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.