Russia tread

[obyknven]

[Malcador]

Russians look grumpy a lot.

[Walsingham]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25589709

 

Yeah I saw that. Hard to understand a regime so utterly devoid of human feeling that it would plow its own war dead into unmarked graves. But then this is the same glorious 'future humanity' that treated returned prisoners of war as political criminals.

 

So while I ca understand burying a man in the flag he fought under, burying these men in a communist style ceremony might offend a great many of them.

[Tagaziel]

So while I ca understand burying a man in the flag he fought under, burying these men in a communist style ceremony might offend a great many of them.

Especially if they were from the penal battalion.

[Malcador]

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25589709

 

Yeah I saw that. Hard to understand a regime so utterly devoid of human feeling that it would plow its own war dead into unmarked graves. But then this is the same glorious 'future humanity' that treated returned prisoners of war as political criminals.

 

So while I ca understand burying a man in the flag he fought under, burying these men in a communist style ceremony might offend a great many of them.

 

Eh, forget it. Still asleep.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Malcador

[Zoraptor]

There are a metric asteriskload of war dead still unburied in Belgium, France and Turkey (eg you can barely go anywhere on the Gallipoli battlefields without finding/ seeing bones) yet somehow that is not a sign of the inhumanity of those countries- indeed many of the battlefields are regularly ploughed in Belgium and France. And the war dead from those battles was... half the total Russian war dead from WW2? if you include every single Empire, French and German casualty from every front? 25 million Russians dead in WW2, wasn't it? Over an area the size of the entirety of Western Europe plus a bit. I mean, I understand that the BBC Russian service has an axe to grind with respect to the British policy of demonising Russia, and they're concerned their money will be further cut if they don't follow it but if I see a line of trees in a depression, in an old battlefield I see a bunch of people who were sheltering from fire, and then provided nutrients for trees.

 

I don't see some conspiracy of uncaring brutality just because it fits my preconceptions, something I'm very glad about. I'm a right cynic, but if there's one thing the Russians have always done well it is remembering their war dead even if it isn't always practical to honour them as we may try to.

 

Still, very nice that they're getting buried.

 

(Personally, I'd rather stay in the forest)

[Tagaziel]

There are a metric asteriskload of war dead still unburied in Belgium, France and Turkey (eg you can barely go anywhere on the Gallipoli battlefields without finding/ seeing bones) yet somehow that is not a sign of the inhumanity of those countries- indeed many of the battlefields are regularly ploughed in Belgium and France. And the war dead from those battles was... half the total Russian war dead from WW2? if you include every single Empire, French and German casualty from every front? 25 million Russians dead in WW2, wasn't it? Over an area the size of the entirety of Western Europe plus a bit. I mean, I understand that the BBC Russian service has an axe to grind with respect to the British policy of demonising Russia, and they're concerned their money will be further cut if they don't follow it but if I see a line of trees in a depression, in an old battlefield I see a bunch of people who were sheltering from fire, and then provided nutrients for trees.

 

I don't see some conspiracy of uncaring brutality just because it fits my preconceptions, something I'm very glad about. I'm a right cynic, but if there's one thing the Russians have always done well it is remembering their war dead even if it isn't always practical to honour them as we may try to.

 

Still, very nice that they're getting buried.

 

(Personally, I'd rather stay in the forest)

The difference being that the Soviet Union was a brutal, totalitarian regime well known for its secrecy and tendency to bury evidence of anything contrary to its ideology. Even the worst of the western empires pales when compared with the SovUnion's "accomplishments."

 

Agree with the general point, though.

[Walsingham]

There are a metric asteriskload of war dead still unburied in Belgium, France and Turkey (eg you can barely go anywhere on the Gallipoli battlefields without finding/ seeing bones) yet somehow that is not a sign of the inhumanity of those countries- indeed many of the battlefields are regularly ploughed in Belgium and France. And the war dead from those battles was... half the total Russian war dead from WW2? if you include every single Empire, French and German casualty from every front? 25 million Russians dead in WW2, wasn't it? Over an area the size of the entirety of Western Europe plus a bit. I mean, I understand that the BBC Russian service has an axe to grind with respect to the British policy of demonising Russia, and they're concerned their money will be further cut if they don't follow it but if I see a line of trees in a depression, in an old battlefield I see a bunch of people who were sheltering from fire, and then provided nutrients for trees.

 

I don't see some conspiracy of uncaring brutality just because it fits my preconceptions, something I'm very glad about. I'm a right cynic, but if there's one thing the Russians have always done well it is remembering their war dead even if it isn't always practical to honour them as we may try to.

 

Still, very nice that they're getting buried.

 

(Personally, I'd rather stay in the forest)

 

Nice to see you couldn't be arsed to read the article. Just launched into a little diatribe about the BBC. They specifically state that - in the opinion of the people trying to inter the dead properly - there was a deliberate policy of kicking over the traces.

 

If have any idea how hard the war graves commission works to try and find and preserve war graves on across Allied operations... Sure some get missed and are ploughed up. But huge efforts were made to avoid it.

[Zoraptor]

Meh, I have little practical problem with the BBC, it isn't like RT doesn't go the exact other way with their coverage- but the beeb's anti-russian stance is about as obvious. Not much change since Ivan Grozny there.

 

But, if you had the same article, minus comments, and it wasn't known to be Russian the immediate presumption would not be some sort of conspiracy to cover things up, indeed the Russians are actively proud of their contribution to winning WW2 and there's barely a hamlet without some sort of war memorial, same as every village here has a 'lest we forget' to the poor chaps we sent over to fertilise random fields in Belgium/ Egypt/ Crete/ Turkey/ Italy etc. Every once in a while we get some moron complain about the Turks not doing enough about collecting out war dead and it's utterly embarrassing and actively makes me cringe. You simply cannot dig up and catalogue everyone from Gallipoli and it's... quarter of a million dead, in a tiny area of static warfare, not multiple millions in an area greater than the size of the entire WW1 Ottoman Empire, almost all of which was actively fought over in fluid battles.

 

If I hear that there are bodies in furrows with trees growing through them my immediate thought is that they took what shelter they could- a sensible military precaution- and that any seeds near their bodies grow faster due to the improved nutrients. I also think that returning them to forest is about the best thing that can be done, practically, and if there's any moral qualm about that then there has to be about the western practices of farming over battlefields (note, I don't have a problem with either, dead is dead either way). What exactly the practical alternatives were for the Russians I'm not quite sure, and that is papered over in the article in favour of a call to emotion. And I really wish they hadn't done that because it cheapens the whole thing unnecessarily.

 

So yes, I had a rather bad reaction to that element of the article.

[Walsingham]

Well, you make a good case for your initial reaction. And I can't object to your empathising with the poor bastards.

 

But you're not focussing in enough by saying the Russians are proud of their war. Yes, the Russian people are. But the State was not the people. Which is the core monstrous presumption of communism. It's a state for the people, where the last thing they trust or listen to is the people.

[Malcador]

Heh, and the other side is much different.

[Monte Carlo]

I don't really pick up an anti-Russian bias on the BBC. And trust me, I'm deeply attuned to the BBC's inherent bias(es) and would scrap it tomorrow.

 

The facts about Russia are incontrovertible - it is a deeply illiberal, corrupt kleptocracy, run by a sinister former intelligence officer who served a murderous dictatorship. Journalists are harassed, racism is rife, Gay people are marginalised by government diktat.

 

Although seeing those soap-dodgers get Spetznatzed up in the Arctic was epic lolocopter stuff.

[alanschu]

It's funny because I didn't actually read the whole article (quickly skimmed over parts).  The discussion here made me realize there was a bit more to the article than just a story about digging up the dead....

 

 

It is interesting though because my pragmatism mostly just feels "The dead don't care."  Especially when talking about things like "being unknown is nothing to be proud of."  Although speaking for myself, I certainly get the feels reading up on the various acts of bravery and determination (Reading Shattered Sword right now, actually) so I don't think I'm just lacking in empathy.

 

 

 

 

I don't really pick up an anti-Russian bias on the BBC. And trust me, I'm deeply attuned to the BBC's inherent bias(es) and would scrap it tomorrow.

 

The facts about Russia are incontrovertible - it is a deeply illiberal, corrupt kleptocracy, run by a sinister former intelligence officer who served a murderous dictatorship. Journalists are harassed, racism is rife, Gay people are marginalised by government diktat.

 

Although seeing those soap-dodgers get Spetznatzed up in the Arctic was epic lolocopter stuff.

 

People tend to not perceive biases when they are in alignment with one's world view.

Edited January 16, 2014 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

But you're not focussing in enough by saying the Russians are proud of their war. Yes, the Russian people are. But the State was not the people. Which is the core monstrous presumption of communism. It's a state for the people, where the last thing they trust or listen to is the people.

Eh, I dunno. Most of the war memorials here are effectively maintained by volunteers (some by local councils), with only one being a state memorial so far as I am aware. I don't think that makes any practical difference to how they're thought of, and I'm pretty sure most of the soviet war memorials were directly state funded. Immediately after the war there may have been some attempts to bury issues especially given Stalin, but then again it was only a week or so ago we had a certain British minister complaining about people being taught that the Brit leadership in WW1 was incompetent and that being 'unpatriotic', so it's hardly a disease solely limited to Russians given that British military conduct in WW1 was... uninspired at very best, in the vast majority of cases.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The difference is in the West you're free to dig up information to the contrary, in the Soviet Union that would make you an enemy of the state. You seem to habitually miss the distinction.

[Rostere]

Immediately after the war there may have been some attempts to bury issues especially given Stalin, but then again it was only a week or so ago we had a certain British minister complaining about people being taught that the Brit leadership in WW1 was incompetent and that being 'unpatriotic', so it's hardly a disease solely limited to Russians given that British military conduct in WW1 was... uninspired at very best, in the vast majority of cases.

 

Urgh, reminds us that even in countries we view as modern we must constantly fight against the stupidity of nationalism. It really pains me to see that there are efforts to fabricate "patriotic" myths about the UK's behaviour in WW1. A lot of things keep getting better in today's world - reduced global poverty and less diseases - but this kind of reminds us that there are still dangers to steer clear of. Increased nationalism and "patriotic" myth-making is probably by far the largest threat to the EU, and one of the worst to world peace in the long run.

 

If there ever is a WW3 and there are historians alive to analyze it afterwards, they will ask themselves "When did this really begin?" and they would come to the answer that the world had started to forget WW1, replacing the narrative of war as a humanitarian catastrophe in school textbooks with that of your own nation's soldiers being without fault or blame, brave, patriotic, smart and better than the rest of the world.

[BruceVC]

 

But you're not focussing in enough by saying the Russians are proud of their war. Yes, the Russian people are. But the State was not the people. Which is the core monstrous presumption of communism. It's a state for the people, where the last thing they trust or listen to is the people.

Eh, I dunno. Most of the war memorials here are effectively maintained by volunteers (some by local councils), with only one being a state memorial so far as I am aware. I don't think that makes any practical difference to how they're thought of, and I'm pretty sure most of the soviet war memorials were directly state funded. Immediately after the war there may have been some attempts to bury issues especially given Stalin, but then again it was only a week or so ago we had a certain British minister complaining about people being taught that the Brit leadership in WW1 was incompetent and that being 'unpatriotic', so it's hardly a disease solely limited to Russians given that British military conduct in WW1 was... uninspired at very best, in the vast majority of cases.

 

 

I have to challenge your comment around the British sacrifice in WW1 being uninspired. Can you give details? The British played a huge part in the victory over Germany but they also paid a huge price. They nearly had a whole generation of men annihilated and there culture changed forever. If your point is about there war leaders then yes there was debatable incompetence but all the countries involved in WW1 had leaders who made bad decisions at times that lead to the death of thousands of there men

 

So maybe you can explain why the British performed so badly in WW1 as opposed to other countries?

[Mor]

The difference is in the West you're free to dig up information to the contrary, in the Soviet Union that would make you an enemy of the state. You seem to habitually miss the distinction.

I think that 'free to present' that information would be more accurate, especially today when everyone are 'free to dig up' anything on the internet, but it is still the Mass media that has the biggest influence on the hearts and minds.

 

 

Immediately after the war there may have been some attempts to bury issues especially given Stalin, but then again it was only a week or so ago we had a certain British minister complaining about people being taught that the Brit leadership in WW1 was incompetent and that being 'unpatriotic', so it's hardly a disease solely limited to Russians given that British military conduct in WW1 was... uninspired at very best, in the vast majority of cases.

I might be wrong, but I don't think that Walsingham said or implied that it is "solely limited" to Russians, only tried to empathize the scale of it in Russia. Edited January 17, 2014 by Mor

[Monte Carlo]

Rostere is one of my favourite posters on these forums, but like all Scandies he occasionally comes across as a bit of an ivory-tower dweller. Us barbaric, war-mongering Imperialists have never reached the level of social enlightenment that the Nords enjoy.

[Walsingham]

I'm very very happy to discuss the question of ww1 generalship, but I'd like to know what the relevance is to Russia first.

[Tagaziel]

I have to challenge your comment around the British sacrifice in WW1 being uninspired. Can you give details? The British played a huge part in the victory over Germany but they also paid a huge price. They nearly had a whole generation of men annihilated and there culture changed forever. If your point is about there war leaders then yes there was debatable incompetence but all the countries involved in WW1 had leaders who made bad decisions at times that lead to the death of thousands of there men

 

So maybe you can explain why the British performed so badly in WW1 as opposed to other countries?

I think he was more referring to the fact that the Great War was fought between brutal colonial regimes, rather than the godly white British knights and demonic German proto-Nazis.

[Zoraptor]

 

..Brit leadership in WW1 was incompetent and that being 'unpatriotic', so it's hardly a disease solely limited to Russians given that British military conduct in WW1 was... uninspired at very best, in the vast majority of cases.

 

 

I have to challenge your comment around the British sacrifice in WW1 being uninspired.. So maybe you can explain why the British performed so badly in WW1 as opposed to other countries?

 

I never said the sacrifices were uninspired, just the military conduct. The average soldier on all sides performed well in extremely unpleasant situations. For Britain, so did their designers for planes and tanks- though ironically, not ships, given their propensity for going boom at inconvenient moments.

 

But the military conduct of pretty much every country in WW1 was uninspired- mainly because you can only do what your leadership allows and most countries' leaderships decided that what was best was a ruinous waste of millions of people's lives. It was, ironically, different on the eastern front due to the sheer size of it.

 

I'm very very happy to discuss the question of ww1 generalship, but I'd like to know what the relevance is to Russia first.

Not a huge amount directly, but if there are to be accusations of Russians covering up their incompetence or whatever it is fair to compare that to what other countries do. If Gove- and as minister in charge of Ed he at least theoretically has the power to- wants WW1 turned into some sort of stirring tale of patriotism as brave Tommy Chums fight for honour and righteousness then that is air brushing the conduct and reality of the war. And that is similar to what the Russians have supposedly done with WW2. Considering how many people seem to hold to the 'Russian human wave attacks, commissars at rear to shoot retreaters' for WW2 it certainly does also bear reminding that that was, basically, the tactic on the western front for 3+ years from eminently 'humanistic' and enlightened countries.

[Walsingham]

Righto. I must preface this by saying that I think Gove is an idiot. But that doesn't mean he's always wrong.

 

I refer the honourable members to the Royal United Services Institute. If you've never heard of them, you would be very wrong to write them off as a rubber stamping bureau for the Forces. They are very open about criticising established wisdom.

 

 

The contention that the British army was ill-prepared for war in 1914, and continued to muddle through the killing zone of the industrial battlefield, while still popular, lacks credulity with most historians of the First World War. While it was inherent in the nature of industrialised mass war that casualty lists would be long - and societal trauma deep - to ascribe those wounds to the incompetence of the military practitioners, in particular higher command, has been consistently challenged by historians of the British army's battlefield performance over three decades. Rather than 'lions led by donkeys' a paradigm of 'citizens led by soldiers' deserves to be substituted.

 

LINK

 

Very interesting video on the politics of commemoration of war dead, lecture given at the US Army war college:

 

[Monte Carlo]

The Marxist interpretation of WW1 is as crude as the jingoistic one. Top-hatted imperialists from Krupps et. al smoking cigars as the working man dies in his millions to feed the imperialistic war machine, an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Please, pass the bucket.

 

The post Congress of Vienna Great Powers system kept Europe at peace for a hundred years, no mean feet. It collapsed, sure, and industrialization / imperialism of those powers is part of the reason why it collapsed (in much the same way as globalisation and comms tech is destroying the current Great Powers system). It's not the only reason. Not by a long shot.

 

German aggression started WW1. Bellicose backing of the Austro-Hungarian fringe was part of an expansionist mindset. Blame Bismarck, blame the Kaisers, blame dreadnought ****-envy, but this is unambiguously also part of the story.

 

And then we have August 1914 and a 19th century war fought by 19th century generals but with 20th century technology. Add the tinder-box of Russia in 1917 and the stage was set for the apocalypse (lit by the Germans when they sent the bacilli of Communism back into Russia via the Finland Station).

 

All we are hearing in this thread is a lazy, binary analysis. It's beneath the level of intelligence of the majority of people on this forum.

[Walsingham]

All we are hearing in this thread is a lazy, binary analysis. It's beneath the level of intelligence of the majority of people on this forum.

 

Not sure if he's talking about me... :0