StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Just for the record, i am conceding my argument. While i think that there is some merit to it, it is clearly not a comprehensive model of the causality of atrocities in war.

Commemoration is not done at the parade, it is done before the parade. Russia 24 is probably the channel you're talking about.

Thanas wrote:Why have a parade anyway? What function is it served, especially considering it is used for propaganda purposes (and did they also not use it to unveil new weapons)?

Not sure what sort of function it serves now, aside from "We have weapons, look at that". Having victory parades is a common tradition. Bastille Day or October Revolution parade commemorated victories in internal struggles/revolutions, whereas the 9th May parade commemorates the victory over the Axis in Europe (the USSR or Russia did and does not commemorate the victory over Japan, IIRC). Israel has had an IDF parade. Many nations also hold parades to celebrate their independence or victories against colonial forces. Considering Germany literally tried to colonize Russia, I see no reason to discourage the celebration.

You could technically raise issues with the exact forms that the parade takes. However, a pre-parade wreathlaying and commemoration moment, as well as an obligatory Minute of Silence are and were a part of the ceremony for quite a long time. Consider that in the USSR, the Victory Parade was only held once in 20 years, whereas in Russia it is held once every year. Not sure why - one version is to "pay more respect to veterans", another is "to have an annual display of patriotism". I think current Russia uses the parade for legitimizing purposes, since the frequency has risen quite a lot.

Stas Bush wrote:Commemoration is not done at the parade, it is done before the parade. Russia 24 is probably the channel you're talking about.

Maybe....But heck, why not show the commemoration? Why is it deliberately chosen to show the parade?

And I noticed you did not answer my points about what contents they chose to broadcast to foreign nations.

Not sure what sort of function it serves now, aside from "We have weapons, look at that". Having victory parades is a common tradition. Bastille Day or October Revolution parade commemorated victories in internal struggles/revolutions, whereas the 9th May parade commemorates the victory over the Axis in Europe (the USSR or Russia did and does not commemorate the victory over Japan, IIRC). Israel has an IDF parade. Many nations also hold parades to celebrate their independence or victories against colonial forces. Considering Germany literally tried to colonize Russia, I see no reason to discourage the celebration.

So the argument is essentially that it serves a function due to "showing weapons" and "tradition" as well as "others do it as well"?

Yeah, great message to send to the world there.

Thanas, a lot of other nations do military parades. France has Bastille Day, Poland has Independence Day. Britain sent troops to the V-E day parade in Moscow, etc.

I'm not sure what is so distasteful about those. Victory was gained by force of arms, so the armies involved do a little showing off yearly.

PeZook wrote:Thanas, a lot of other nations do military parades. France has Bastille Day, Poland has Independence Day.

For the record, I also do not like the French celebrating their colonial adventures in Bastille Day. As for the Polish parade, I have never seen it so I cannot comment.

In any case, how does this in any way change my argument? That the parade is providing a counterpoint to remembering the suffering by focusing exclusively on how awesome the weapons are? How is militarism any good in the context of WWII?

Thanas wrote:Maybe....But heck, why not show the commemoration? Why is it deliberately chosen to show the parade?

Actually, 1 and 2 state channels usually show the commemoration separately from the Parade. The Parade is... well, the Parade.

Thanas wrote:And I noticed you did not answer my points about what contents they chose to broadcast to foreign nations.

I think they just broadcast parts of the parade, but not the wreath-laying ceremony on the same day and neither the minute of silence (which is sometimes repeated before and after the parade).

Thanas wrote:So the argument is essentially that it serves a function due to "showing weapons" and "tradition" as well as "others do it as well"? Yeah, great message to send to the world there.

You missed my earlier comment on this parade serving a deterrent function (demonstrating that Russia has modern weaponry to deter invasion). I already said that the frequency of the parade in modern Russia is raising questions as to why are they so obsessed with doing it on an annual basis when the USSR, for which this parade meant much, much more, only did it once in 20 years, and the way it's run is questionable.

Thanas wrote:How is militarism any good in the context of WWII?

Because nations which had weak military collapsed when Germany and Japan invaded them? Because "non-militaristic" leaders of nations and whole nations that were not ready to fight until the end quickly caved in before Hitler, becoming Nazi satellites or being swiftly occupied by the Nazis? The parade serves to remind people that Nazis were, in the end, defeated by military means, not by waving white flags.

Thanas wrote:I also do not like the French celebrating their colonial adventures in Bastille Day.

Bastille Day is meant to celebrate the fall of the Bastille, not France's colonial conquests. No?

Stas Bush wrote:You missed my earlier comment on this parade serving a deterrent function (demonstrating that Russia has modern weaponry to deter invasion). I already said that the frequency of the parade in modern Russia is raising questions as to why are they so obsessed with doing it on an annual basis when the USSR, for which this parade meant much, much more, only did it once in 20 years, and the way it's run is questionable.

Fair enough. Though the deterrent function is a tad odd to directly combine it with the WWII stuff.

Because nations which had weak military collapsed when Germany and Japan invaded them? Because "non-militaristic" leaders of nations and whole nations that were not ready to fight until the end quickly caved in before Hitler, becoming Nazi satellites or being swiftly occupied by the Nazis? The parade serves to remind people that Nazis were, in the end, defeated by military means, not by waving white flags.

How is that not celebrating the way the war was fought?

Stas Bush wrote:Bastille Day is meant to celebrate the fall of the Bastille, not France's colonial conquests. No?

So? You still have units nearly exclusively associated with colonialism marching in it.

Thanas wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:You missed my earlier comment on this parade serving a deterrent function (demonstrating that Russia has modern weaponry to deter invasion). I already said that the frequency of the parade in modern Russia is raising questions as to why are they so obsessed with doing it on an annual basis when the USSR, for which this parade meant much, much more, only did it once in 20 years, and the way it's run is questionable.

Fair enough. Though the deterrent function is a tad odd to directly combine it with the WWII stuff.

The thesis of the parade would seem to be as follows:

"We were invaded by a great army that had already conquered most of Europe, one which caused devastating loss and committed terrible atrocities in our country. We defeated this powerful enemy by force of arms- and we still have that force of arms. So don't trifle with us or attack us, because we crushed the German invasion and we can crush you too, if you try to hurt us."

And yes, to an extent that is baldly militaristic and nationalist. After suffering such enormous national trauma at the hands of invaders- nor was this the first time Russia had suffered- it's quite understandable that in their national consciousness, the Russian people's ability to resort to ultima ratio regum when attacked is a point of great collective pride.

Given the impact of the German invasion on Russia's national consciousness, it strikes me as unreasonable to object to this. Are they supposed to quietly forget that they were invaded, devastated, nearly destroyed as a nation, and that the resort to violent force, on an unprecedented scale, was what saved them? That Russia arguably owes its very existence to its ability to defend itself against powerful armies by raising more powerful armies and by making great sacrifices?

Stas Bush wrote:Bastille Day is meant to celebrate the fall of the Bastille, not France's colonial conquests. No?

So? You still have units nearly exclusively associated with colonialism marching in it.

Are they not part of the French Army? Should they be hidden away, as if that will make them less real?

If these units are to exist at all, and to be functional, they must have a sense of esprit de corps: they must know that they are a part of the French Army, and that their units have traditions of military success which they should uphold if they are called on to fight. A military without this kind of awareness, without a sense of history it can tap into to strengthen itself in the face of adversity, is inevitably a weaker military.

Then again, perhaps the units you mention should not exist. Perhaps they should be disbanded as legacies of injustice rather than maintained as tools for the defense of the French state. But then you should be criticizing them for that, not for the parades themselves.

Perhaps the unit should be disbanded, but if it is not to be disbanded, then it deserves a place in the institutions of the French Army. Which is necessary to make it an effective part of the French Army, as opposed to being a despised and disavowed backwater within that army.

Thanas wrote:Fair enough. Though the deterrent function is a tad odd to directly combine it with the WWII stuff.

Not for Russia, in any case. World War II was about the few cases in history when someone invaded Russia with an intention to colonize.

Thanas wrote:How is that not celebrating the way the war was fought?

Hmm. Well, the Victory Day parade initially had units which fought in the war commemorated. It wasn't a celebration of war - it was a commemoration of the effort of the units which fought in the war. This is why part of the ceremony is regiments, etc. with certain numbers that were especially active in the war passing through. Right now it's changing because they want to include students from some military schools, etc. that's crap, I don't see any reason for them to march, but... *shrugs* It's not me setting up the parade. However, I don't have anything against a parade par se - maybe not that frequent, sure. Soldiers who fought in the war deserve some commemoration, especially as the Eastern Front was exceptionally different from what the British and Americans faced in Europe - the chance of dying as a POW was greater than in the active army ranks I don't think any of the allied armies ever faced this kind of challenge in Europe. Perhaps in the East, where Japan ruthlessly exterminated allied POWs, they did, and I wouldn't object if they made some sort of parade on VJ day to honor the soldiers that died and the ones who defeated Japan.

Thanas wrote:So? You still have units nearly exclusively associated with colonialism marching in it.

That's a problem, I agree. I think the parades related to historical events should mainly center on the units which fought in these events.

WW2 In my opinion was a classic example of total warfare, of course it didn't result in the extermination of the German state (a good thing) but was pretty much fought in that way. No weapon was off the table, espionage sabotage to nuclear weapons were all used as a matter of necessity without the overall concern for civilian casualties. Barbaric of course while attrition warfare was limited to the front lines in WW1 the reach of weapons systems in WW2 spread it to homes across Europe targeting the people and not just the armed forces. I think we can hold up the sacrifice of all casualties during WW2 dresden, russia, tokyo or front line alike without glorifying the whole war. Everyone was guilty of at least one crime and probably many and everyone justified them whether they demonised their opponents or were dispensing justice, that said it was nothing that roman legions didn't do during the republic or the mongols later and everyone in between. This should by right reinforce war like shooting a perpetrator in a police chase as a last resort used only when everything else has been tried, of course we all know things are never that clean or obvious - should you attack the guy stealing your stuff or let the police catch him? what if it was your wife or child? we all have thresholds where we say yes and no and as a group or nation that's no different. And we never like to be the bad guy - we needed to do it.

Just my opinion and I expect people won't agree but I will ask you to think about what you think is right and what the consequences would be.

harbringer wrote: that said it was nothing that roman legions didn't do during the republic

Sure it was. The Romans never exterminated anybody or waged a war with the goal of exterminating "subhumans".

Just my opinion and I expect people won't agree but I will ask you to think about what you think is right and what the consequences would be.

I am sorry but I for one cannot find much sense in your post, so please explain to me what exactly your opinion is.

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

Simon_Jester wrote:"We were invaded by a great army that had already conquered most of Europe, one which caused devastating loss and committed terrible atrocities in our country. We defeated this powerful enemy by force of arms- and we still have that force of arms. So don't trifle with us or attack us, because we crushed the German invasion and we can crush you too, if you try to hurt us."

Because every nation in Europe is in favor of invading Russia?

And btw, you could make that argument about nearly every European nation, which are all creations of bloodshed.

Given the impact of the German invasion on Russia's national consciousness, it strikes me as unreasonable to object to this. Are they supposed to quietly forget that they were invaded, devastated, nearly destroyed as a nation, and that the resort to violent force, on an unprecedented scale, was what saved them? That Russia arguably owes its very existence to its ability to defend itself against powerful armies by raising more powerful armies and by making great sacrifices?

Germany also owes its very existence to military means. And we - as a nation - came much closer to the brink of destruction and were indeed divided. I fail to see why one nation can abandon militarism while the other cannot. It is not as if Germans are inherently morally superior.

Let's get this straight - just because I understand the thought process behind it does not make it inherently a positive thing. In fact, what do you think are the positive goals that are achieved through yearly military parades, especially in relation to Eastern Europe and the rest of the world?

Then again, perhaps the units you mention should not exist. Perhaps they should be disbanded as legacies of injustice rather than maintained as tools for the defense of the French state. But then you should be criticizing them for that, not for the parades themselves.

Why? The parades as a whole are just as much an outpouring of nationalistic and militaristic feelings, even moreso than the existence of units who were known to be used nearly exclusively for colonial purposes.


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

Stas Bush wrote:

Thanas wrote:Fair enough. Though the deterrent function is a tad odd to directly combine it with the WWII stuff.

Not for Russia, in any case. World War II was about the few cases in history when someone invaded Russia with an intention to colonize.

Few? I think for most of the medieval history "Russia" was invaded to be subjugated and colonized. Then there was the period up to the 18th century when Russians were mostly aggressors followed by Russian colonialism and panslavism, which might color the perspective a bit, but "Russia" like any weak nation (which did not even exist then) was always the target for colonialism. I do remember lists from the middle ages given away the market prices for captured Rus etc. after all. And I think extermination is a bit of a better description than colonization at least as to WWII...the two are not exclusive, yes, but extermination seems to me to be the more important part of the issue.

Still, I feel that as it currently stands, the Parade is less about "Remember the sad, sad times of the war and always remember the follies of nationalism and racism" and more about "REMEMBER OUR GLORIOUS HISTORY. There is nothing wrong with us because we are still strong. Ignore all the problems and focus on our SHINY NEW TOYS for our glorious military who is never ever engaged in human rights abuses in chechyna etc." In short, it looks to me more like the parade is politically used nowadays to focus on militarism and nationalism to keep the populace semi-happy and make it proud of its leadership than with actually remembering the war.

The deterrent argument seems especially bad because nearly everybody in the world already pretty much knows the Russians have a deterrent etc.

Hmm. Well, the Victory Day parade initially had units which fought in the war commemorated. It wasn't a celebration of war - it was a commemoration of the effort of the units which fought in the war. This is why part of the ceremony is regiments, etc. with certain numbers that were especially active in the war passing through.

If that was the original purpose and they excluded units that had a bad reputation, I'd have no troubles with that. However, I doubt they did (Stalin being the ruthless mass murderer he was and the rest of them were not that much better).

Do you also agree with the parade being a constant source of aggression and fear for other people in Eastern Europe? They do not see the Russian Army commemorating the veterans. They do instead see young nationalistic people marching, with all those shiny new toys that just scream "We can overrun you again" to them. I mean, yes, the Poles are very nationalistic themselves, but they got a point when they refused the invitations to visit.

And nationalism in Russia, even neo-nazism, is heavily on the rise as well. Is it necessary to fan the flames of that with great patriotic displays?

Soldiers who fought in the war deserve some commemoration, especially as the Eastern Front was exceptionally different from what the British and Americans faced in Europe - the chance of dying as a POW was greater than in the active army ranks I don't think any of the allied armies ever faced this kind of challenge in Europe. Perhaps in the East, where Japan ruthlessly exterminated allied POWs, they did, and I wouldn't object if they made some sort of parade on VJ day to honor the soldiers that died and the ones who defeated Japan.

I agree that soldiers who fought in the war (and did not committ atrocities) definitely deserve commemoration. However, what prevents them from honoring the soldiers themselves? It is not necessary to show new weapons to do that. Just lying a wreath and/or having veterans honored does nto require a parade either.

And btw, I really doubt you yourself believe that the intent of Putin/Medvedev is to honor the veterans. I think you'll agree with me that they want to cast themselves as powerful and decisive leaders, who lead one of the mightiest armies on earth. It is a feat of arms they want. Honoring the veterans is secondary to them.

That's a problem, I agree. I think the parades related to historical events should mainly center on the units which fought in these events.

Maybe, as long as these units legacies were not tainted by other events, like the crushing of the fifties uprisings or the occupation of Eastern Europe, Chechyna etc. Because otherwise you leave yourself open to the charge of honoring those parts as well.

Stas Bush wrote:On the other hand, some American movies portray war as natural to people.

Actually, it appears that war is fairly natural to humans; there are plenty of prehistoric middens filled with human bones that have been butchered like animals, while our ancestors were manufacturing maces (a weapon designed solely for killing other humans; they're useless for hunting) over 12,000 years ago. Further, our closest relatives, chimpanzees, regularly engage in coalitional violence against rival groups and commit what can only be described as atrocities against their victims (dismemberment, genital mutliation, facial mutliation, children are cannibalized). Evidence strongly suggests warfare is natural to humans.

Thanas wrote:Why? The parades as a whole are just as much an outpouring of nationalistic and militaristic feelings, even moreso than the existence of units who were known to be used nearly exclusively for colonial purposes.

This really is the core of your argument here. You seem to have the idea that it is somehow bad to display ones national pride and militarism for some reason. I mean, when you say stuff like this:

In any case, how does this in any way change my argument? That the parade is providing a counterpoint to remembering the suffering by focusing exclusively on how awesome the weapons are? How is militarism any good in the context of WWII?

In short, it looks to me more like the parade is politically used nowadays to focus on militarism and nationalism to keep the populace semi-happy and make it proud of its leadership than with actually remembering the war.

When you say stuff like that, you say it like it's a bad thing. Worse yet, you say it in a way that assumes that it being a bad thing goes without saying. Would you care to elaborate why?

Like, why is it bad for a modern Russian/Frenchman/American/Englishman to display their pride of their country and it's might in public on a parade? And why is it bad for a country to motivate it's people from time to time by glorifying its own past and present and showing off new hardware.

I mean, I understand what you are saying. Somehow, you see in that all sort of nasty things like glorifying the evils in history. I just don't get why. Do you seriously believe that the French are marching those particular units out there on purpose to stick it to the world how they were colonizers and they like it? And do you seriously believed that becouse those units were deployed in the colonies it somehow makes them tainted forever? If so, I have to ask why on both counts.


Parades in particular are not about glorifying the evils of the past but about stepping out and telling others (but most importantly them self) that they are still strong and alive. It's just nation level chest pounding. I don't understand why you see evil in that.

Purple wrote:When you say stuff like that, you say it like it's a bad thing. Worse yet, you say it in a way that assumes that it being a bad thing goes without saying. Would you care to elaborate why?

Do you need me to elaborate why nationalism is a bad thing? For once, it is closely related to racism, both historically and in practice. It celebrates the superiority of one nation over the other. It is the fodder of choice for pundits, snake-oil salesmen etc. Even further, nationalism introduced a fervor into the wars of the period it got introduced in that was unprecedented before.

But go prove me wrong - show me one nationalist country which has not oppressed others, minorities or has engaged in racist policies in the past.

Like, why is it bad for a modern Russian/Frenchman/American/Englishman to display their pride of their country and it's might in public on a parade?

In principle? It really is not that bad depending on the form of a parade. Using a parade to commemorate the victims of the greatest slaughter in modern history to promote weapons (and arms sales to other countries) however is IMO bad taste. It would be like me selling life insurance at the funeral of your grandmother.

And why is it bad for a country to motivate it's people from time to time by glorifying its own past and present and showing off new hardware.

Glorifying the past is a bad idea. It tends to interfere with a neutral view towards issues and can cause a nation to easily lose perspective and get lost in "patriotic" adventures which serve no purpose. For example, do you think the Iraqi war would have been possible in a non-militaristic nation?

Do you seriously believe that the French are marching those particular units out there on purpose to stick it to the world how they were colonizers and they like it?

I do not know if they were doing it on purpose. However, using them at the very least opens up the various associations.

And do you seriously believed that becouse those units were deployed in the colonies it somehow makes them tainted forever?

I should not have to explain that to you, but here goes: Would you feel comfortable if a unit like the Waffen-SS would parade around in Berlin, with full honours? Before you think that comparison outrageous, note that the French Foreign legion recruited nearly exclusively among former Waffen SS members to use in colonial wars like in Vietnam. If you watch footage of the battle of Dien Bien Phu, you clearly can recognize German words (some used in the SS jargon) being used as designations etc.

If a unit commits atrocities, it has lost its honour and should not be treated with respect. Especially not when it has never been thoroughly cleansed or investigated for war crimes.

It's just nation level chest pounding. I don't understand why you see evil in that.

Think closely about "nation level chest pounding" and whether it should be something that is to be embraced? Why should it be?

Thanas, several points:

1) Military parades had been a Soviet tradition since the very beginning, but they were usually held on November 7th, as in the case of the famous parade of 1941. They were NOT celebrating Victory day, but rather, the October Revolution. Obviously, this held certain expansionist connotations which were removed by moving the date of the parade to May 9th.

2) Many of the units that take part in the parade are the very same units that fought in the Great Patriotic War. The announcer would then comment on their combat history, as well as the number of decorations awarded to the members of the unit.

3) The purpose of the parade is to commemorate the victory and celebrate valor, but also to showcase the newest military technology, not only to the West, but to Russia's own people. As you remember, the Russian armed forces were in a pathetic state during the 90s, and the popular view of them had been extremely low. The parades are thus a way to show to the general populace that things are changing and that Russia is capable of defending itself and won't repeat the blunders of the First Chechen War. Moreover, it bridges the gap between the armed forces and the populace as a whole. For example, here in the US, there is almost a complete and total disconnect between the military and the people, with the military recruiting from certain areas, and the average person's exposure to it being movies and television. It has gotten so bad that US news sources routinely misidentify military equipment and make trivial mistakes because they have absolutely no understanding of these matters.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Fgalkin, thanks for the history behind the parades. I fail to see how this changes any of my points, though. I am also a bit confused about the following:

fgalkin wrote:1) Military parades had been a Soviet tradition since the very beginning, but they were usually held on November 7th, as in the case of the famous parade of 1941. They were NOT celebrating Victory day, but rather, the October Revolution. Obviously, this held certain expansionist connotations which were removed by moving the date of the parade to May 9th.

Are you saying the end of WWII did not have certain expansionist connotations? How so?

2) Many of the units that take part in the parade are the very same units that fought in the Great Patriotic War. The announcer would then comment on their combat history, as well as the number of decorations awarded to the members of the unit.

That's nice I guess, but that still sounds to me like they are celebrating victories and thus the war itself, instead of looking at the suffering. Nevermind what happened during/after some of those "glorious battles"

fgalkin wrote:3) The purpose of the parade is to commemorate the victory and celebrate valor, but also to showcase the newest military technology, not only to the West, but to Russia's own people. As you remember, the Russian armed forces were in a pathetic state during the 90s, and the popular view of them had been extremely low. The parades are thus a way to show to the general populace that things are changing and that Russia is capable of defending itself and won't repeat the blunders of the First Chechen War. Moreover, it bridges the gap between the armed forces and the populace as a whole. For example, here in the US, there is almost a complete and total disconnect between the military and the people, with the military recruiting from certain areas, and the average person's exposure to it being movies and television. It has gotten so bad that US news sources routinely misidentify military equipment and make trivial mistakes because they have absolutely no understanding of these matters.

So....it serves exactly like I thought, by fostering nationalistic sentiment and promoting militarism. How is that a good thing? It is not like people cannot be educated by other means than "This is so awesome. Look at our new ways to kill people". Especially with conscription, I would think that the average Russian (at least the males) already know a lot about their military.

Thanas wrote:Fgalkin, thanks for the history behind the parades. I fail to see how this changes any of my points, though. I am also a bit confused about the following:

fgalkin wrote:1) Military parades had been a Soviet tradition since the very beginning, but they were usually held on November 7th, as in the case of the famous parade of 1941. They were NOT celebrating Victory day, but rather, the October Revolution. Obviously, this held certain expansionist connotations which were removed by moving the date of the parade to May 9th.

Are you saying the end of WWII did not have certain expansionist connotations? How so?

I am saying that having the parade on the anniversary of the October Revolution is sending an entirely different message than having it on the anniversary of the end of a defensive war (which is what WWII was for the Soviet Union, regardless of how the victors carved up Europe afterwards). A November 7th Parade is, essentially threatening the West ("we took over one country, and we're coming for you next with all this advanced hardware"). A May 9th Parade is, on the other hand, saying "we destroyed fascism and are proud of it."

2) Many of the units that take part in the parade are the very same units that fought in the Great Patriotic War. The announcer would then comment on their combat history, as well as the number of decorations awarded to the members of the unit.

That's nice I guess, but that still sounds to me like they are celebrating victories and thus the war itself, instead of looking at the suffering. Nevermind what happened during/after some of those "glorious battles"

Celebrating victories is not the same as celebrating war. It's celebrating an end to war.

fgalkin wrote:3) The purpose of the parade is to commemorate the victory and celebrate valor, but also to showcase the newest military technology, not only to the West, but to Russia's own people. As you remember, the Russian armed forces were in a pathetic state during the 90s, and the popular view of them had been extremely low. The parades are thus a way to show to the general populace that things are changing and that Russia is capable of defending itself and won't repeat the blunders of the First Chechen War. Moreover, it bridges the gap between the armed forces and the populace as a whole. For example, here in the US, there is almost a complete and total disconnect between the military and the people, with the military recruiting from certain areas, and the average person's exposure to it being movies and television. It has gotten so bad that US news sources routinely misidentify military equipment and make trivial mistakes because they have absolutely no understanding of these matters.

So....it serves exactly like I thought, by fostering nationalistic sentiment and promoting militarism. How is that a good thing? It is not like people cannot be educated by other means than "This is so awesome. Look at our new ways to kill people". Especially with conscription, I would think that the average Russian (at least the males) already know a lot about their military.

Actually, there is a lot of draft dodging precisely because of the popular impression that the armed forces are corrupt, incompetent, and the abuse of soldiers is commonplace. The Parade is targeted at combating this impression by showing how the military is modern, efficient, and emphasizing reforms (the announcer on Channel 1 spent some time on the reorganization of the military districts, the streamlining of command and control, etc). The unspoken assumption is that we must make the military "worthy" of the veterans of WWII, so we won't piss away their sacrifices through insufficient force of arms.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Serafina wrote:Just for the record, i am conceding my argument. While i think that there is some merit to it, it is clearly not a comprehensive model of the causality of atrocities in war.

The Authoritarians has a good description of just how people can come to fall in line with fascism and these sorts of atrocities. Sociopaths and narcissists tend to seek power, and they are an important factor. What enables them, however, are the authoritarians - people who want to be told what to do. Either because they have that natural inclination, are frightened, or are desperate. These can make up anywhere from 10% of a population to 90% of a population depending on upbringing and situation.

Here is a video of the highlights from last year's Victory Day parade. You can see troops wearing WWII-era uniforms, the banners of the Soviet Fronts, and contingents of Allied and CIS troops. I think it's pretty clear that the purpose of the parade is to commemorate the victory, and not "RAR nationalism!"



This year, the parade had been more traditional, but you still got the same commemorative vibe with the veterans in the stands, etc.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

fgalkin wrote:I think it's pretty clear that the purpose of the parade is to commemorate the victory, and not "RAR nationalism!"

They are not mutually excluse you know. Given Russia today and the USSR back then I'd say that they are of course most definately nationalistic.

It's a rare military parade that isn't RAR nationalism...

fgalkin wrote:I am saying that having the parade on the anniversary of the October Revolution is sending an entirely different message than having it on the anniversary of the end of a defensive war (which is what WWII was for the Soviet Union, regardless of how the victors carved up Europe afterwards). A November 7th Parade is, essentially threatening the West ("we took over one country, and we're coming for you next with all this advanced hardware"). A May 9th Parade is, on the other hand, saying "we destroyed fascism and are proud of it."

I fail to see how one is mutually exclusive of the other. And if it were about celebrating the destruction of fascism, why have modern weapons in it?

Celebrating victories is not the same as celebrating war. It's celebrating an end to war.

And the end of war had no negative connotations for the people of the conquered territories? And I am pretty sure the parade does in fact aim to enhance national pride as well as loyalty of the people.

The unspoken assumption is that we must make the military "worthy" of the veterans of WWII, so we won't piss away their sacrifices through insufficient force of arms.

So....it functions exactly like I outlined above, how the modern day military is supposed to be the "worthy successor" of the Red Army. Forgive me if that does not exactly fills me with confidence, seeing the record of the Red Army is a pretty bad one.

Thanas wrote:
I fail to see how one is mutually exclusive of the other. And if it were about celebrating the destruction of fascism, why have modern weapons in it?

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.

And the end of war had no negative connotations for the people of the conquered territories? And I am pretty sure the parade does in fact aim to enhance national pride as well as loyalty of the people.

It doesn't change the fact that the parade is celebrating the end of a war which killed 27 million Soviet citizens. 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.

So....it functions exactly like I outlined above, how the modern day military is supposed to be the "worthy successor" of the Red Army. Forgive me if that does not exactly fills me with confidence, seeing the record of the Red Army is a pretty bad one.

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.


Edit: Man, this comic is spot-on!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Thanas wrote:Do you need me to elaborate why nationalism is a bad thing? For once, it is closely related to racism, both historically and in practice. It celebrates the superiority of one nation over the other. It is the fodder of choice for pundits, snake-oil salesmen etc. Even further, nationalism introduced a fervor into the wars of the period it got introduced in that was unprecedented before.

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.

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. It's not like they have Chechen prisoners in the parade being mocked by everyone and shown as subhuman enemies or like they burn American flags. That would be nationalism.


There is a big difference between the two that you don't seem to acknowledge.

In principle? It really is not that bad depending on the form of a parade. Using a parade to commemorate the victims of the greatest slaughter in modern history to promote weapons (and arms sales to other countries) however is IMO bad taste. It would be like me selling life insurance at the funeral of your grandmother.

But they are not commemorating the victims with the parade. The parade commemorates the strength and sacrifice of the soviet people in beating back the enemy. The act of taking their fist and putting it through the German face and beating Hitler back where he came from.

Glorifying the past is a bad idea. It tends to interfere with a neutral view towards issues and can cause a nation to easily lose perspective and get lost in "patriotic" adventures which serve no purpose. For example, do you think the Iraqi war would have been possible in a non-militaristic nation?

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. Especially if the country is not even the one that existed at the time. 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 do not know if they were doing it on purpose. However, using them at the very least opens up the various associations.

This reminds me of an essay Mr. Wong wrote on the opening page about racism in Star Wars. The whole idea of people seeing stereotypes where there are none.

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?

I should not have to explain that to you, but here goes: Would you feel comfortable if a unit like the Waffen-SS would parade around in Berlin, with full honours?

No, not really. If the SS had been reformed after the war, their leadership changed and 50 years passed since every member that participate in the atrocities was long dead or at least retired than the units marching down Berlin would have nothing in common with the ones of that age save for the banners.

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.

Before you think that comparison outrageous, note that the French Foreign legion recruited nearly exclusively among former Waffen SS members to use in colonial wars like in Vietnam. If you watch footage of the battle of Dien Bien Phu, you clearly can recognize German words (some used in the SS jargon) being used as designations etc.

Unless those men are alive and marching down the streets of Paris now I don't see how this is relevant.

If a unit commits atrocities, it has lost its honour and should not be treated with respect. Especially not when it has never been thoroughly cleansed or investigated for war crimes.

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?

Think closely about "nation level chest pounding" and whether it should be something that is to be embraced? Why should it be?

Becouse it's a good fun thing to do, a cheap way to motivate the population and it hurts no one? There is no harm in walking out on the street and shouting: Look at me I am great.

You thou seem to think that anyone who does that will automatically go and beat someone else up by the logic of: "I am great so I can beat others up becouse they are less great than me." Honestly, does that sound logical to you?

To be fair, Purple, one of the reasons for having parades is to instill a sense of historical pride in the units: this is why the same tank divisions that fought the Nazis are the ones that parade in Moscow. It is a part of these units' history that they fought the Germans, and the history of the unit itself is one of the things that is being paraded.

If a unit is sufficiently associated with atrocities, in an indelible way, then yes, it is reasonable to disband the unit and not resurrect it: this is what was done with the SS, and rightly so.

But other nations, and other armies, have a far more mixed history.

Thanas wrote:Because every nation in Europe is in favor of invading Russia?

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

Thanas wrote:And btw, you could make that argument about nearly every European nation, which are all creations of bloodshed.

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? Not with parades, maybe, but still, it makes quite a bit of sense.

Thanas wrote:Germany also owes its very existence to military means. And we - as a nation - came much closer to the brink of destruction and were indeed divided. I fail to see why one nation can abandon militarism while the other cannot. It is not as if Germans are inherently morally superior.

What? Germany came closer to the brink of destruction than Eastern Europe's nations? That's, frankly, impossible, unless you mean the Morgenthau Plan. Being divided is not "destruction", by that logic separating the Russian Empire into Poland and Russia was "destroying" it.

Thanas wrote:Few? I think for most of the medieval history "Russia" was invaded to be subjugated and colonized. Then there was the period up to the 18th century when Russians were mostly aggressors followed by Russian colonialism and panslavism, which might color the perspective a bit, but "Russia" like any weak nation (which did not even exist then) was always the target for colonialism. I do remember lists from the middle ages given away the market prices for captured Rus etc. after all. And I think extermination is a bit of a better description than colonization at least as to WWII...the two are not exclusive, yes, but extermination seems to me to be the more important part of the issue.

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.

Thanas wrote:Still, I feel that as it currently stands, the Parade is less about "Remember the sad, sad times of the war and always remember the follies of nationalism and racism". ... The deterrent argument seems especially bad because nearly everybody in the world already pretty much knows the Russians have a deterrent etc.

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.

Thanas wrote:If that was the original purpose and they excluded units that had a bad reputation, I'd have no troubles with that. However, I doubt they did (Stalin being the ruthless mass murderer he was and the rest of them were not that much better).

The original purpose was for the forces which fought in the war to pass through Red Square in a parade order. I don't think it either specifically included or excluded units which had bad reputation (after all, Soviet forces didn't have any Einsatztruppen, the misdeeds weren't concentrated to special units like 731, etc.). A similar parade was held in Britain, by the way.

Thanas wrote:Do you also agree with the parade being a constant source of aggression and fear for other people in Eastern Europe? They do not see the Russian Army commemorating the veterans. They do instead see young nationalistic people marching, with all those shiny new toys that just scream "We can overrun you again" to them. I mean, yes, the Poles are very nationalistic themselves, but they got a point when they refused the invitations to visit. ... And nationalism in Russia, even neo-nazism, is heavily on the rise as well. Is it necessary to fan the flames of that with great patriotic displays?

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"? 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.

Thanas wrote:I agree that soldiers who fought in the war (and did not committ atrocities) definitely deserve commemoration. However, what prevents them from honoring the soldiers themselves? It is not necessary to show new weapons to do that. Just lying a wreath and/or having veterans honored does nto require a parade either. And btw, I really doubt you yourself believe that the intent of Putin/Medvedev is to honor the veterans. I think you'll agree with me that they want to cast themselves as powerful and decisive leaders, who lead one of the mightiest armies on earth. It is a feat of arms they want. Honoring the veterans is secondary to them.

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.

Thanas wrote:Maybe, as long as these units legacies were not tainted by other events, like the crushing of the fifties uprisings or the occupation of Eastern Europe, Chechyna etc. Because otherwise you leave yourself open to the charge of honoring those parts as well.

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

Thanas wrote:Would you feel comfortable if a unit like the Waffen-SS would parade around in Berlin, with full honours? Before you think that comparison outrageous, note that the French Foreign legion recruited nearly exclusively among former Waffen SS members to use in colonial wars like in Vietnam. If you watch footage of the battle of Dien Bien Phu, you clearly can recognize German words (some used in the SS jargon) being used as designations etc. If a unit commits atrocities, it has lost its honour and should not be treated with respect. Especially not when it has never been thoroughly cleansed or investigated for war crimes.

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.

Thanas wrote:But go prove me wrong - show me one nationalist country which has not oppressed others, minorities or has engaged in racist policies in the past.

There isn't, because all nationalist countries, regardless of what they are now, have opressed others and engaged in racism. You could argue that nationalism was much more common before the XX century, especially before the post-war period. In fact, it was almost universally common. All countries were nationalist.

Actually, let me further explain the original point of the Moscow parade:

24 May,1945, A. I. Antonov, Chief of General Staff wrote:The Supreme Commander-in-Chief ordered:
1. For taking part in the Moscow Parade in honor of victory over Germany, a combined regiment shall be formed by each front.
...
5. The personnel for taking part in the Parade is to be selected from among the officers and men who distinguished themselves the most in action and hold combat decorations.

Stalin's order wrote:...Marching on parade shall be combined regiments of the fronts, a combined regiment of the People’s Commissariat of Defense, a combined regiment of the Navy, military academies, military schools and the troops of the Moscow Garrison.

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.