Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nah Josef - it's not like "Nazi collaboration" was a matter of choice; look what they did to their own population, turning the country in effectively-running military machine. It was not like Hitler was trying to win "the hearts and minds" of Baltic population - he'd took over, finish off those who resisted and proceeded with his plans of using land/people for his own advantage. Stalin basically looked at things the same way under the circumstances; what wouldn't be used by him to his advantage would be used by Germans to their advantage.
After a few years of bloody Soviet rule and NKVD activities, many greeted German soldiers as liberators. The realities of Soviet rule were grim for local populations across the Soviet Union.
Lets not forget, before 1938 Germany did not occupy any other country, while Soviets occupied quite a few.
When those Latvian forces joined SS, SS didn't have the connotation that it does now. We can look back and see everything that happened, but Latvian soldiers wanted to fight for the freedom of their country, and German soldiers wanted to fight for their country, just like American soldiers want to fight for their country, when they went to Iraq.
Did American soldiers know there were no weapons of mass destruction? No. Did Latvian soldiers know at the beginning of the war what Germans would do? They were between a rock and a hard place.
There was some excuse for the Germans because they were conscripts, and a perfectly reasonable excuse for the Latvians because their main concern was Stalin's boot on their necks.
Americans, on the other hand, had no excuse for being in Iraq. They are stained with infamy.
If Hitler's intention was truly "liberation of Russia from Bolshevism" - then yes, one might consider Vlasov a "fighter for a free Russia," but since the reality was quite different and Hitler designated Russians for annihilation all together - Bolsheviks or not, Vlasov obviously couldn't be anything but traitor who was trying to save his life.
Now with this in mind - that the fight between Russians and Germans at that point was a matter of life and death, it becomes very obvious why Stalin was purging Balts, Poles, Ukranians - those were the people whom he trusted the least, ( ditto - Russian Germans as well,) and those were the lands that he wanted to be totally obedient and reliable. ( I think he could foresee the mortal danger his country was in, and he didn't want to leave any chances; everything that wouldn't work in his interests, would have been used for Germany's advantage - that's how it historically was in that part of the world; what was not serving Russian interests, was serving German interests.) So Stalin took preventive ( and justifiable measures according to situation,) which indeed affected Balts a great deal.
I believe it was unavoidable situation on one hand, yet the dislike of Russians in Baltic countries after that was quite understandable as well.
Yeah, but repressions continued after Germans were defeated.
And this is a very slippery theme - to 'prevent' something to satisfy your interests. Then in a way we can justify the red terror to prevent counter-revolution, for example. And killings of Jews because they were, you know, guilty of all Germany's problems.
Last edited by Kiss Kiss Bang Bang; 11-15-2012 at 12:31 PM..
Yeah, but repressions continued after Germans were defeated.
In what way exactly?
Quote:
And this is a very slippery theme - to 'prevent' something to satisfy your interests.
But that's how the world operates for the last couple of thousands years at least - colonization of certain nations by others, installation of regimes that satisfy the interests of certain nations and so on. Russia is not all that unique in that - she is probably simply less covert and sly about it.
Quote:
Then in a way we can justify the red terror to prevent counter-revolution, for example.
There is grain of truth to it, because the "Red terror" originally started as a response to a "White terror" and counter-revolution was a possibility for a long time.
Quote:
And killings of Jews because they were, you know, guilty of all Germany's problems.
That's an interesting question, particularly if we'll put it into context of "Germany's problems."
I mean then extermination of German Jews in particular would have solved Hitler's problem, right?
Why did he have to go after ALL European Jewry?
The Soviets had already carried out the deportations in 1940–41, but the deportations between 1944–52 were much larger numbers.[2] In March 1949, the top Soviet authorities organised a mass deportation of 90,000 Baltic nationals, labelled as enemies of the people, into inhospitable areas of the Soviet Union.[4]
The total number of deported in 1944–55 has been estimated at 124,000 in Estonia, 136,000 in Latvia and 245,000 in Lithuania. The deportees were allowed to return after the secret speech of Nikita Khrushchev in 1956, however many did not survive in their years in Siberia.[2] Large number of Baltic population fled westward in before the Soviet forces invaded in 1944. After the war, the Soviets outlined new borders for the Baltic republics. Lithuania gained Vilnius and Klaipeda regions, but Estonia and Latvia ceded some eastern territories to the Russian SSR. Estonia lost 5 percent and Latvia 2 percent of its prewar territory.[2]
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
But that's how the world operates for the last couple of thousands years at least - colonization of certain nations by others, installation of regimes that satisfy the interests of certain nations and so on. Russia is not all that unique in that - she is probably simply less covert and sly about it.
But don't you think that it is a bad thing? Don't you think we should condemn it as much as we can and learn from history? And stop fighting each other
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
That's an interesting question, particularly if we'll put it into context of "Germany's problems."
I mean then extermination of German Jews in particular would have solved Hitler's problem, right?
Why did he have to go after ALL European Jewry?
Well, he probably considered the conquered territories as part of Germany. And he didn't want Jews in his empire.
The Soviets had already carried out the deportations in 1940–41, but the deportations between 1944–52 were much larger numbers.[2] In March 1949, the top Soviet authorities organised a mass deportation of 90,000 Baltic nationals, labelled as enemies of the people, into inhospitable areas of the Soviet Union.[4]
The total number of deported in 1944–55 has been estimated at 124,000 in Estonia, 136,000 in Latvia and 245,000 in Lithuania. The deportees were allowed to return after the secret speech of Nikita Khrushchev in 1956, however many did not survive in their years in Siberia.[2] Large number of Baltic population fled westward in before the Soviet forces invaded in 1944. After the war, the Soviets outlined new borders for the Baltic republics. Lithuania gained Vilnius and Klaipeda regions, but Estonia and Latvia ceded some eastern territories to the Russian SSR. Estonia lost 5 percent and Latvia 2 percent of its prewar territory.[2]
I was not aware that deportations were going on after the war as well, but I am not surprised to hear that. Stalin was continuing his policies of creating obedient fiefdom, where he could rule uncontested, no need to mention his deeply-seated suspicion of everything and everyone - politicians and whole nations alike. Obviously the WWII and everything what took place there didn't help situation a bit ( I'm talking about how many Russians joined Vlasov's army, or how many Balts joined Germans.)
Quote:
But don't you think that it is a bad thing? Don't you think we should condemn it as much as we can and learn from history? And stop fighting each other
If you ask my opinion personally - of course I could never condone these killings, deportations - you name it. However looking at history I am coming to understanding that no matter how much you or me are going to condemn these things, it's not going to change situation much, because it looks like there are some more intricate mechanisms set in place, that keep on pushing the events forward. It's like some internal conflict is embedded within the human kind, where different nations find themselves on the opposite sides of this conflict, and the world keeps on being divided into "spheres of influence," remapped, redefined, and re-aligned over and over, where the fate of some nations becomes most miserable, while other flourish at their expense. It's like with every change, with every new event we are moving closer and closer to some resolution of this embedded conflict, but no one is sure how exactly it's going to be resolved. It's sort of like talking about the current conflict between Palestine and Israel - everyone condemns the violence, everyone would love to see situation resolved, but it really doesn't have resolution.
Quote:
Well, he probably considered the conquered territories as part of Germany. And he didn't want Jews in his empire.
That's why I consider Hitler far more dangerous and diabolic than Stalin. If one understands more about Russia and Russian history, Stalin was nothing all that outstanding as a ruthless ruler, who probably wasn't all that different from many ruthless rulers before him, who conquered, took prisoners, who made them slave for conquerors, who'd punish those who'd dare to oppose, who'd be constantly weary of treason. Hitler however ventured where human kind never ventured before; he was picking and choosing whom to exterminate not for what they did, but for who they were.
This whole area of genetic engineering, the concept of medical experiments on humans just because they fit into different racial category, the definition of people being worthy populate the earth or not - we are entering the whole new area here, where the old, familiar definitions don't apply any longer. That's why your question weather Hitler could have been justified in killing Jews (in the same manner as Stalin's actions of occupation) becomes already a biblical matter, sort of.
That's why I consider Hitler far more dangerous and diabolic than Stalin. If one understands more about Russia and Russian history, Stalin was nothing all that outstanding as a ruthless ruler, who probably wasn't all that different from many ruthless rulers before him, who conquered, took prisoners, who made them slave for conquerors, who'd punish those who'd dare to oppose, who'd be constantly weary of treason. Hitler however ventured where human kind never ventured before; he was picking and choosing whom to exterminate not for what they did, but for who they were.
This whole area of genetic engineering, the concept of medical experiments on humans just because they fit into different racial category, the definition of people being worthy populate the earth or not - we are entering the whole new area here, where the old, familiar definitions don't apply any longer. That's why your question weather Hitler could have been justified in killing Jews (in the same manner as Stalin's actions of occupation) becomes already a biblical matter, sort of.
Hitler and Stalin are extremely similar. Both were not just some ruthless rulers, history in both countries has seen these before, but both attempted to support their bloody rule and atrocities with pseudo-scientific theories, both murdered in the name of ideas.
The history of early XX century is a history of revolts against the Old Order, both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia attempted to eradicate and replace the socio-economic structures in their societies and both created monstrosities in the process. As a result both Nazism and Communism are viewed as failed ideologies.
Hitler and Stalin are extremely similar. Both were not just some ruthless rulers, history in both countries has seen these before, but both attempted to support their bloody rule and atrocities with pseudo-scientific theories, both murdered in the name of ideas.
The history of early XX century is a history of revolts against the Old Order, both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia attempted to eradicate and replace the socio-economic structures in their societies and both created monstrosities in the process. As a result both Nazism and Communism are viewed as failed ideologies.
Rebel, can you say something more interesting and daring, rather than repeating the old cliches?
Rebel, can you say something more interesting and daring, rather than repeating the old cliches?
Truth hurts, doesn't it? And what are you referring to as old cliches: the fact that Hitler exterminated few millions of people or that Stalin exterminated few on his own?
Nobody can forget dear Erasure how many victims could both Nazism and Communism claim, and nobody will ever forget how oppressive both systems were.
Want to defend communism here my Russian friend? Be my guest. Lol
That's why I consider Hitler far more dangerous and diabolic than Stalin. If one understands more about Russia and Russian history, Stalin was nothing all that outstanding as a ruthless ruler, who probably wasn't all that different from many ruthless rulers before him, who conquered, took prisoners, who made them slave for conquerors, who'd punish those who'd dare to oppose, who'd be constantly weary of treason.
I really don't agree with this part. In previous Russian history, there was really no leader quite like Stalin. The Tsar was an autocrat and the people were taught to revere him, but they were not forced to regard him as "the greatest genius of all times, of all epochs and peoples," "the greatest scientist of our age," and "the wise remaker of Nature," to cite just a few typical characterizations of Stalin. In all previous Russian history, there was no personality cult quite like it. Also, as far as I know, the Tsars didn't obsessively persecute and kill people who were not just their enemies, but who were merely suspected that they might become enemies at some point in the future. And I don't think the Tsars altered the historical record to make themselves look better, at least not on the same scale (see the book The Commissar Vanishes: "enemies of the people" simply airbrushed out of history!).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
