The pups at the post, history, and stalin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/15/AR2010071504174.html
I am always amused when the poorly educated waifs at the post start writing about anything older than Madonna's career. So, here we go kids:
Yes, Stalin was a very evil violent and demented man. Yes, leninism sucks, big time. Both are drenched in unforgivable atrocities.
But here's something else, WWII was big and messy. We like to believe all the John Wayne movies and make it in the purest strokes of black and white, and the gods know hitler and the nazis tried their best to play the bad guys. But even there, even then, serious students must view the many nuances and compromises that any war and any geopolitical situation dictates. I will try to be brief, as what I am touching on could easily create a doctoral dissertation, (and probably already has): wars are fought for reasons, they are self centered. We may agree with some or all of those reasons, we may even consider them noble, but one should never lose touch with the fact that they are self centered. And one bit of calculation that goes into warfare is how to win - that's the Big One, and that becomes the end-all reason. Well, we wouldn't have won without the Soviets. Period. Depending upon the time period, the Western Allies never faced more than 25% of the German war machine. The rest were on the Eastern Front, and I've read estimates that at some times that percentage rose close to 90%. Imagine D-Day facing a few extra squadrons of air fighters and dozens of extra divisions of combat, (not static) troops. Imagine the success chances of the Salerno and Anzio landings and defense perimeters under similar circumstances*. Disasters would have loomed. (*Actually, the circumstances wouldn't have even arisen, the extra air and ground units would have led to a successful German invasion of Malta, the massacre of British forces in Egypt and the conquest of the entire Middle East). More darkness.
I could go on with a lot more in this vein. A lot.
On a parallel note, I'd like to address the old Western propaganda about stalin allying with hitler. This is considered gospel these days, and it is a fact, but the story behind it is quite interesting. If you look at the records, you'll see that Britain feared the Russians more than anyone else up to and even somewhat after 1939. they simply couldn't bring themselves to hate fascism as much, especially since they saw it as a bulwark against the communists they so feared. I don't necessarily disagree or debate the wisdom of this, it's just the way things were. The Communists knew the dangers of fascism, (One can ascribe that to cynical motives. I don't mind. Once again, I am simply stating facts). They sought to oppose Hitler at every chance, proposing again and again alliances and cooperation with France and Britain over the Spanish Civil War, the Anschluss, and the several Czech crisis. Each time, the British rebuffed those attempts, (An interesting footnote - even Italy was against the Anschluss and was prepared to go to war over it, but Britain diffused the situation, fearing a stronger Italy over a stronger Germany! (I've still not figured out how Britain thought that an independent Austria somehow made Italy a threat to British interests...)). Britain was also an unofficial ally of the fascists in Spain, helping provide intelligence information to allow the Germans to bomb Russian convoys to the Republican side, (now that's a little factoid the allies always seem to ignore).
Stalin did the one thing any conscientious national leader would do when facing a Europe heading towards confrontation: he cut the best deal he could get. And after being rejected by Britain and France at least four times, (that I know of), he then went for what he could get from hitler. So, who is to blame? Well, there are no halos. And that's the point when it comes to geopolitics, there rarely are. We had to ally with the Soviets, and it's a damn good thing we did. And Stalin felt he had to ally with the Germans, because it was the best deal he could get at the time. Hell, look at the French - they allied with everybody! It's messy and makes for messy choices. But the Russians were in the war, they were on our side, they were an integral part of the victory, and they were led by stalin. Ignoring or pouting about that is as bad as ignoring the crimes and atrocities he and the Soviets committed, (and let's not forget the atrocities the other Allies were quite capable of committing, especially in their colonies). The pups at the post do ignore that, one of the many reasons I tend to ignore them.
I am always amused when the poorly educated waifs at the post start writing about anything older than Madonna's career. So, here we go kids:
Yes, Stalin was a very evil violent and demented man. Yes, leninism sucks, big time. Both are drenched in unforgivable atrocities.
But here's something else, WWII was big and messy. We like to believe all the John Wayne movies and make it in the purest strokes of black and white, and the gods know hitler and the nazis tried their best to play the bad guys. But even there, even then, serious students must view the many nuances and compromises that any war and any geopolitical situation dictates. I will try to be brief, as what I am touching on could easily create a doctoral dissertation, (and probably already has): wars are fought for reasons, they are self centered. We may agree with some or all of those reasons, we may even consider them noble, but one should never lose touch with the fact that they are self centered. And one bit of calculation that goes into warfare is how to win - that's the Big One, and that becomes the end-all reason. Well, we wouldn't have won without the Soviets. Period. Depending upon the time period, the Western Allies never faced more than 25% of the German war machine. The rest were on the Eastern Front, and I've read estimates that at some times that percentage rose close to 90%. Imagine D-Day facing a few extra squadrons of air fighters and dozens of extra divisions of combat, (not static) troops. Imagine the success chances of the Salerno and Anzio landings and defense perimeters under similar circumstances*. Disasters would have loomed. (*Actually, the circumstances wouldn't have even arisen, the extra air and ground units would have led to a successful German invasion of Malta, the massacre of British forces in Egypt and the conquest of the entire Middle East). More darkness.
I could go on with a lot more in this vein. A lot.
On a parallel note, I'd like to address the old Western propaganda about stalin allying with hitler. This is considered gospel these days, and it is a fact, but the story behind it is quite interesting. If you look at the records, you'll see that Britain feared the Russians more than anyone else up to and even somewhat after 1939. they simply couldn't bring themselves to hate fascism as much, especially since they saw it as a bulwark against the communists they so feared. I don't necessarily disagree or debate the wisdom of this, it's just the way things were. The Communists knew the dangers of fascism, (One can ascribe that to cynical motives. I don't mind. Once again, I am simply stating facts). They sought to oppose Hitler at every chance, proposing again and again alliances and cooperation with France and Britain over the Spanish Civil War, the Anschluss, and the several Czech crisis. Each time, the British rebuffed those attempts, (An interesting footnote - even Italy was against the Anschluss and was prepared to go to war over it, but Britain diffused the situation, fearing a stronger Italy over a stronger Germany! (I've still not figured out how Britain thought that an independent Austria somehow made Italy a threat to British interests...)). Britain was also an unofficial ally of the fascists in Spain, helping provide intelligence information to allow the Germans to bomb Russian convoys to the Republican side, (now that's a little factoid the allies always seem to ignore).
Stalin did the one thing any conscientious national leader would do when facing a Europe heading towards confrontation: he cut the best deal he could get. And after being rejected by Britain and France at least four times, (that I know of), he then went for what he could get from hitler. So, who is to blame? Well, there are no halos. And that's the point when it comes to geopolitics, there rarely are. We had to ally with the Soviets, and it's a damn good thing we did. And Stalin felt he had to ally with the Germans, because it was the best deal he could get at the time. Hell, look at the French - they allied with everybody! It's messy and makes for messy choices. But the Russians were in the war, they were on our side, they were an integral part of the victory, and they were led by stalin. Ignoring or pouting about that is as bad as ignoring the crimes and atrocities he and the Soviets committed, (and let's not forget the atrocities the other Allies were quite capable of committing, especially in their colonies). The pups at the post do ignore that, one of the many reasons I tend to ignore them.
posted by mendip at
12:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home