on the subject.

[chimx]

Well considering you deny he contextualizes the events it is pretty clear you haven't read his work.

Does a historian become bourgeois when he uses any of the words: ethnic, deportation, and extermination, or only when they are all used?

p.s.:


According to your bourgeois author, excuse me but I do not consider anything that the ultra-left, Trotskyites, nazis, and bourgeoisie fully support as anything as proof.

You forgot revisionists.



No. Why should we?

You two have been apologizing for Soviet ethnic cleansing for the past two pages. You tell me.

[Andres Marcos]

Well considering you deny he contextualizes the events it is pretty clear you haven't read his work.

Does a historian become bourgeois when he uses any of the words: ethnic, deportation, and extermination, or only when they are all used?


No when they begin to use American publications and newspapers from the McCarthy era and even in Pohl's introduction trys to draw similarities of Soviet historians and not propagandists as being on par with nazi holocaust denial and mass murder that is the marks of bourgeois propagandists.

[chimx]

I could understand a criticism of someone like Conquest, who wrote on the subject through largely anecdotes and hearsay, but Pohl's work was done in the late 90s in Soviet archives.


trys to draw similarities of Soviet historians and not propagandists as being on par with nazi holocaust denial and mass murder

The Hoxhaist Union isn't helping with that, since your group seems content to deny soviet ethnic cleansing.

--

In all honesty, I love discussing Soviet history with Hoxhaists. You make ludicrous assertions, and when someone points out that you said something incorrect, you always regress to trying to attack sources. I can't count the number of times a Stalin-kiddie has got on here and decried my point by saying, "omg bourgeois sources," as if that criticism holds any water in a real historian community.

If you want to have a real history discussion, I suggest you actually do some research on the subject. Look at the research done by "bourgeois historians" and see if it is accurate. History isn't meant to be an ideological tool that you can bend to your whim.

And really it is only Stalin-kiddies that seem to do this. The "bourgeois historians" that you are so keen on denouncing are subject to peer-review. If a historian makes an absurd claim that is unfounded, other historians can make their careers on pointing out the inaccuracies of another historian.

Can you do this for the information I have presented?

No?

kthxbye.

[Andres Marcos]

I could understand a criticism of someone like Conquest, who wrote on the subject through largely anecdotes and hearsay, but Pohl's work was done in the late 90s in Soviet archives.
the time it was written doesn't even matter, you can look at ''documentaries'' about the Soviet Union to this day that still use a bunch of sensationalist nonesense.




The Hoxhaist Union isn't helping with that, since your group seems content to deny soviet ethnic cleansing.


Actually no one has denied anything(once again with the nazi comparisons), we have agreed the ethnic groups were relocated because of extraordinary circumstances like say you know being invaded(accompanied with revolt), the chechens not getting along with other caucasian groups, and the leaders at the time being in full support of nazi butchers, even to this present day when the dismantling of statues of nazi collaborators was met with stiff resitance. Think of it this way the USSR had it not relocated rebelling chechens they would have been slaughtered anyway by the nazis and even more people would have died and even with the expulsion of the nazis the chechens were known for waging 'holy war' against other groups since the 1920s. You seem content on using 'ethnic cleansing' to bring up images of murder of ethnic groups and persecution which was never the majority's case, ethnic cleansing had been accompanied with denial of rights, mass killings, repression etc. in the relocated areas the ethnic groups were still able to live their lives as soviet citizens and in peace since they were not in confrontation with other national groups as they were in the past, which is not the case of today. Your line seems to be you cant justify seperating nazi sympathizing or conflicting groups(or your buzz word 'ethnic cleansing' which you have solely used as a loaded word) , despite a massive amount slaughter of other groups and nazi collaborations, if this is the line you take I would suggest the philosopher Kant rather than Marx.



In all honesty, I love discussing Soviet history with Hoxhaists. You make ludicrous assertions, and when someone points out that you said something incorrect, you always regress to trying to attack sources. I can't count the number of times a Stalin-kiddie has got on here and decried my point by saying, "omg bourgeois sources," as if that criticism holds any water in a real historian community.
It sure does not hold water in that community when the sources provided challenge the assertions made have been deemed as 'historical revisionism'. Of course the criticism holds no water in your mindset, im sure years of anti-stalin and anti-communist propaganda can trump anything.



If you want to have a real history discussion, I suggest you actually do some research on the subject. Look at the research done by "bourgeois historians" and see if it is accurate. History isn't meant to be an ideological tool that you can bend to your whim.
The next time you are going to cite a book filled with mccarthy era publications filled with a bunch of nazi comparisons, I would suggest not accusing anyone of "trying to bend history to their whim" Since the author clearly has an agenda. Of course publications by people with political agendas do not have political slants? It seems the ultra-left although critical of capitalism has been in full support of anything it claims(except when it targets them), one can only conclude this is to try to recruit bourgeoisie into their socialist movement or at least to get the capitalists to tolerate them. It seriously is very entertaining to hear all the cries of ''omg stalin! red fascism! Che is my hero!" as if the petty bourgeois-psuedo leftist claims have been challenged for only the first time. 'Real history' for you is anything that likes to portray the USSR as engaging in Nazi holocausts and Rwanda mass killings just like that book.




And really it is only Stalin-kiddies that seem to do this. The "bourgeois historians" that you are so keen on denouncing are subject to peer-review. If a historian makes an absurd claim that is unfounded, other historians can make their careers on pointing out the inaccuracies of another historian.
which has been ignored and has been ignored so well that the accusations of soviet anti-semitism, '20 million killed', 'dictatorship' etc. still holds weight despite being nothing but sensationalism and there is proof stated otherwise just along with your silly accusations of 'ethnic cleansing', I now suppose Proletarian suppression of bourgeoisie will be considered genocide.

[chimx]

lol!

In all these pages of denouncing a "bourgeois source" you have yet to offer any sort of counter-evidence.

I really don't care if he alludes to Stalin's parallels with Hitler. Unlike you, he cites reputable sources for his data.

Of course, that is why he is a historian, and the Hoxhaist Union is a silly boy's club grasping at straws.

[chimx]

Here's a scanned table that shows the amount of forced deportations by ethnicity, as well as when their forced exile ended:

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii197/mbrehe/deport.jpg

[spartan]

It wasn't the beauracracy that was the problem, it was a few people he mistrusted, and put in wrong places (Khruschev). Beauracracy doesn't act on it's own.

We need to regularly retrain and (if necessary) purge people from the beauracracy frequently.

Its funny how one man (Stalin) survived all those purges dont you think?

He must have held considerable power and influence when compared to your normal Bureaucrat.

[spartan]

Here is the most ironic statement of the day. The leaders and revolutionaries in Marxist-Leninist parties ALL had the proletariat at the front of the battlefield. Even in the victory of socialism, the Communist parties were made up of members from the working class, what I would ask is why you have no faith in the working class since they were the ones who were leading and fighting for socialism and Marxism-Leninism.

Its funny you should say that because i heard that the Albanian party of Labour was quite the exclusive club:



"Unlike other ruling communist parties, people from the working class and peasantry had a negligible presence in the PPSh elite. They were well-educated intellectuals, many had studied abroad. This situation sharply contradicted the so-called "Feudal" condition of the Albanian society. The consequences were radical practices of "sociali-engineering", often with Draconian measures, typical of the "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" started in 1967. Furthermore, they were ethnically Tosks, Vlachs, and mostly came from an Orthodox Christian religious background, a situation that alienated Gheg and Muslim population from the power structure."

[Great Helmsman]

German 'workers' were, for the most part, straight-up reactionaries. The USSR couldn't even trust the meager collection of communists in Germany. Stalin wasn't about to wait around for the German 'working class' to start a revolution and overthrow Hitler. They had engorged themselves on wealth plundered by the Nazis. The DotP had to be externally imposed by the Red Army on the German people so that they didn't return to their fascist ways. Soviet occupation was harsh and repressive, but necessary for settling the problems of reparations and de-Nazification.

Soviet occupation also sets an interesting precedent for the likely path world revolution will follow in the first world.

[chimx]

So you are saying that the rape and murder of non-combatants was not only necessary, but a good thing? You're apologizing for rape and murder?

[Great Helmsman]

So you are saying that the rape and murder of non-combatants was not only necessary, but a good thing? You're apologizing for rape and murder?
The minds of the German people had to be remolded, often by coercion. It's disgustingly liberal today for someone to blame 'Bush', or even 'the troops' for the amerikan empire's crimes, instead the roots of support for imperialism reach deeper. In 1945 the USSR correctly identified the nature and support for fascism, and responded with a successful occupation policy that did not forget the German people's collective responsibility for the Holocaust and the War.

[chimx]

So in other words, "yes".

[RNK]

So, let's see here...

Spring 1938: Austrian "Anschluss"; using the pretext of a large German population which needed to be protected, Nazi Germany effectively invaded Austria and absorbs it into Greater Germany.

Autumn 1938: Annexation of Czechoslovakia; using the pretext of a large German population which needed to be protected, Nazi Germany invades Czechoslovakia and absorbs the northern-western Sudetenland area into Greater Germany.

1939: Invasion of Poland; using the pretext of large German population which needed to be protected, as well as the protection of East Prussia, Nazi Germany invades Poland and swells the frontiers of Greater Germany to include East Prussia.

1940: Hitler demands that Stalin allow ethnic Germans in the Baltic areas of Latvia and Estonia to immigrate out of those areas (contrary to popular belief, it was not the decision of the Soviet Union to forcefully displace these people; it was Hitler who demanded it be done). The "ethnically cleansed" German population of the Baltic states are moved by the Reich into newly-annexed areas of Poland, where they take up the homes and lands of displaced, enslaved, or murdered Poles.

So it seems they weren't all sent to Siberia.

Honestly, it's somewhat silly the mythos surrounding the "Siberian gulags". It's almost comical how many people honestly think that anyone not liked by the Soviet Union was instantaneously transported to these far-away gulags to toil in slave labour (despite there being no credible sources for these stories except in western anti-communist publications during the Cold War).


So you are saying that the rape and murder of non-combatants was not only necessary, but a good thing? You're apologizing for rape and murder?

Only an idiot would read "the invasion and occupation of Nazi Germany was necessary" and hear "the rape and murder of civilians was not only necessary, but a good thing".


Here's a scanned table that shows the amount of forced deportations by ethnicity, as well as when their forced exile ended:

Funny, that table shows over 700,000 ethnic Germans being "sent to the gulags" (presumably, due to the timeframe given, this was during the repatriation of baltic Germans). It's funny, because according to Germany and the Soviet Union's own records the amount of Germans relocated during this time were somewhere under 20,000 (prior to 1939, there was another transfer, again under the direction of Hitler).

After the war, there was also wide-spread relocations of ethnic Germans, who were forced out of various countries such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc; these Germans were "forced immigrants" ordered by the Nazis to populate annexed territory. Apparently, sending them back home is "ethnic cleansing".

I also have the sneaking suspicion that the majority of those figures are of refugees being evacuated from western Russia as the German army went on a killing spree there.

It seems, chimx, your sources aren't that great afterall. :\

[chimx]

That data comes from soviet archives.


Only an idiot would read "the invasion and occupation of Nazi Germany was necessary" and hear "the rape and murder of civilians was not only necessary, but a good thing".

Than why did he answer saying coercion was necessary to my question, instead of saying "no"?

[Andres Marcos]

Its funny you should say that because i heard that the Albanian party of Labour was quite the exclusive club:

"Unlike other ruling communist parties, people from the working class and peasantry had a negligible presence in the PPSh elite. They were well-educated intellectuals, many had studied abroad. This situation sharply contradicted the so-called "Feudal" condition of the Albanian society. The consequences were radical practices of "sociali-engineering", often with Draconian measures, typical of the "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" started in 1967. Furthermore, they were ethnically Tosks, Vlachs, and mostly came from an Orthodox Christian religious background, a situation that alienated Gheg and Muslim population from the power structure."

Would this be taken from an uncited wikipedia article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Party_of_Labour


Now this directly contradicts the Albanian side of the story. Also study in the Soviet Union is not exactly qualifications for 'middle class' as was in hoxha's case, since black American workers along with their children were also allowed to study in the Soviet Union as well. If 'intellectual' automatically makes someone inelligible for Communism, then I suppose Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and many of the anarchists would be considered elitists correct? Also race now plays a factor? I suppose since Stalin was a georgian that was to alienate the large russian population and thus diminish his role compared to the rich, and russian trotsky? Also lets not forget the 'alienated' working class of Albania recently had a pro-hoxha rally made up of thousands of people protesting the poverty, homelessness, and crime associated with the ''liberating force'' of capitalism which you are thinking is better to workers than Marxism-Leninism.



Our Party, as a revolutionary party, was held some and leaves it firmly and accurately with the positions of the Marxism-Leninism, it rejected always with contempt and uncovered all the "theories" revisionists and those of all the middle-class ideologists who deny the leading role and without division of the proletarian party. It vigorously denounced the contents real, opportunist, counter-revolutionary of the "theory" over "the political pluralism", which, where the class is not with the capacity, aims sapping the revolution and at perpetuating the domination of the middle-class, whereas, in the countries where socialism triumphed, it seeks to restore capitalism.

-Aspects of the construction of socialism in RPS of Albania and the crisis of capitalism

[spartan]

Would this be taken from an uncited wikipedia article?

Oh the big bad Wikipedia, which is great when it agrees 100% with what you say, but is a US Capitalist plot to enslave everyone intellectually if it contradicts a claim that you made.

Sorry but you cant have it both ways.


Now this directly contradicts the Albanian side of the story.

Which isnt going to be biased in the least, right?

Remember that they wanted to present a false picture abroad to show that their State Capitalist war economies "worked", the trouble though is that this was proved to be complete bollocks in the late 80's and early 90's, when all these regimes, and their Bonapartist "strong men" leaders, came crashing down.

[Andres Marcos]

Oh the big bad Wikipedia, which is great when it agrees 100% with what you say, but is a US Capitalist plot to enslave everyone intellectually if it contradicts a claim that you made.


how about citing at least a source even the bourgeois consider reliable. If you would turn in a paper in a college setting and cite wikipedia as a source, and especially one that is uncited you would get an F right away. Also I have not used wikipedia as a source when challenging your claims so you cant charge me with 'having it both ways' when I call you out on it since I have not used it on these boards, all of them came from books that I own.




Remember that they wanted to present a false picture abroad to show that their State Capitalist war economies "worked", the trouble though is that this was proved to be complete bollocks in the late 80's and early 90's, when all these regimes came crashing down.Biased maybe? I suppose Albanians don't know their country better than foreigners. I would think it would be foreign press and their supporters(like the ultra-left) who try to make Albania drawn in a false picture. The facts sure don't say so. Albania transformed into an industrialized state under Marxism-Leninism, with a high amount of social services(70% pension pay) along with a high life expectancy. Also your not forgetting that the economy along with ALL centrally planned economies started failing when free market mechanics became involved which you can't blame on Marxist-Leninists since we have been the vocal opposition to profit motivated production(unlike many Russophiles who hate Stalin but still carry a hammer and sickle in their avatars). Here are the statistics for the Albanian Economy.


Official -statistics (the objectivity of which has been attested to by eminent British economists) show that between 1951 and 1985
Agricultural production increased by 4.5 times;
Retail sales per head of population: 5.5 times;
Industrial production increased by 16.2 times;
Chrome production increased by 30.9 times;
Electric power prduction increased by 217.1 times;
Chemical production increased by 585.8 times;
('Statistical Yearbook of the PSR of Albania1988'; Tirana; 1988; p.: 81, 87, 122).

[Sky]

The transfer of some nationalities, especially the Crimean Tatars, was fully justified because it is an irrefutable fact that a large proportion of Crimean Tatars committed treason by collaobrating with a foreign invader. The justification of the deportation of the Kalmyks, Karachais, and Balkars was not as convincing, for only small numbers of them collaborated with the invaders. The Soviet Government in 1956 cleared the Chechens, Kalmyks, Karachais, and Balkars for their crimes and permitted them re-establish their territorial units. In regard to the Germans and Crimean Tatars, they actually experienced a far better livelihood in Turkestan than the titular peoples themselves. The allegation that their deportation led to large numbers of death is misleading. Out of a population of 225 thousand, some 30,000 Crimean Tatars died between 1944-45. But this was because Russia as a whole endured great hardship during the reconstruction period. By 1950, the Crimean Tatar crude death rate of 11 per 1000 was on par with the Soviet crude death rate of 10 per 1000. The Crimean Tatars and Germans experienced nothing different from the rest of the Russian population. It is also baseless to accuse the violation of the rights of the Crimean Tatars and others. A Crimean Tatar section had been set up within the Uzbekistan Writers Union and a section for Crimean publications was established in Tashkent. The Crimean Tatars were not necessarily forbidden to return to Crimea. The 1989 census shows the presence of 40,000 Crimean Tatars in Crimea.

The Germans wanted to make Crimea into a German Riviera. Tatars were given priveleges to sow discord between them and the Russian majority and impress a potential ally, Turkey. The Germans released Tatar POWs, distributed gardens and vineyards belonging to collective farms among Tatars, excused them from labor duty, reduced their taxes, opened mosques, and limited requisitions in their villages. They amnestied Tatar Communists and appointed Tatars to administrative positions. Some Tatars reveleaed depots to the Germans and were rewarded. Hitler allowed the formation of Tatar "self-defense" units in January 1942. The Muslim Committee, established by the Germans in Simferopol, raised eight Tatar police batallions. Tatar units acted in cooperation with the SS Einsztsgruppe D and were involved in atrocities against prisoners of war, Gypsies, and Jews. They fought the Red Army in Sevastopol and Kerch. In total, 20,000 persons enlisted in Tatar batallions and "self-defense" units. Out of a Crimean Tatar population of 180,000, males constituted about 50 percent. Therefore, nearly one-quarter of all Crimean Tatar able-bodied males committed treason by collaborating with the enemy.

The Chechens did not collaborate with the Germans because of the fact that Chechnya was occupied. However, some 10,000 Chechen bandits were engaged in an anti-Soviet insurrection in 1941-44 that directly assisted the German invaders. When the authorities attempted to conscript Chechens into the army in 1942, the police reported "all the male population fled to the montains." Out of 14,000 Chechens liable for conscription, only 4395 were enlisted and of those 2365 deserted. At one point the number of registered deserters and draft evaders reached 13,000 men. 16 percent of Kabardins, 20 percent of Karachis, but only 4 percent of Chechens and Ingush were drafted many of whom deserted. From Nov. 1941 to June 1943, the NKVD Security Regiment in Chechnya kiled 973, captured 1167 bandits, and arrested 1413 insurgents. The regiment suffered 88 fatalities.

[chimx]

The transfer of some nationalities, especially the Crimean Tatars, was fully justified because it is an irrefutable fact that a large proportion of Crimean Tatars committed treason by collaobrating with a foreign invader.

I have two points. First, this was primarily because the Tatars resented Soviet domination and being denied the right to self-determination. Many viewed the Germans as liberators and thought they could exploit this relationship to the Tatar's advantage. I don't disagree that some Tatar's could have collaborated with the Germans in crime against humanity, but it is extremely shortsighted to allege that because a small group did work with Nazi's that all Tatar's were ideologically bound to Nazism and wanted to see the eradications of Jews, Gypsies, etc.

This brings me to my next point. A large portion of the Tatar's viewed the German's as liberators and worked with them to liberate their people (if you'll recall, Lenin collaborated with Germany in WW1 with a similar goal). But the Soviet government did not punish only perpetrators of crimes against the Soviet Union but blamed the ethnicity in its entirety. The Soviet Government tried to ethnically cleanse the Tatars for this reason by forcibly relocating them to inner Russia. This is where the injustice of these policies lay: people were judged not by their actions, but by their ethnicity.

I just ordered a book and a journal article on the subject. I'll post a thread about Soviet ethnic cleansing next week so we can have a more focused discussion if you are interested. Maybe we could have a discussion on each ethnicity that was forced into exile by Russia?

[Sky]

It can be agreed that the punishment of the Crimean Tatars and other nationalities was unfair and disproportionate: it is established fact that a high proportion of Latvians and Ukrainians from Galicia collaborated with the enemy. Nevertheless, none of this negates the fact that there was widespread collaboration among the Crimean Tatars.



First, this was primarily because the Tatars resented Soviet domination and being denied the right to self-determination.

The Crimean ASSR in fact benefited the Crimean Tatars even though they composed only 20 percent of the population. The Crimean Tatar language was equal with Russian. Crimean Tatars were preferred in leading state positions even if Russians had superior qualifications. The Crimean Tatars experienced unprecedented social mobility during the Crimea ASSR.

Self-determination for the Crimean Tatars would have resulted in the violation of the rights of the Russian majority living in Crimea. In 1939, Russians and Ukrainians formed about 65 percent of the population, but the Crimean Tatars were only 20 percent. Nevertheless, the Crimean Tatars with just 20 percent of the population received a political status equal to the Russian majority.

[RNK]

(if you'll recall, Lenin collaborated with Germany in WW1 with a similar goal

The goal is not in any way similar. In WW1, the German chancellory allowed Lenin to travel through Germany to Russia as they figured Lenin's calls for ending the war would be helpful to them. Lenin, for his part, rode on the train. That's hardly the same as Nazi Germany invading the Soviet Union, and the Tatars almost unanymously pledging to help them defeat the USSR.

But thanks for trying to slander Lenin as an imperialist-deal-cracking oppurtunist, anyway.

[chimx]

The goal is not in any way similar. In WW1, the German chancellory allowed Lenin to travel through Germany to Russia as they figured Lenin's calls for ending the war would be helpful to them. Lenin, for his part, rode on the train. That's hardly the same as Nazi Germany invading the Soviet Union, and the Tatars almost unanymously pledging to help them defeat the USSR.

Both tried to exploit the war with Germany and use the enemy to facilitate liberation.


But thanks for trying to slander Lenin as an imperialist-deal-cracking oppurtunist, anyway.

Slander is spoken. I believe you are accusing me of libel.

Lenin was escorted across Germany in an armored train in an arrangement he made with the German government. Germany gleefully facilitated Lenin's trip because they knew that his presence in Russia would create discord and aid Germany's cause.

It would appear that Germany nearly bet on the right horse. Lenin returned to Russia and pledged and end to the war. This was one of the primary reasons Bolshevism became so popular. And of course, after October: the Brest-Litovsk treaty! Russia lost a third of its population, half of its industry and nine-tenths of its coal mines.

But no, you're probably right. Lenin wasn't opportunistic in using Germany for that train ride.

[Sky]

Rapes, lootings, thefts, beatings and killings were reported in high numbers.
By all accounts, a small minority of troops in the Red Army committed such crimes. Estimates of the extent of the rapes range from tens of thousands to the low millions. By 1945, Berlin was a city populated by women. Abuses by a small number in the Red Army occurred not because of a policy of the military but because they were hardened by war, travelling 2000 kilometres in battle from Stalingrad to Prague. On this journey, they endured much grief. The Soviet military, it should be noted, advised for the German population to be trated humanely and appropriately punished those that committed abuses. The impact of rapes by some poorly disicplined troops in the Red Army should not be exaggerated. What captured world attention in 1945 were not accusations of mass rape by Nazi propagandists, but the newsreel footage of SS extermination camps and of their pitiful survivors, liberated by the Russians as they swept through Poland in early 1945.

In a directive issued by Stavka signed by Stalin and Antonov, it was instructed for German civilians to be treated more humanely in operations on German territory. Moreover, according to this directive, rank and file members of the Nazi party surrendering to the Red Army were not to be harmed. If Nazis were instructed to be treated humanely, then why in the world would there be instructions from the military leadership to rape repatriated Russian women?

From order by Peoples Commissar of Defense from February 23 1942:
The Red Army goal is expulsion of German occupiers from our country. Most probably the war would end with destruction of Hitler’s clique. We would salute to such an end. However it is not right to associate Hitler with German people, with German state,. History show -various Hitlers come and go but German people, German state is to remain there.
From the report by member of Military council of 1st Ukrainian Front to the Head of Political department of RKKA in regards to political situation on occupied German territories. April 4th 1945
In second half of March our forces had taken 10 German towns. Most of the population was evacuated prior to our arrival. Those who remain are mostly elder folks, women, children. Due to German propaganda Civilians are utterly horrified of the Red Army. Suicide cases are common occurrence – for instance in village Mednic 58 women and young adults cut their veins in order not to be taken over by Red Army . Outwardly appearance of Germans is more or less calm though.; they are accurately fulfilling all orders given to them and show understanding of exiting reign as being caused by the time of war.
However occasional cases of rape and violence on part of soldiers untreatably make Germans very nervous. Military council takes all the steps need to prevent any such occurrences in the future.
Lieutenant- General Karinukov.

From the report of chief of political department of 8th Guards army to the chief of political department of 1st Byelorussian Front

- in regards to attitude of German population and its treatment by the soldiers April 25th 1945 General impressions from Berliners – they are loyal towards us – they trying to constantly underline it by saying things such us “we did not want to fight in the first place –let Hitler fight now”. They are trying to illustrate that they were never supportive of Nazi polices , were never affiliated with Nazis, many trying to convince us that they are communists.
In the Wilhelmshaffen some restaurants are open –owners sell provision to our soldiers and officers. They were asked to close them till the fighting is over.
http://gpw.tellur.ru/page.html?r=books&s=beevor (http://gpw.tellur.ru/page.html?r=books&s=beevor)

The Military Prosecutor's Office showed that in 1945, 4148 Soviet soldiers were convicted for abuses.
http://www.mn.ru/issue.php?2002-24-38 (http://www.mn.ru/issue.php?2002-24-38)

[Great Helmsman]

One interesting fact is that the Red Army was quite selective in which populations it targeted. To nations oppressed by the Nazis, they acted like liberators, but to Germany and nations that collaborated with the Nazis, they exacted their revenge. I do not believe Stalin or the Soviet people wanted to send a message to Germany that all was forgiven and forgotten.

[chimx]

This is interesting, as it is related. When the Soviet Union invaded northern Korea to expel the Japanese in 1945, Soviet troops took to looting and raping Koreans. A German priest living in North Korea until 1949 is noted as saying that Russians "gave themselves to rapine and pillage on an extensive scale."

Bruce Cumings writes, "There is another aspect of the initial Soviet occupation, however, which severely tarnishes their record. The Soviet troops who entered Korea committed depredations against the Japanese and Koreans, including rape and looting, on what appears to have been a wide scale and which went quite beyond taking revenge against the enemy and its Korean allies."

Raping and pillaging of Koreans at the hands of Soviet soldiers got so bad that by January 1946, the Soviet Government had to send in Military Police with specific orders of shooting on site any Russian caught raping a Korean!

All this is from Bruce Cumings work "Origins of the Korean War"

[Sky]

Raping and pillaging of Koreans at the hands of Soviet soldiers got so bad that by January 1946, the Soviet Government had to send in Military Police with specific orders of shooting on site any Russian caught raping a Korean!

All this is from Bruce Cumings work "Origins of the Korean War"Again, by all accounts, a small minority of Red Army soldiers were responsible for such abuses. The spontaneous excesses by a massive group is quite different from a state implementing such policies.

[chimx]

I'm not suggesting that the state implemented a policy. I thought that was clear when I pointed out that the central government sent in MPs to stop the violence.

However, nothing that I have read says that this was done by a "small minority" of the invading forces either though. It was a problem of the Soviets hastily recruiting poor peasants and sending them into Korea. If you have information that says otherwise I would be interested.

[RNK]

Lenin wasn't opportunistic in using Germany for that train ride.

He could've walked, but he's not Jesus, chimx. You should try not to deify him so much.

[Sky]

However, nothing that I have read says that this was done by a "small minority" of the invading forces either though. It was a problem of the Soviets hastily recruiting poor peasants and sending them into Korea. If you have information that says otherwise I would be interested.
In regard to the Russian presence in Germany, Geoffrey Roberts writes that rape was committed by a "significant minority" of Russian troops.

[chimx]

Perhaps, but I am discussing the rape of Koreans that occurred at the same time.

Despite the disagreement on numbers -- and really there are no documents available to prove one way or the other that aren't anecdotal or hearsay -- I would think we can agree that this occurred because of the Soviet Unions usage untrained civilians for front line combat and as their primary invading/occupation force. This coupled with a persisting racism with the Korean invasion led to crimes against the Korean people at the hands of Russians. I'm sure the negative view of Germans at the same time worked in a similar manner.

Either way it shouldn't be defended or apologized for. You don't rape and plunder enemy non-combatants.

[spartan]

In regard to the Russian presence in Germany, Geoffrey Roberts writes that rape was committed by a "significant minority" of Russian troops.

This "significant minority" of Russian troops must have been very good at travelling hundreds of miles on foot in a few hours then.

To say that the mass rapes were commited by a minority of Russian soldiers is bullshit.

Do you know the figures for how many women were raped?

You seriously cant argue that the rapes were done by a minority of soldiers, when hundreds of women were being raped at one end of East Germany, whilst thousands were being raped at the other end of East Germany at roughly the same time.

This "significant minority", that you speak of, must have been everywhere on every Soviet army front entering Germany, which is doubtful seeing how a minority of people cant be everywhere at once, which leads me to think that at least over half of all Russian soldiers entering Germany thought it good to rape some women (Which makes it a "majority" not a "significant minority").

Stop trying to play down this obvious crime against humanity.

[Sky]

To say that the mass rapes were commited by a minority of Russian soldiers is bullshit.
I'm just paraphrasing the work of the historian Geoffrey Roberts. He asserts that a significant minority of Red Army soldiers committed rapes against German women. I'm not denying that abuses were committed by some soldiers in the Red Army; I found the punishment of those committing abuses to have been wholly justified. It is important to place the actions of the small minority in the context of the Red Army as a whole. To condemn the 12 million in the Red Army as a whole for the actions of a small few is tantamount to racial hatred against the Russians, who have frequently been subject to hateful attacks like "Mongol barbarians". The Red Army was inseparable from Russian society as a whole: the vast majority of the 12 million soldiers were workers and peasants.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5GCFUqBRZ-QC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=geoffrey+roberts+significant+minority+stalin&source=web&ots=XjRp6ccD7s&sig=WJ2sGwBmL4TE-84dC5mMhY5i7G4


Do you know the figures for how many women were raped?
Norman Naimark writes:
It is highly unlikely that historians will ever know how many German women were raped by Soviet soldiers in the months before and years after the capitulation. It may have been tens of thousands or more likely in the hundreds of thousands. It is even possible that up to 2 million women and girls suffered this crime of violence, most while being uprooted from their homes in East Prussia, Silesia, or the Sudetanland, others while living in the Soviet zone of occupation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=MVSjHNKUKoEC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=soviet+tens+of+thousands+2+million+rape&source=web&ots=68pObYmuaR&sig=UopM_zQ8EcFM9xGQ7t0DI84Hro8#PPA132,M1



Stop trying to play down this obvious crime against humanity.

The impact of abuses by a minority of Red Army soldiers should not be exaggerated. In 1945 the entire world was greatful towards the Red Army for its liberation of the occupied nations in Europe, Northern China, and Korea. World attention was not concerned with Nazi propaganda allegations of mass rape by the Red Army. Rather, the world was horrified at the newsreel footage of the Nazi death camps.

[spartan]

The impact of abuses by a minority of Red Army soldiers should not be exaggerated.

They are not being exaggerated!

It is fact that the majority of Red Army soldiers entering Germany in 1945, raped German women on a mass scale.

In 1945 the entire world was greatful towards the Red Army for its liberation of the occupied nations in Europe, Northern China, and Korea.
Say that to the Russian women taken to Nazi Germany as slave labourers.

For years they prayed for the day when the Red Army would come and liberate them.

When that day came, they found that it would be one of the worst in their lives, when they were raped by their own countrymen coming to "liberate" them.

World attention was not concerned with Nazi propaganda allegations of mass rape by the Red Army. Rather, the world was horrified at the newsreel footage of the Nazi death camps.
What so it was all Nazi propaganda was it?

Have you seen the reports by Red Army commanders on this subject in the Soviet archives?

No matter how you try to justify this, there is no justification for raping women on a mass scale.

What the Nazis did to the Russians was terrible, but that doesnt give the Russians the right to rape nearly every German woman when they entered German territory (Two wrongs dont make a right).

Women and children are always the ones who suffer the most because of the actions of men.

And you Stalin apologists really have sunk to a new low with this playing down of a crime against humanity.

[Sky]

Again, my point is that a small minority of poorly disciplined Red Army soldiers committed abuses against the German population. Soviet state documents demonstrate that a sizable number of people were punished for such crimes. Nor can the extent of the rapes be fully verified, because there seem to have been no comprehensive records. Occurrences of rape are primarily based on anecdotes, hearsay, and the personal testimony of alleged victims. It is for this reason why statistics on rapes range from tens of thousands to 2 million.

[Comrade Rage]

Then i will ask a mod to split my post from this thread, into its own thread, and you can try to refute there.
People can't post in the trashcan.:crying:
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist.:D)


Again, my point is that a small minority of poorly disciplined Red Army soldiers committed abuses against the German population. Soviet state documents demonstrate that a sizable number of people were punished for such crimes. Nor can the extent of the rapes be fully verified, because there seem to have been no comprehensive records. Occurrences of rape are primarily based on anecdotes, hearsay, and the personal testimony of alleged victims. It is for this reason why statistics on rapes range from tens of thousands to 2 million.
As a matter of fact, most Germans were pleasantly surprised at the tough, but scrupulously disciplined front-line troops under the command of Zhukov and Koniev. The problem, like you said, had to do with ex-POWs, and freshly conscripted soldiers who formed the rear-guard of the invasion in Germany, particularly in Berlin. (Rokossovskii's troops did not enter Berlin.)

I would like to see some evidence that these cases were wide-spread. At least the USSR admits to abuse in it's Army. When was the last time that America owned up to it's mistreatment of people?