24 ms·
Russia's sacred myths
- tsukikage 10y ago...seriously, BBC? "War flick not historically accurate" is news now? Are we going to get an article this length for every similar film Hollywood has spat out?
- kozak 10y ago"1984 becoming reality" is actually the news. It's not about the movie as such. The bottom part of the article tells us about someone who it being severely fined for stating a well-known historical fact, because according to the official Russian propaganda, this well-known fact (USSR initiating the WW2 together with Germans) is not considered to be truth in Russia.
- offa 10y agoAm Russian, can confirm. I actually had an argument about that with a friend of mine a few days ago, in his eyes (and many other Russians both home and abroad) we are the ones who have saved the world while the Allies stood by and watched. The notion is deeply engrained in the Russian cultural memory now, and seeing how WW2 is still tremendously important to the majority of the population I do not see it changing any time soon.
- EliRivers 10y agoHow do they square this with the Soviet Union and their Nazi allies jointly invading Poland? Does that get glossed over? I recall that recently someone was in legal trouble in Russia for suggesting that the invasion of Poland was a joint effort between the Soviet Union and Germany.
- konart 10y agoUsually people just don't think about this as they view Poland as almost "ours" territory. Same for baltics\ua etc. Not to mention that usually this is viewed not as invasion, but a needed act to stop Nazis.
- shuntress 10y agoI do believe there is some truth to that. Its too complex to make a serious judgement that "The Russians could have won on their own". Though it does seem clear that making an enemy of Russia was a bigger mistake than making an enemy of the USA. The losses sustained by Russia during that time are absolutely staggering and probably contribute to the "Are you guys even helping at all?" line of thought.
- Koshkin 10y agoIt is easy to come to blaming others for something that is, to a high degree, one's own fault. Much of the losses sustained by the Soviets during the war were due to the pitiless practice of a forced sacrificing of soldiers' lives in trying to achieve military objectives. All sides were doing that, but nothing can be compared to the scale on which it was practiced by the Soviet military command.
- emp_zealoth 10y agoStalin also murdered a lot of competent officials/generals/officers (they were percieved a threat to his totalitarian power) so the military in big part was run by people who didn't know any better...doesn't excuse the massive losses ofc
- wbl 10y agoAnd the alternative would be to have the line break. The Germans were within miles of all of of Moscow, besieged Leningrad for months, and we all know about Stalingrad and the attempt to cross the Volga. Losing would have unthinkable consequences, and the casualties were also due to German executions of POWs.
- ptaipale 10y agoIt was not always just desperately holding the line. There was definitely an aspect of actually exterminating unwanted elements by sending them to missions that couldn't be accomplished or which could only be accomplished through overwhelming losses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtrafbat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtrafbat
- Koshkin 10y ago> stood by and watched I don't know where you got that. You should read up on the history of the war and learn a bit about all the fierce fighting in Western Europe (including the time when the Soviets were being friends of Hitler's).
- watt 10y agoThis [lie] is what was taught in Soviet schools. That's where he (and all other Russians) got that.
- quirkafleeg 10y ago> This [lie] is what was taught in Soviet schools. That's where he (and all other Russians) got that. Do you have a source for that claim, because I find it unlikely that Soviet schools taught that their wartime allies just "stood back and watched" during WWII. I find it more likely that the Soviets simply focused on their own experience of WWII, exactly as every other country involved does. For example, I seriously doubt much time, if any, was given in Cold War American schools to the effort and sacrifice of the Soviet Union in defeating Hitler. Indeed, given the way Americans (and American movies) love to portray the USA as saving everyone's ass in WWII, it wouldn't surprise me if every country other than the USA is largely ignored in American teaching on WWII.
- Koshkin 10y agoA book by Antony Bevoor seems to be a pretty balanced account of most of the more or less important events - balanced, as evidenced from the outrage by many reviewers, both American and Russian. Highly recommended as a well-written introductory text on the history of the war.
- ptaipale 10y agoYes, "lie" is a strong word here, and Soviets focused on their own experience, but still the teaching of that focus was somewhat selective. Naturally Soviet schools did put a lot weight on the sacrifices of Soviet soldiers to battle Germany. That is reasonable. But they stayed very quiet about other aspects of the suffering of Soviets and others. I mean things like: - the happy co-operation of Nazis and Soviets prior to the war (e.g. providing training grounds for Panzers, teaching Nazis how to run an extermination camp) - the secret protocol of Molotov-Ribbentrob pact (spheres of influence dividing Poland, Baltic countries and Finland) - the invasions to Poland, Baltics and Finland (common parade in Brest-Litovsk, staged shelling at Mainila to start Winter War) - the massacre of Polish officers and intelligentsia (Katyn Forest and Vasili Blokhin's work) - overall, the magnitude of the Great Purges and the GULAG It's not strictly speaking a lie that teaching was silent about these. But selecting what facts you talk about and what you don't talk about effectively denies truth. Particularly when there is little freedom of press and other ways to complement the knowledge after what was taught at school. Yes, of course other nations have similar blind spots; those of the Soviet system just were rather large spots, comparatively.
- tezza 10y agoWhilst the Allies were very active participants, WW2 was in the end won by overwhelming Russian force. The Allies like to fancy themselves as the saviors, but without Russia fighting back the war would have gone the other way.
- TheCoelacanth 10y agoRemove any of the major participants from the winning side and the war likely would have gone the other way.
- noonespecial 10y agoIts a kind of category error I see all the time: Couldn't have done it without me != All because of me.
- gozur88 10y agoI'm not convinced the Russians couldn't have done it on their own provided you don't take the conflict between the US and Japan out of the equation, i.e. that Japan didn't attack Vladivostok as Hitler was pushing them to do.
- TheCoelacanth 10y agoFirst of all, Russia wouldn't have had a prayer without the non-Russian parts of the USSR. The USSR could maybe have done it without help from ground combat troops from other countries. They definitely couldn't have done it without any help at all. Without the UK's navy cutting off Axis shipping and without aerial warfare against the UK eating up a huge amount of resources, there would have been far more resources committed to the war against the USSR. Without lend-lease from the US, the USSR would have had extreme shortages of equipment.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- marcosdumay 10y ago> "1984 becoming reality" is actually the news. The book was mainly inspired by the Soviet Union and China. Russia acting this way is more news in the "let's not forget" sense than in the "new" sense.
- quirkafleeg 10y agoActually 1984 was inspired by a book written (and banned) in Soviet Russia, We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin.
- open_bear 10y agoOfficial propaganda exists in every country: you don't see Britain or France of Poland taking blame for letting Hitler run amok in Europe, do you? It's always the "Commies". Just a quick historical recap of what was happening prior to the September the 1st, 1939. After Hitler comes to power and starts hidden re-militarization of the Germany, Britain, France and Poland do nothing, silently looking how American and Sweden companies are building guns and ships for the Germany. In 1938 Hitler demands control of the Sudetenland(part of Czechoslovakia). USSR starts negotiations with Britain, France and Poland willing to use army to protect Czechoslovakia. Poland refuses to let Soviet troops through its territory. Negotiations are artificially prolonged by Britain. Munich agreement is signed by the Britain, France and Germany, and Hitler gets a nice gift in a form of Czechoslovakia (you never see Britain and France talking about this, do you?). On the 1st of September, 1939, Hitler invades Poland (Britain and France did not help their 'ally' in the slightest). USSR invades Poland 16 days later, when Poland ceased to exist as a sovereign state. There were two pragmatic choices for the USSR: let Germany capture all the Poland and have their border be right at the gate, or prepare for the inevitable war with the Germany by capturing additional territory. No one in the USSR believed that Hitler will be a nice neighbor - there were a lot of information available on the Germany's descent into Nazism. There is a similar story with Finland: USSR wanted to move their border further from the Leningrad (it was ~10-20 kilometers), because Leningrad is a major industrial center. USSR pragmatically wanted to trade territory with Finland, giving them a lot of land in exchange for that border shift. Finland refused. USSR was left with two choices: leave the border near your second largest city for an inevitable war (Finland was pro-Nazi) or solve this problem while Hitler is busy with France.
- flukus 10y agoI always see the appeasement get blamed, not the commies.
- dutchie_ok 10y agoAnd it had nothing to do with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac... :]
- antocv 10y agoThis is such blatant disgusting propaganda. Russia has myths, Soviet mythology etc, which accidently happened yesterday in historical terms. Real western democratic freedom loving surveilling states have history and fact checking.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- grabcocque 10y agoEvery nation has its own foundational myths. God knows the way Americans mythologize their founding fathers to so far beyond the bounds of credibility doesn't bother them.
- shuntress 10y agoLet me first couch this by saying I agree it is dangerous and counter-productive to mythologize history beyond the bounds of credibility, and that it certainly does happen in this context. But what was accomplished by the American 'Founding Fathers' was extraordinary and some of them were truly exceptional people. Not in a Ra-Ra Blind Patriotism way. Just look at the choices they made and the scope and magnitude of the results of their actions.
- pmalynin 10y agoMeh. "what was accomplished by the American 'Founding Fathers' was extraordinary" actually what they achieved was a bit of a cop-out, in fact T. Jefferson helped draft the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which was a much more progressive document in scope and content. That is, so much more could have been accomplished in social, cultural, and political terms. I mean having things like "Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others" and "The society has the right of requesting account from any public agent of its administration" or "Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured, nor the separation of powers determined, has no Constitution" directly in the consituion instead of The Three-Fifth Compromise shows what each society finds important and necessary to be enshrined in the Constitution.
- cfmcdonald 10y agoThe Constitution actually succeeded as the basis for a stable, lasting government for 80 years. The Declaration of the Rights of Man was an idealistic credo that was never the basis for French government policy and was made a mockery of by the Terror.
- shuntress 10y ago
- thr234234 10y agoPost-soviet countries are very sensitive to WW2 history. Similar thing on west would be to question, how many people died in Holocaust. > In January 2014, independent liberal broadcaster Dozhd TV came under attack. It was accused of smearing the memory of WW2 veterans by asking whether residents of wartime Leningrad could have been saved by surrendering the city to Nazi forces. Zero? Germans were planning genocide to get their Lebensraum > The public discussion of WW2 history has also been curbed by a controversial 2014 law against the rehabilitation of Nazism. omg
- ptaipale 10y agoZero doesn't sound like a reasonable expectation. Elsewhere, conquered Soviet civilians and POWs suffered horribly, but not everyone was killed. However, a more reasonable question is whether a timely evacuation of Leningrad would have saved more of the residents. Stalin intentionally left much of the civilian population in the siege. And it is indeed a problem if a law "against rehabilitation of nazism" is used for silencing honest, civilized discussion about WW2 history.
- open_bear 10y ago> Zero doesn't sound like a reasonable expectation. No it does. German documents clearly say "if they try to flee the city - shoot them". Hitler had specific plans to destroy it completely after the war. > but not everyone was killed. Out of 27 million deaths only 8 millions were combatants. Do the math on civilians. > is whether a timely evacuation of Leningrad Leningrad is a major industrial and cultural center, second city in the USSR, its loss would've dealt a colossal moral blow to the Soviet people. It also tied a lot of Nazi forces, that could've been used elsewhere (i.e. Stalingrad battle). > Stalin intentionally left much of the civilian population in the siege. No he didn't. Siege started in September, only 3 months after Nazis attacked. It is not possible to evacuate 3+ million city in such a short time. 659,000 were evacuated before the siege began, and 30,000 after. Many people didn't want to leave their homes. > is used for silencing honest, civilized discussion about WW2 history. No it is not.
- 10y ago
- strictnein 10y agoIf you want a deep (and I mean deeeeeeep) dive into where some of this comes from - "Eurasianism": Black Wind, White Snow: The Rise of Russia's New Nationalism https://www.amazon.com/Black-Wind-White-Snow-Nationalism/dp/0300120702/ https://www.amazon.com/Black-Wind-White-Snow-Nationalism/dp/... > "According to the Soviet mythology, 28 soldiers from the Red Army's 316th Rifle Division, mainly recruits from the Kazakh and Kyrgyz Soviet republics" Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are both part of the Eurasian Steppe which play a big role in this invented history of Eurasianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Steppe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Steppe
- guard-of-terra 10y agoBut it's not Russian nationalism, it's pan-sovietism.
- navait 10y agoAn interesting analogy to this is Stalin and the film Ivan the Terrible. Stalin commissioned the film because he admired Tsar Ivan, and thought of himself in his mold. His version of Ivan was a great man who was surrounded by corrupt boyars intending to sell out Russia, and only he has the strength to unite the country against them. Ivan is loved by the common people, but hated by the sophisticated, "europeanized" nobility, who are traitors. Stalin loved Part I, but was unhappy with Part II, since it didn't fit his myth of Ivan. He banned the film and nearly had the director, Sergei Eisenstein executed.
- geoka9 10y ago> His version of Ivan was a great man who was surrounded by corrupt boyars intending to sell out Russia, and only he has the strength to unite the country against them. This is exactly what the "public"[1] public opinion is in Russia nowadays - Putin is talked about with respect, while his friends and local authorities all over the country are believed to by corrupt. Of course this suits Putin because people never blame him for anything, only his subordinates. [1] There's no way to know the "real" public opinion because people are reluctant to talk honestly about these things with random interviewers.
- DominikR 10y agoYou might be surprised to find that many Russian emperors who are viewed in a positive light in the West are viewed negatively in Russia and vice versa to this day. It is actually quite logical since Russia and the West often have had conflicting interests for centuries. What was good for Russia was often bad for the West and what's good for the West was often bad for Russia. Current example: Putin. (not an exactly an emperor but certainly in power for decades) Insane support in Russia from the common people and viciously vilified by Western elites and media. (for common people though it is mixed here, they are not in a conflict with Putin)
- triplesec 10y agoThis is mostly because there is no free press in Russia since Putin ascended to the throne, and the elections are all fixed.
- judiso 10y agoBruce Willis is the one who has bitten Germany in World War 2, America believes in that.
- judiso 10y ago(del)
- guard-of-terra 10y ago...but it's a Soviet myth, not a Russian one. Unfortunately there's not too much people who feel the difference.
- ommunist 10y agoThe Labour leader was recently fired off her office and quite literally ostracyzed for a glimpse of thought expressed orthogonally to mainstream Holocaust propaganda in the UK. So I guess there are many systems of self-censorships, political taboos and all this is for public good. It does not matter what people believe in, if you are maintaining system of these beliefs. In Russia it is WW2, in the US it is "everyone can become a millionaire", and so on. It is rather pointless to play anything on the field of managed public opinion, where the BBC is one of the major players