Memoirs of Nazi soldiers - "Soldaten"

[Spoonist]

Edit: Man, this comic is spot-on!

In the context of this topic, not so much.
It's telling that the scandinavian parties that rely heavily on using their flags and national identity are also the ones having an anti-immigrants agenda etc.
Denmark - Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People's Party)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansk_Folkeparti
Sweden - Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverigedemokraterna
Finnland - Perussuomalaiset (True Finns)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Finns
All of the above utilize their flag in a similar manner as the american elections. All are right-wing populists.

Also the different scandinavian countries has a similar scepticism to eachother's use of the flag when intensive. The biggest example would be Norway's constitution day celebration, which is frowned upon by the other scandinavian countries - especially because of the intense flag-waving and nationalistic pride. (There is a lot of scandinavian ribbing and intra-envy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Constitution_Day
So the comic could equally well be reversed with the scandinavians being sceptical about other countries flag fervor.

[Tiriol]

Edit: Man, this comic is spot-on!

In the context of this topic, not so much.
It's telling that the scandinavian parties that rely heavily on using their flags and national identity are also the ones having an anti-immigrants agenda etc.
Denmark - Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People's Party)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansk_Folkeparti
Sweden - Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverigedemokraterna
Finnland - Perussuomalaiset (True Finns)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Finns
All of the above utilize their flag in a similar manner as the american elections. All are right-wing populists.

Also the different scandinavian countries has a similar scepticism to eachother's use of the flag when intensive. The biggest example would be Norway's constitution day celebration, which is frowned upon by the other scandinavian countries - especially because of the intense flag-waving and nationalistic pride. (There is a lot of scandinavian ribbing and intra-envy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Constitution_Day
So the comic could equally well be reversed with the scandinavians being sceptical about other countries flag fervor.

... What? Did you even read the description of the comic? It's not about the populist parties. In fact, there isn't even Finland there. It's Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

[Thanas]

No, but at the time almost all nations in Europe were Nazi satellites. Almost "excludes" yeah, Britain.

I was referring to the current situation, actually.

Repelling an invasion which is threatening to destroy you both as a state and as a society is a good case to commemorate; perhaps some European nations do that?

Commemoration yes, but why this way? Does it generate discussion, make people reconsider their opinions, focus on the human cost of war? Or is it more "great military smashed Nazis"?

What? Germany came closer to the brink of destruction than Eastern Europe's nations? That's, frankly, impossible, unless you mean the Morgenthau Plan.

Maybe not as close in theory and ultimate outcome, but we do see an actual division of Germany into parts with seperate nations exacting control over each part.

Being divided is not "destruction", by that logic separating the Russian Empire into Poland and Russia was "destroying" it.

How is that even comparable to the division of East and West Germany in both scale and effects?

Extermination matters, but the plan was to exterminate a part and render the rest into permanently crippled lower-class slaves. Cities were to be destroyed and culture was to be reduced to a minimal education not even enough to be industrial labour - only fit for menial labour on the fields. Like I said, it is not just the difference in megadeaths, but also the difference in plans. I think the last time Russia was so massively invaded was Napoleon's invasion, and at that time Napoleon wasn't set into turning Russia into his own territory and part enslaving, part killing its inhabitants - he cared about forcing Russia to accept his terms of surrender.

Yes, I agree with that.

I think doing it every year is excessive, it used to be once per 20 years. Then again, why does the deterrent argument seem bad? "Everybody"? Many Russians harbor the opinion that Russia is losing its deterrent. The parade is primarily done for Russia itself, not for others.

Yes, but I (and I do not think we will reach an agreement here) think that the idea of having both a deterrent by showing how strong the forces are and commemorating the massive deaths of WWII is mutually exclusive. One speaks about the dangers of nationalism and racism, the other bolsters nationalists.

Um... so? People of Eastern Europe are also starting to elect fascists. Russia could hardly "overrun" even a former Soviet republic like Ukraine, that would turn into bloody mess. How is "soldiers marching" equal to "nationalists marching"?

It is not, but it can give rise to nationalistic sentiments.

Russia does have Nazis marching on November 4, but I think neo-nazis are the same everywhere. Actually, neo-nazism got it's biggest boost when Russia, or, rather, the USSR collapsed. One of the core Nazi arguments was that Russia was "becoming weak" because it was "corrupted by the Jews" (sound familiar?), a strange and peculiar Nazi version of the Dolchstosslegende I'm sure you're familiar with. So I don't think the Parade is helping the Nazis, at all.

Why not? Isn't a grand stage of arms a perfect ground for nationalists to go "Damn, I am exceptionally proud of how strong our nation is. Now if only we could find a way to turn all these weapons on those traiterous former republics or those guys in the caucasus...."

The tradition of moving annual parades to May 9 wasn't started by Putin or Medvedev, it was started by Yeltsin. As a nationalist regime, obviously new Russia wasn't happy with the November 7 parade, so... *shrugs* If you ask my personal opinion, yes, I was perfectly happy with the Victory Day parade happening once in 20 years.

Fair enough, but just for clarification: You do agree that the parade as of now is mainly used for political purposes by the current regime, and especially to promote the concept of the politicians being strong leaders etc.

I think if parts of your army commited war crimes, it does not automatically preclude having a military parade, if said crimes were punished.

But they were not. Not a single officer was punished over crushing democratic rebellions in the fifites. On the contrary, they got decorations. To my knowledge, Russia has never undertaken a review of which of its units has committed crimes and made it public or taken action. Same goes for the Afghanistan war and the various conflicts and wars since then.

The Allied armies did not have an analogue of units so deeply implicated in war crimes like Waffen-SS, Einsatztruppen or the Japanese Unit 731 as to taint their reputation forever, at least at the time of war's end. And if you consider Waffen-SS parades bad, consider this - some East European nations run these sort of parades and openly rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, their own nationalists who had been slaughtering Jews like dogs. I don't think it is unreasonable to exclude tainted units from parades, by the way. A huge difference was that the German Army didn't just commit war crimes, Hitler and the OKH issued a permission, a carte blanche to commit war crimes by relinquishing the forces of responsibility. Other nations, even the Nazi satellites in Eastern Europe, did not issue such orders as far as I know.

However, what other army has created a structure almost exclusively dedicated to genocide, annihilation and ethnic cleansing? *thinks* Maybe... Belgium's forces in Congo? Not sure.

I do not think the unit needs to reach the scale of the Nazis to be tainted. Shooting civilians on purpose or being engaged in mass murder is enough for me.

So it wasn't a commemoration of any units which commited war crimes, it was selecting the best men from entire fronts (!), that is, massively huge army groups, and letting them pass through the Red Square to commemorate their victory. Camp guarding units, rear battalions, etc. weren't marching on that day, and there was no purposeful inclusion of any units that commited war crimes or weren't related to the victory over Germany in May 1945. It is extremely strange to compare this with a Waffen-SS parade.

Strange only that I tried (as I said) to get the most extreme example to get my point across. Apparently I failed in that.

You seem to confuse patriotism with nationalism. Patriotism is the love of your country and people and it is what is promoted on parades. Nationalism is hating other peoples becouse of the preserved notion that your nation is superior.

Uh....Duh?

Parades are patriotic displays. They are not nationalistic displays. You see Russian soldiers marching in the glory of Russia. You don't see them spreading racist/nationalist propaganda but patriotism. [...]
There is a big difference between the two that you don't seem to acknowledge.

No, there is a big difference that you apparently do not seem to understand in my argument. Please reread them and then notice that I am not arguing about the current soldiers marching in a parade, I am talking about specific circumstances as well as nationalistic political goals, policies etc.

But you can't reasonably expect all the nations who ever did anything wrong in their past to curl up in shame like naughty children.

No, but at least I shall expect them to take measures to ensure it does not happen again. When you fail to do that and then go on promoting the glory of your arms, then that is ample ground for criticism.

Like in your argument that modern day Russians should not hold parades becouse the Russian empire, over a century ago was pan Slavic. Seriously that sort of attitude is extremist don't you think?

I never made that argument, so I fail to see what you are saying here.

To paraphrase. If the French people don't see that association and most of the world does not see that association but you see it. Is it a figment of your mind or a conspiracy by the French government to get shit past the radar and legitimize the colonization efforts of the past?

Wow....your reading comprehension is a bit bad, isn't it? Where have I made the argument that there is a DEVIOUS PLAN to legitimize colonization efforts? I am getting a bit tired of you strawmanning my argument, so I'll just summarize it in small words for you:

Bastille Day: allegedly celebrates the beginning of the French Freedom. Good.
Having units marchin in there who were either formed with the intent of or spent most their time crushing the freedom of other human beings: Bad.

The same thing goes for the modern French units. They have the same banners but that is it. It's not the same men, and it's not the same commanders. It's not even the same uniforms any more. You seem to think that the unit in it self is somehow a living entity that must bare shame. I say that is just wth. But it does tie in nicely with your eternal shame on countries thing.

It still is part of the units history and tradition, especially if they think it is a proud history.

Even if all the people that actually committed those crimes are now long dead or at least close to it?
I mean, what would you do? Hold a witch hunt now after 50 years to clear things out?

I fail to see how an honest assesment of a history is now a "witch hunt". Especially when it might prevent a reoccurrence in the future.

Modern vehicles and aviation have only been used since 2008. Before that, it was all infantry, dressed in vintage and modern uniforms, plus the actual veterans.

Then that makes actually sense and I would not really have an objection to that if they had kept it that way.

Yes, there were problems in the conduct of the war, and yes the redrawing of the borders brought oppression, but that has nothing to do with the victory over fascism. The Great Patriotic War was a defensive war, and it is celebrated as such.

I fail to see how a direct consequence has nothing to do with the action that immediately preceded it. Especially when the allies had essentially carved up the world during the war.

A lot of it is the desire to improve the image of the armed forces, but yes, a lot of it is "look at our new toys." Which may or may not be bad, depending on one's opinion, but is still preferable to things like those "support the troops" stickers.

Sure. Though that is of course a bit like the lesser of two evils, isn't it?



As for the comic, I have already explained how it is a bad interpretation in another thread. Don't bring it up in here again.

[Spoonist]

Edit: Man, this comic is spot-on!

In the context of this topic, not so much.

... What? Did you even read the description of the comic? It's not about the populist parties. In fact, there isn't even Finland there. It's Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

Just checking - are you in the correct topic? There is another over here which was just about the comic itself.

In this topic the context was nationalism and military parades.

Thanas said "The parades as a whole are just as much an outpouring of nationalistic and militaristic feelings" which Purple wondered why that is a bad thing and which fgalkin argued was not the case. To put that comic in this context implies that fgalkin thinks that it is "spot on" regarding Thanas' (and germany's) view on nationalism. ie that germany should relax and that flagwaving is OK as it is in scandinavia.
My retort was that scandinavia is not necessarily as carefree about flagwaving etc as the comic suggests, instead that those who use/rely on the flag mostly in scandinavian politics indeed also are the most nationalistic/xenophobic ones, go figure right?
Why the use of Finns as one of the examples was simply because of their recent elections.

[K. A. Pital]

I was referring to the current situation, actually.

Europe, especially the North-Western part of it, once united to destroy the "untermenschen" in the East. Maybe someone wants to forget about it - sure. Sometimes it is better to forget - after all, in Germany itself a question to school kids revealed hardly anyone knows what happened on 8th May 1945 - 70% chose "don't know".

Commemoration yes, but why this way? Does it generate discussion, make people reconsider their opinions, focus on the human cost of war? Or is it more "great military smashed Nazis"?

Actually, every year there's a very active discussion about the human cost of the war. Also, each year only the V-Day parade sometimes makes the media attentive enough to some veterans in need (i.e. without a house, etc.) and the government reluctantly does something to help. The date is certainly useful for old people, during most other days the media is completely oblivious to their problems.

Maybe not as close in theory and ultimate outcome, but we do see an actual division of Germany into parts with seperate nations exacting control over each part. ... How is that even comparable to the division of East and West Germany in both scale and effects?

That's true, but this happened with many nations, not just Germany. Separation doesn't mean destruction. What sort of "scale" the division of East and West Germany had? By territorial scale, that was a minor division. Poland and Russian Empire had greater population in separated parts (Poland and Finland had around 40 million people cut off from Russia after the revolution); another example is America taking Texas from Mexico or the British Raj falling apart into India, Pakistan and Bagladesh. None of the events carried a threat of destruction. The separation of the British Raj impacted hundreds of millions of people, as opposed to mere dozens, like in the case of Germany. It also happened to cause starvation of many people - arguably, had Bagladesh remained a part of a centrally governed India, it might have been saved from the famine of 1974 via government grain shipments from other parts of India. So no, the German separation is not unique, neither in territorial scale nor in population scale. Separation happened to be the fate of many nations, especially in the aftermath of wars, but it wasn't comparable to destruction.

Yes, but I (and I do not think we will reach an agreement here) think that the idea of having both a deterrent by showing how strong the forces are and commemorating the massive deaths of WWII is mutually exclusive. One speaks about the dangers of nationalism and racism, the other bolsters nationalists.

Heh, I wouldn't mind if they did away with that parade, or returned the old one instead, which was relevant for Russia alone. But I'm not a deciding force.

It is not, but it can give rise to nationalistic sentiments.

Strangely enough, Eastern Europe doesn't need any parades to have a strong Neo-Nazi movement. Likewise, a strong Nazi movement in Germany happened to coincide with a time when Germany's armed forces were at their weakest point, and people felt humiliation. Feeling humiliated and weak does more to bolster Neo-Nazism than displays of power. Look at Eastern Europe. The USSR screwed them over - and now they're full of neo-nazis. Because they feel humiliated, they feel they are "weak", susceptible to "foreign influence", conquered by imperialistic "big brother". Russia isn't much different here, people see the elites as alien to their own interests and controlled by more powerful nations (America, Europe, Japan). This is what gives rise to neo-nazism.

Why not? Isn't a grand stage of arms a perfect ground for nationalists to go "Damn, I am exceptionally proud of how strong our nation is. Now if only we could find a way to turn all these weapons on those traiterous former republics or those guys in the caucasus...."

Actually, no. Russian neo-nazis (a sizeable fraction of them) are trying to separate Caucasus from Russia. *laughs* See above. It matters more if the nation is humiliated. The current power should be weak and controlled by foreigners for the Dolchstosslegende to work. Because if a non-nazi government is strong... that's not good for nazis.

Fair enough, but just for clarification: You do agree that the parade as of now is mainly used for political purposes by the current regime, and especially to promote the concept of the politicians being strong leaders etc.

Yup. I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing, see above.

But they were not. Not a single officer was punished over crushing democratic rebellions in the fifites. On the contrary, they got decorations. To my knowledge, Russia has never undertaken a review of which of its units has committed crimes and made it public or taken action. Same goes for the Afghanistan war and the various conflicts and wars since then.

You think that's so, but it's wrong. Units and commanders were punished, demoted and sometimes executed for crimes against civilians in World War II. In Chechnya, some commanders faced trials for crimes (mostly rapes, etc.). So Russia isn't entirely oblivious to that. As for "punishing officers for crushing democratic rebellions", I don't think any military intervention (even a non-democratic one) is automatically a war crime. Is the US intervention in Vietnam a war crime? After all, they intervened on behalf of the South Vietnam government. The intervention in Czechoslovakia was not done on behalf of any government forces, whereas the Hungary one was done at the demand of a fraction of Hungary's government.

I do not think the unit needs to reach the scale of the Nazis to be tainted. Shooting civilians on purpose or being engaged in mass murder is enough for me.

The Nazi leadership got killed off at Nuremberg not just because some of their units commited war crimes. They are inevitably commited in any war, and while the goal is to keep them to a minimum (see: laws of war), it is far from reality. The Nazis were singled out because they explicitly made orders that allowed war crimes to go unpunished and relinquished responsibility, or worse yet, directly ordered war crimes.

Strange only that I tried (as I said) to get the most extreme example to get my point across. Apparently I failed in that.

No, your point is well understood. However, there's a magnitude of order difference when war crimes are done at somebody's orders and when they are done by soldiers who then get punished for those.

I fail to see how a direct consequence has nothing to do with the action that immediately preceded it. Especially when the allies had essentially carved up the world during the war.

It sounds like arrogant eurocentric bullshit to me, sorry, Thanas. The allies didn't "carve up the world", they carved up a tiny patch of the world called Europe. A great many nations, however, became independent because World War II was a huge blow to colonial empires. British and French colonial empires during and after WWII collapsed like a house of cards, and soon there were many more national governments than there were before. If we aren't giving Europe a special place and treating Europe as unique, then as a result of World War II the world was "de-carved up", although this decarving process was already underway and didn't start with WWII, neither ended with it. Thinking that Europe is "the world" is incredibly arrogant and betrays an imperial mentality.

[Shroom Man 777]

Wasn't what happened after WW2 the same thing that happened before WW2, except it was just a different bunch of guys doing all the assembling? The world powers were always playing with Legos, except after WW2 it was a different bunch of kids playing with the Legos.

[Thanas]

I was referring to the current situation, actually.

Europe, especially the North-Western part of it, once united to destroy the "untermenschen" in the East. Maybe someone wants to forget about it - sure. Sometimes it is better to forget - after all, in Germany itself a question to school kids revealed hardly anyone knows what happened on 8th May 1945 - 70% chose "don't know".

I can actually answer that pretty concisely - considering that for the past decade school teachers were ordered to not focus too much on dates. People thought it better that students be taught about the structures of evil than the specifc dates of it. I personally disagree and think at least some factual basis should be taught, but just because people cannot remember a specific date does not mean they are ignorant about Hitler and the end of WWII. Heck, I bet you get a lot more years of education about the Nazis in Germany than you do in Russia. I know I spent four years of school pretty much decidated to the Nazis in various subjects.

Actually, every year there's a very active discussion about the human cost of the war. Also, each year only the V-Day parade sometimes makes the media attentive enough to some veterans in need (i.e. without a house, etc.) and the government reluctantly does something to help. The date is certainly useful for old people, during most other days the media is completely oblivious to their problems.

That is good. I hope it focuses on not just one nation but on the human cost of it and the aftermath as well.

Separation happened to be the fate of many nations, especially in the aftermath of wars, but it wasn't comparable to destruction.

I would still argue that the sheer scale of it made it a bit more special, especially with regards to the historical importance, but I see your point.

Heh, I wouldn't mind if they did away with that parade, or returned the old one instead, which was relevant for Russia alone. But I'm not a deciding force.

I wouldn't mind that either.

Look at Eastern Europe. The USSR screwed them over - and now they're full of neo-nazis. Because they feel humiliated, they feel they are "weak", susceptible to "foreign influence", conquered by imperialistic "big brother". Russia isn't much different here, people see the elites as alien to their own interests and controlled by more powerful nations (America, Europe, Japan). This is what gives rise to neo-nazism.

Weakness yes, but displays of powers (especially if the nation was succesfull at such in the past) can give rise to neo-nazism too. For example, look at the USA - it never lost a war, yet has a strong hard-right segment of the population. Germany, which was the loser of two world wars, had all the reasons of feeling weak, especially in the time period of occupation, but has a pretty left-leaning populace. I do not accept the reasoning that the parade is not problematic because it is a display of power.

Actually, no. Russian neo-nazis (a sizeable fraction of them) are trying to separate Caucasus from Russia. *laughs* See above. It matters more if the nation is humiliated. The current power should be weak and controlled by foreigners for the Dolchstosslegende to work. Because if a non-nazi government is strong... that's not good for nazis.

Maybe it is a mistake to focus only on Neo-nazis. Maybe it would be more accurate to describe my target as nationalists in general.

Fair enough, but just for clarification: You do agree that the parade as of now is mainly used for political purposes by the current regime, and especially to promote the concept of the politicians being strong leaders etc.

Yup. I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing, see above.

Why not? Another leader in the past used a lot of parades to show his strength and look how that turned out.

You think that's so, but it's wrong. Units and commanders were punished, demoted and sometimes executed for crimes against civilians in World War II. In Chechnya, some commanders faced trials for crimes (mostly rapes, etc.). So Russia isn't entirely oblivious to that.

"Entirely oblivious" does not mean "have undertaken comprehensive and honest review". After all, some Nazis were also executed for crimes against civilians of occupied territories in World War II, yet we all know that in General they turned a blind eye. How many of the tank commanders who fired on civilians in the fifties were prosecuted, btw?

As for "punishing officers for crushing democratic rebellions", I don't think any military intervention (even a non-democratic one) is automatically a war crime. Is the US intervention in Vietnam a war crime? After all, they intervened on behalf of the South Vietnam government. The intervention in Czechoslovakia was not done on behalf of any government forces, whereas the Hungary one was done at the demand of a fraction of Hungary's government.

I think that any intervention which has the goal of destroying democracy and installing an authoritarian event is not something that should be tolerated, honored or remembered as anything but a bad thing. Whether it is a war crime - that depends on how you define the right of a people to choose their own leaders. If you think the ultimate authority comes from the people itself, then you cannot really justify crushing the will of the people with tanks. That does not make it a war crime immediately, but it does raise doubts as to whether the units involved deserve to be honored.

No, your point is well understood. However, there's a magnitude of order difference when war crimes are done at somebody's orders and when they are done by soldiers who then get punished for those.

Certainly.

It sounds like arrogant eurocentric bullshit to me, sorry, Thanas. The allies didn't "carve up the world", they carved up a tiny patch of the world called Europe. A great many nations, however, became independent because World War II was a huge blow to colonial empires. British and French colonial empires during and after WWII collapsed like a house of cards, and soon there were many more national governments than there were before. If we aren't giving Europe a special place and treating Europe as unique, then as a result of World War II the world was "de-carved up", although this decarving process was already underway and didn't start with WWII, neither ended with it. Thinking that Europe is "the world" is incredibly arrogant and betrays an imperial mentality.

Are you trying to troll me here? I was talking how a direct consequence cannot be excluded from considering a preceeding action. You however chose to focus on one word and go on a rant about that. Can you start arguing the point here?

And honestly, I think I am the last person on this board who you get to label as imperialistic.

[K. A. Pital]

I can actually answer that pretty concisely - considering that for the past decade school teachers were ordered to not focus too much on dates. People thought it better that students be taught about the structures of evil than the specifc dates of it. I personally disagree and think at least some factual basis should be taught, but just because people cannot remember a specific date does not mean they are ignorant about Hitler and the end of WWII. Heck, I bet you get a lot more years of education about the Nazis in Germany than you do in Russia. I know I spent four years of school pretty much decidated to the Nazis in various subjects

I don't think Germany is the one forgetting. However, many nations which had been Nazi satellites want to forget, in a situation not quite unlike the "Great Forgetting" in Belgium, which I mentioned in N&P. I also disagree with the "teach concepts, not real events" approach which has, to an extent, become popular in Russia.

That is good. I hope it focuses on not just one nation but on the human cost of it and the aftermath as well.

It often does. Consider that Russia has - reluctantly perhaps, but still - invited other members of the anti-Hitler coalition to the parade, including many former Soviet republics, specifically acknowledging their participation and importance.

I would still argue that the sheer scale of it made it a bit more special, especially with regards to the historical importance, but I see your point.

*nods* Perhaps, I admit, I'm sort of... anti-Eurocentric in my view. For me, the colonial independence of India from Britain and the collapse of most colonial empires is an event of greater magnitude than any post-war partitions in Europe. I freely admit the separation of Germany was a rather important event in the modern history of Europe.

Weakness yes, but displays of powers (especially if the nation was succesfull at such in the past) can give rise to neo-nazism too. For example, look at the USA - it never lost a war, yet has a strong hard-right segment of the population. Germany, which was the loser of two world wars, had all the reasons of feeling weak, especially in the time period of occupation, but has a pretty left-leaning populace. I do not accept the reasoning that the parade is not problematic because it is a display of power.

Germany had denazification ran on both sides. Sometimes the USSR and, more often, the USA and France let Nazi criminals go unpunished and slacked when it came to rooting out fascist and nazi tendencies, but the mission was mostly accomplished. In that regard Germany after WWII was more unique than in mere separation. Germany was the first state that was envisioned and constructed as anti-fascist from the ground. The USA's right has fascist tendencies, but the US never holds military parades, neither to Civil War victories, nor to World War II victories. Also, how... has the US never lost a war? *shrugs* Vietnam says otherwise.

Maybe it is a mistake to focus only on Neo-nazis. Maybe it would be more accurate to describe my target as nationalists in general.

Those are a far more dangerous bunch. However, the USA, which you brought as an example, perfectly exists without any parades. It prefers to demonstrate their power by bombing other nations and winning small wars with overwhelming power. That is a far more dangerous precedent than parades commemorating a victory. And once again it shows that parades and rituals are not relevant. Russia ran a parade every year since 1991, but for the 20 years that have passed, Russia's foreign policy record and that of the USA differ a lot.

Why not? Another leader in the past used a lot of parades to show his strength and look how that turned out.

I consider parades absolutely irrelevant. If the population has strong fascist tendencies, a parade wouldn't make them weaker or stronger. The US has no parades; France has parades. The difference is not in the parade.

"Entirely oblivious" does not mean "have undertaken comprehensive and honest review". After all, some Nazis were also executed for crimes against civilians of occupied territories in World War II, yet we all know that in General they turned a blind eye. How many of the tank commanders who fired on civilians in the fifties were prosecuted, btw?

The problem was not whether the Nazis turned a blind eye or not; the problem was that they made formal orders that allowed war crimes. I don't think any of the Soviet commanders who took part in crushing the Hungarian uprising faced a death penalty, and I don't know if any were prosecuted. However, neither do I know of facts of breaching the laws of war by Soviet soldiers who took part in that operation - looting, rapes, mass murders or deliberate murders of unarmed civilians, that would be documentally proven. Most who took part in the events in Hungary note that unlike the end of World War II, the soldiers weren't driven by revenge and tried to fight as clean as possible in the circumstances.

I think that any intervention which has the goal of destroying democracy and installing an authoritarian event is not something that should be tolerated, honored or remembered as anything but a bad thing. Whether it is a war crime - that depends on how you define the right of a people to choose their own leaders. If you think the ultimate authority comes from the people itself, then you cannot really justify crushing the will of the people with tanks. That does not make it a war crime immediately, but it does raise doubts as to whether the units involved deserve to be honored.

See above. Frankly, if we're talking about the events in Hungary, one might note that cases of corpse desecration and mutilation, torture and POW murder were common on the side of the Hungarian uprising - something that is a war crime by Geneva standards. While the Soviet forces were clearly not on the side of democracy here, their mere intervention was not a war crime. Just as America's invasion in Vietnam wasn't automatically a war crime because it was done to uphold a dictatorship (but many things they did there were war crimes). I am not saying Hungarian events should be remembered as a good thing, but are they? To my knowledge, the parade makes no mention whatsoever of that. Even the USSR never specifically mentioned or honored during the 9th May Parade those units that took part in quelling Hungarian or Czechoslovakian uprisings, much less modern Russia.

Are you trying to troll me here? I was talking how a direct consequence cannot be excluded from considering a preceeding action. You however chose to focus on one word and go on a rant about that. Can you start arguing the point here? And honestly, I think I am the last person on this board who you get to label as imperialistic.

No; I don't think you're imperialistic, as for my point of view, I laid it out above.

[harbringer]

Thanas I was referencing carthage when I spoke about rome they saw them as barbarians - automatically sub roman and killing carthage for being a pain in the ass is really not much different to killing them due to any other reason and they did their best to eradicate the state/city. As for the rest simply saying that in my opinion unless we change as people war will happen and it will still be barbaric. Sadly (in this case) we all have something we would die for or kill for.

[Spoonist]

Thanas I was referencing carthage when I spoke about rome they saw them as barbarians - automatically sub roman and killing carthage for being a pain in the ass is really not much different to killing them due to any other reason and they did their best to eradicate the state/city. As for the rest simply saying that in my opinion unless we change as people war will happen and it will still be barbaric. Sadly (in this case) we all have something we would die for or kill for.

Rome didn't see Carthage as barbarians, they were competition. Romans adopted lots of carthegian stuff before during and after the conflict.
They did not eradicate the city, they conquered it.
They did not slaughter the population mercilessly, they incorporated them into their own empire.

Other than that you might have a point...

[harbringer]

Spoon that was the first time round I was thinking of the second the time they slaughtered and enslaved everyone and tried to pull the city down......

[ray245]

Spoon that was the first time round I was thinking of the second the time they slaughtered and enslaved everyone and tried to pull the city down......

Even if this was true, that still doesn't support the view that the Romans views Carthaginians as sub-human. The concept of racism is pretty much a modern concept.

[hongi]

As an additional observation from Thanas' post regarding the sociopathic nature of the society and how a minority can be treated we also need to look at the nature of the minority as well. When the article mentions how shocking it is that a minority can be treated so callously in an extremely short amount of time you should also take into account how a minority treats itself in regards to society around it. Jews for example have always been an easy target I believe because of the nature of the Jewish religion and attitude of holding itself apart from others. It makes it easy to identify and then ostracize them as compared to a more integrated minority or ethnic group. In other words, its easy to hate and expel certain groups from a society based in cultural interactions.

In Germany itself, Jews were assimilated. In Western Europe, the age of shtetls and ghettos were over. The Jewish Enlightenment had come and gone, and in their wake Jews were as German as German Catholics were, unless you define being Jewish as intrinsically un-German (as the Nazis did). Didn't stop the Nazis from blaming the Jews.

Part of the reason why Jews didn't integrate was because the rest of society didn't allow them to. What do you think was the main reason for villages turning in the Jews in Eastern Europe, because the Jews made themselves an easy target or because the villagers hated the Jews?

[Duckie]

Spoon that was the first time round I was thinking of the second the time they slaughtered and enslaved everyone and tried to pull the city down......

In addition to all the problems that has that other people have mentioned, and numerous besides, that was the third time.

The second time they annexed the carthaginian colonies in hispania.

[Spoonist]

Spoon that was the first time round I was thinking of the second the time they slaughtered and enslaved everyone and tried to pull the city down......

Duckie got the third thing covered.
Both second and third would be equally bad comparisons.

Since you mention the slaughter and eslavement I'll go a little bit into details on the third.

The devastation was not wrought onto the people, it was against the city. The city refused to surrender - the razing was a common punishment for that. "Carthegians" elsewhere was spared and annexed without ill will or persecution. Instead they were handled just like all other conquest of the time. The regions of Volubilis, Lixus, Chellah, and Mogador are all examples of this, where there were Carthegians who simply surrendered and got annexed.
Any analogy falls even further appart when ceasar a couple of decades later resettle Carthege under the old name. If the romans had even a slight view like you try to assign them this would be just impossible.

Compare this to when Athens falls in the second Peloponnesian War, Corinth and Thebes demanded that Athens should be destroyed and all its citizens should be enslaved. However, the Spartans spared the city.
So what you say is not compareable at all, instead the razing of a defiant city and the selling of the citizens as slaves was 'common sense' at the time. If the Romans had wanted to be lenient they could have been, but after the occupation of italy by Hannibal the roman populace would have gone nuts if the conquerors would have spared the city.

[harbringer]

1) at least I remembered it wasn't the first time ... second ok I forgot that but they still did it...
2) they weren't roman citizens so still classed as barbarians ie. sub roman
3) I never claimed racism I just pointed out that killing off a city state because it was a pain in the arse (which was all cathage was at the time) was just as bad if not worse, after all racism gives a reason (fear bordering on paranoia) better then it's costing us too much to continue dealing with it... under that logic the US should neutron bomb the mid east.
4) While Hannibal served as a bogey man I don't think at the time carthage was reduced it mattered so much.
5) Lastly it wouldn't even matter if carthage didn't count as i'm sure small tribes across europe were annihilated by the romans during conquest or occupation.

And regardless of all these points it was well my opinion (and the original post was labelled as such) so don't actually care what you think......... I just feel people haven't changed so war while barbaric will always be there. You can live in cotton candy land if you will but I believe time will prove me right.

[Thanas]

Stas, first my apologies for the belated reply. I was quite busy and only had time to write a few short lines. I think we agree on the majority of points, but there are a few I still wanted to raise.

I consider parades absolutely irrelevant. If the population has strong fascist tendencies, a parade wouldn't make them weaker or stronger. The US has no parades; France has parades. The difference is not in the parade.

Here, I disagree. I think the difference is the means, not that much in intent. Nationalists prefer (maybe even need?) patriotic displays, whether it is a parade or a war - it still is such an event that provides them with the opportunity to say "We are awesome and powerful". This to me is what I think is the problem I kind of have with the parade in Moscow in its current form - coupled with a more aggressive Russian policy in Eastern Europe and the inclusion of the modern weapons...well, it kind of makes it hard to see it as "just remembrance", especially since remembrance was amptly served by the old form of the parade.

Most who took part in the events in Hungary note that unlike the end of World War II, the soldiers weren't driven by revenge and tried to fight as clean as possible in the circumstances.

I do not think that there is any "clean" way to kill civilians, really. What we are discussing here is a question of degree of guilt, but not guilt or innocence in itself. For my opinion, everybody who fired on civilians in those uprisings is a war criminal whose conscience should have stopped him from carrying out those orders.

Just as America's invasion in Vietnam wasn't automatically a war crime because it was done to uphold a dictatorship (but many things they did there were war crimes).

Sure, which is why I am arguing (or at least trying to, maybe I phrased my earlier attempts poorly) surely about those units that fired on civilians.

To my knowledge, the parade makes no mention whatsoever of that. Even the USSR never specifically mentioned or honored during the 9th May Parade those units that took part in quelling Hungarian or Czechoslovakian uprisings, much less modern Russia.

Not mentioned or honored during the parade, but they are still considered an honored part of the army, are they not?

************************

1) at least I remembered it wasn't the first time ... second ok I forgot that but they still did it...

Did what? Massacre all the people? They did not.

2) they weren't roman citizens so still classed as barbarians ie. sub roman

....which means what, exactly?

3) I never claimed racism I just pointed out that killing off a city state because it was a pain in the arse (which was all cathage was at the time) was just as bad if not worse, after all racism gives a reason (fear bordering on paranoia) better then it's costing us too much to continue dealing with it... under that logic the US should neutron bomb the mid east.
4) While Hannibal served as a bogey man I don't think at the time carthage was reduced it mattered so much.
5) Lastly it wouldn't even matter if carthage didn't count as i'm sure small tribes across europe were annihilated by the romans during conquest or occupation.

And regardless of all these points it was well my opinion (and the original post was labelled as such) so don't actually care what you think......... I just feel people haven't changed so war while barbaric will always be there. You can live in cotton candy land if you will but I believe time will prove me right.

Your ignorance of Roman history and your refusal to listen to points is telling.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas, first my apologies for the belated reply.

Nothing to apologize for, that's not a chat after all.

Here, I disagree. I think the difference is the means, not that much in intent. Nationalists prefer (maybe even need?) patriotic displays, whether it is a parade or a war - it still is such an event that provides them with the opportunity to say "We are awesome and powerful". This to me is what I think is the problem I kind of have with the parade in Moscow in its current form - coupled with a more aggressive Russian policy in Eastern Europe and the inclusion of the modern weapons...well, it kind of makes it hard to see it as "just remembrance", especially since remembrance was amptly served by the old form of the parade.

Hmm... I think I agree here. Part of the reason why Russia's policy has become "more agressive" in Eastern Europe, however, is that NATO has engulfed almost the entirety of East Europe. Contrary to the - oral, of course, much like Nixon's oral promise to Thieu that he'll bomb North Vietnam if they attack the South - promise made by NATO leaders. Another part is nascent neo-imperialism, a desire to reassert influence. However, I think the parade's role here is isignificant. Far more important are Russia's approval of a form of nationalism as a doctrine. That is more threatening than any parade. After all, the parade was ran in the 1990s as well. One would hardly think of Yeltsinist Russia as a threat... well, maybe except to itself.

I do not think that there is any "clean" way to kill civilians, really. What we are discussing here is a question of degree of guilt, but not guilt or innocence in itself. For my opinion, everybody who fired on civilians in those uprisings is a war criminal whose conscience should have stopped him from carrying out those orders.

There is, however, the position of the Geneva convention and the preceding Hague conventions, that a civilian who takes up arms and follows the laws of war is a combatant. Killing combatants is not a war crime. Even in a most injust war, like Vietnam. So in cases where unarmed civilians had been killed (not as collateral deaths from, say, shelling of houses from which combatants retured fire, but on purpose), one could speak of a war crime (e.g. several reported attacks on civilian objects, such as Red Cross ambulance). It does not make the entire operation a war crime, neither all units who fought therein. Saying that everyone who killed combatants in an injust conflict is automatically a war criminal simply deflates the concept of war crime. By that logic, all American units who fought in the American-Philippines war would be war criminals, and the entire war a war crime, because of one General's order (a real order, not a case of a firing mistake or collateral deaths!) to kill all civilians above 10 years old. But that makes the particular General no better or worse than all others who participated in the war. That's clearly not so.

Sure, which is why I am arguing (or at least trying to, maybe I phrased my earlier attempts poorly) surely about those units that fired on civilians.

Indeed. However, it would be hard to determine which units those are. The cases of soldier firing on unarmed civilians were few and far between. Most often when we hear about soldiers firing on civilians during the 1956 events this concerns not the Soviet troops sent to intervene, but the ÁVH units. As one can gather, no AVH units and no Hungarian units ever took part in a Victory Parade, and to my knowledge no WARPAC units of any kind, especially as notorious as the AVH units described above, were invited to take part in the parade. Maybe I am wrong; I need to research this further.

Not mentioned or honored during the parade, but they are still considered an honored part of the army, are they not?

Hmm. Quite so. Though considering the above, I'm not sure Soviet units by the mere virtue of taking part in Hungarian operation can be thought of as having commited a war crime. It would be interesting to find out just which units were implicated in which war crimes (in case of major crimes or massacres you usually have lots of witnesses and time allows to place this massacre into the jurisdiction of a particular unit).

[Thanas]

Stas, we are pretty much in agreement here except for this:

Part of the reason why Russia's policy has become "more agressive" in Eastern Europe, however, is that NATO has engulfed almost the entirety of East Europe. Contrary to the - oral, of course, much like Nixon's oral promise to Thieu that he'll bomb North Vietnam if they attack the South - promise made by NATO leaders.

I am not sure how much of that can be laid at the feet of Nato. Afterall, it is not as if Nato forced the countries to join, no they joined precisely because they were afraid of Russia, a fear only enhanced more by the Chechen wars and Russia's desire to expand the influence into the balkans (too bad they chose the serbs to get in bed with).

However, I think the parade's role here is isignificant. Far more important are Russia's approval of a form of nationalism as a doctrine. That is more threatening than any parade. After all, the parade was ran in the 1990s as well.

I think this is turning quickly into a chicken-or-egg argument here - what came first, nationalist sentiment or events that foster it? As such, I'll just agree to disagree here, as this is a difference of opinion, not fact.

One would hardly think of Yeltsinist Russia as a threat... well, maybe except to itself.

Well, they supported the Serbian massacres in the Balkans and Sarajevo, even wanting to sell the serbs cluster bombs etc with which to better massacre the "turks"....Der Spiegel has reprinted Mladic's diary in excerpts, it is quite sickening.

As for the war crimes, yes, a more specific inquiry might be needed. However, I am sure Russia will move to block it anyway and view this as more "Eastern European revanchism."

[K. A. Pital]

I am not sure how much of that can be laid at the feet of Nato. Afterall, it is not as if Nato forced the countries to join, no they joined precisely because they were afraid of Russia, a fear only enhanced more by the Chechen wars and Russia's desire to expand the influence into the balkans (too bad they chose the serbs to get in bed with).

Chechen wars weren't a form of expansionism. They were a civil war on Russia's own territory. At the same time Moldova had a civil war too. I bet it didn't make people fearful.

I think this is turning quickly into a chicken-or-egg argument here - what came first, nationalist sentiment or events that foster it? As such, I'll just agree to disagree here, as this is a difference of opinion, not fact.

Are you saying that it wasn't nationalism which caused Russia to switch to 9th May as the principal parade date in the 1990s and reintroduce armour in the 2000s? More like, the parade created nationalism? That position makes no sense. Russia was heavily nationalist after the last remains of the USSR were destroyed in 1993; and nationalism became the only ideology whatsoever fitting for the ruling regime. Russian nationalism did not rise after the parades.

Well, they supported the Serbian massacres in the Balkans and Sarajevo, even wanting to sell the serbs cluster bombs etc with which to better massacre the "turks"....Der Spiegel has reprinted Mladic's diary in excerpts, it is quite sickening

Serbia was a tranditional Russian client states. NATO client states in the Balkan wars were also guilty of mass murders and war crimes. It is a double-edge sword. To say that NATO's behaviour in Yugoslavia was a spotless performance against some sort of unique evil when the Yugoslav wars were in general dirty among all participants is to ignore history.

As for the war crimes, yes, a more specific inquiry might be needed. However, I am sure Russia will move to block it anyway and view this as more "Eastern European revanchism."

Why? Russia handed Poland over the documents on Katyn. If Hungary would have a case of war crimes commited during the intervention, I am sure it would pursue it.

[Thanas]

Chechen wars weren't a form of expansionism. They were a civil war on Russia's own territory. At the same time Moldova had a civil war too. I bet it didn't make people fearful.

Yes, because Moldova was widely publicized in the press and received a lot of attention...

You can go on about civil war and technically you are correct. However, it also served to remind people that Russia could be very ruthless if it wanted to achieve its goals (like massive artillery barrages into the heart of Grozny) and therefore ensured a negative perception of Russia.

Are you saying that it wasn't nationalism which caused Russia to switch to 9th May as the principal parade date in the 1990s and reintroduce armour in the 2000s? More like, the parade created nationalism? That position makes no sense. Russia was heavily nationalist after the last remains of the USSR were destroyed in 1993; and nationalism became the only ideology whatsoever fitting for the ruling regime. Russian nationalism did not rise after the parades.

I feel like we are talking past each other or you are reading things into my posts which are not there. The parade need not be the start of nationalism to be a tool of it.

Serbia was a tranditional Russian client states. NATO client states in the Balkan wars were also guilty of mass murders and war crimes. It is a double-edge sword. To say that NATO's behaviour in Yugoslavia was a spotless performance against some sort of unique evil when the Yugoslav wars were in general dirty among all participants is to ignore history.

How good that I claimed none of that, I merely pointed out that your assertion of Russia not being a danger to anybody but itself is a bit idealistic, considering Russia is trying very hard to expand its influence. Also, I like to know which massacres Nato directly aided by supplying the Bosnians which weapons that could really only serve to create casualties among civilians.

Why? Russia handed Poland over the documents on Katyn. If Hungary would have a case of war crimes commited during the intervention, I am sure it would pursue it.

Doubtful. Russian authorities have refused to cooperate in the past except when it comes to highly publicized stuff like Katyn. They are very anxious (perhaps rightly so) not to give the Eastern Europeans more reasons to hate their guts than they already have.

[K. A. Pital]

Doubtful.

To my knowledge, Hungary never tried. Yes, Russia refuses to cooperate sometimes, but you need to actually, uh... file a case or a demand first.

How good that I claimed none of that, I merely pointed out that your assertion of Russia not being a danger to anybody but itself is a bit idealistic, considering Russia is trying very hard to expand its influence. Also, I like to know which massacres Nato directly aided by supplying the Bosnians which weapons that could really only serve to create casualties among civilians.

The US government approved of MPRI assistance to Croatia, IIRC. Many experts agree that it helped the Croatian Operation Storm which resulted in massive ethnic cleansing and many civilian deaths.