8 ms·

A few things I like to keep in mind about soviet spies of this era, especially in regard to nukes. 1) The USSR was the UKs and the USs ally in WWII, and all the

A few things I like to keep in mind about soviet spies of this era, especially in regard to nukes. 1) The USSR was the UKs and the USs ally in WWII, and all the propaganda was saying as such. 2) It would not be a stretch to think that having only a single nation, no matter how benevolent, with nukes is a bad idea. There's a lot of temptation when you're the only guy with the giant mushroom cloud backing you.

lambdasquirrel 6y ago
Not to mention that Russia bore the brunt of human loss in the war for the Allies. It's quite staggering that in 1945, most people in Europe felt that the Soviet Union had done the most to defeat the Nazi regime, but that by modern day, most people think it was the U.S. To be sure, the Soviets would have lost the war if it were not for the U.S. The Russian breadbasket had been taken by the Nazis, and the retreating Russians burned everything to the ground as they gave ground. But when you look at the erasure of the Russian role in fighting the Nazis, as well as the troublesome views of leaders like Churchill, you wonder not only about Fuchs, but also about the clean version of history we're taught about that war.
- nappy 6y ago
  Is it "staggering" though? In the short term, it is more simple to point to human lives and deaths. In the longer term, the more complex contribution of industrial forces is easier to understand. At least some shift in public opinion is natural.
  - jmnicolas 6y ago
    > At least some shift in public opinion is natural. Of course propaganda has nothing to do with it /s
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  the erasure of the Russian role in fighting the Nazis, as well as the troublesome views of leaders like Churchill I'm curious as to which of Churchill's views (or acts) you think were more problematic than Stalin's. And in the aftermath of WW2, which countries prospered more, those liberated by and/or occupied by the West, or by the Soviets?
- Lio 6y ago
  I wonder how many of those deaths were down to Stalin not caring whether his own people lived or died? Having a high death toll in itself is not a sign of good leadership or self sacrifice. It’s a sign that some bugger is ordering someone else to put themselves in danger on pain of being shot if they don’t.
  - AniseAbyss 6y ago
    I find this line of reasoning strange. The USSR was invaded by evil Nazis who wanted to enslave them for a thousand years. Somehow we spin this into "Stalin didn't care". And the idea that Russians had to be forced at gunpoint to defend their country is so ludicrous and offensive I have no words.
    - jsiepkes 6y ago
      A lot of the Russian people didn't have much love for the Russian regime (ie. Stalin). The Nazi's were in a lot of places in Russia initially greeted as liberators. If the Nazi's hadn't turned out to be even more brutal then Stalin history might have taken a different path. See for example sources like: https://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/research/news-and-events/news/2018/many-russians-hoped-that-hitler-would-free-them-fr.html https://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/research/news-and-events/...
    - sassypotato 6y ago
      On the other hand the USSR allied itself with the evil Nazis so they would both invade Poland. The USSR was clearly an expansionist and imperalist power and given the gulag system reached it's peak well before the start of the war, we know Stalin did not care at all about human life.
    - thrwway34 6y ago
      That's not just an idea. Order No. 270 ordered to shoot any deserters (or anybody who's not 'organizing resistance') on the spot and promised imprisonment for families of those who surrendered to the Germans. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._270 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._270
    - 6y ago
- Craighead 6y ago
  No reason to bring up the whole communism part of the soviet union that brought a similar number of deaths to ww2
- TomMarius 6y ago
  We don't feel the US did more in terms of quantity of dead men, we know more Soviet-affiliated troops died there. However with hindsight we now know the real plan of the Soviet Union - it never was to help Europe, but to conquer it. So in conclusion the US government helped us more (and not just during the war), while the SU government sent more people to die for their shady goals here. Nobody is discounting the heroism of the individual soldiers. The sad thing is that the current Russian government is using their legacy to pursue their shady goals again.
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    That needs some serious citations. If you're saying it's evidenced by the soviet military in the Eastern block I encourage you to look at the US presence in Nato countries. I know that history in the US is largely a picture of American exceptionalism and "we were always the good guys", but actual history has many more shades of gray. This is one thing that the allies (in both parts of Germany) did reasonably well, break the circle of history as a means for teaching patriotism.
    - TomMarius 6y ago
      I know of the US presence in NATO countries and we welcome it. It is absolutely incomparable to the Warsaw Pact occupation of our country (for example, the US forces didn't shoot anybody nor ran over people with a tank) which is the reason why we welcomed the US forces and joined NATO as soon as we could after 1989. Not sure what citations should I send you, I live here (Czechia). You can probably read about it on Wikipedia, I'd do the same.
      - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
        US forces tend to do their shooting and running over in Central/South America and the Middle East. Many countries in those areas are less impressed by US benevolence. The US is an empire. So was the USSR. So are China and modern Russia. Some provinces are treated better than others, but empires are empires, and propaganda, political manipulation, corruption, violence, and torture are how they roll - together with resource capture, labour management, and various levels of market development. Europe had a notable level of propaganda and political manipulation, and still does, and not so much of the overt violence. But just because the corruption, violence and torture were happening elsewhere doesn't mean they weren't happening at all.
- thrwway34 6y ago
  If you will March your troops through minefield 'like it's not there' (e.g. Zhukov's revelations) it will definitely lead to losses.
mhh__ 6y ago
A lot of the double agents who defected did say they were doing it for vaguely benevolent reasons, although it gives me some satisfaction to say that many (e.g. Philby) died depressed, allegedly suicidal alcoholics upon facing the realities of house arrest in the Soviet Union. Aldrich Ames seems to genuinely believe that what he did is morally equivalent to doing for ideological reasons.

lambdasquirrel 6y ago

Not to mention that Russia bore the brunt of human loss in the war for the Allies. It's quite staggering that in 1945, most people in Europe felt that the Soviet Union had done the most to defeat the Nazi regime, but that by modern day, most people think it was the U.S. To be sure, the Soviets would have lost the war if it were not for the U.S. The Russian breadbasket had been taken by the Nazis, and the retreating Russians burned everything to the ground as they gave ground. But when you look at the erasure of the Russian role in fighting the Nazis, as well as the troublesome views of leaders like Churchill, you wonder not only about Fuchs, but also about the clean version of history we're taught about that war.

nappy 6y ago
Is it "staggering" though? In the short term, it is more simple to point to human lives and deaths. In the longer term, the more complex contribution of industrial forces is easier to understand. At least some shift in public opinion is natural.
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  > At least some shift in public opinion is natural. Of course propaganda has nothing to do with it /s
goatinaboat 6y ago
the erasure of the Russian role in fighting the Nazis, as well as the troublesome views of leaders like Churchill I'm curious as to which of Churchill's views (or acts) you think were more problematic than Stalin's. And in the aftermath of WW2, which countries prospered more, those liberated by and/or occupied by the West, or by the Soviets?
Lio 6y ago
I wonder how many of those deaths were down to Stalin not caring whether his own people lived or died? Having a high death toll in itself is not a sign of good leadership or self sacrifice. It’s a sign that some bugger is ordering someone else to put themselves in danger on pain of being shot if they don’t.
- AniseAbyss 6y ago
  I find this line of reasoning strange. The USSR was invaded by evil Nazis who wanted to enslave them for a thousand years. Somehow we spin this into "Stalin didn't care". And the idea that Russians had to be forced at gunpoint to defend their country is so ludicrous and offensive I have no words.
  - jsiepkes 6y ago
    A lot of the Russian people didn't have much love for the Russian regime (ie. Stalin). The Nazi's were in a lot of places in Russia initially greeted as liberators. If the Nazi's hadn't turned out to be even more brutal then Stalin history might have taken a different path. See for example sources like: https://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/research/news-and-events/news/2018/many-russians-hoped-that-hitler-would-free-them-fr.html https://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/research/news-and-events/...
  - sassypotato 6y ago
    On the other hand the USSR allied itself with the evil Nazis so they would both invade Poland. The USSR was clearly an expansionist and imperalist power and given the gulag system reached it's peak well before the start of the war, we know Stalin did not care at all about human life.
  - thrwway34 6y ago
    That's not just an idea. Order No. 270 ordered to shoot any deserters (or anybody who's not 'organizing resistance') on the spot and promised imprisonment for families of those who surrendered to the Germans. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._270 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._270
  - 6y ago
Craighead 6y ago
No reason to bring up the whole communism part of the soviet union that brought a similar number of deaths to ww2
TomMarius 6y ago
We don't feel the US did more in terms of quantity of dead men, we know more Soviet-affiliated troops died there. However with hindsight we now know the real plan of the Soviet Union - it never was to help Europe, but to conquer it. So in conclusion the US government helped us more (and not just during the war), while the SU government sent more people to die for their shady goals here. Nobody is discounting the heroism of the individual soldiers. The sad thing is that the current Russian government is using their legacy to pursue their shady goals again.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  That needs some serious citations. If you're saying it's evidenced by the soviet military in the Eastern block I encourage you to look at the US presence in Nato countries. I know that history in the US is largely a picture of American exceptionalism and "we were always the good guys", but actual history has many more shades of gray. This is one thing that the allies (in both parts of Germany) did reasonably well, break the circle of history as a means for teaching patriotism.
  - TomMarius 6y ago
    I know of the US presence in NATO countries and we welcome it. It is absolutely incomparable to the Warsaw Pact occupation of our country (for example, the US forces didn't shoot anybody nor ran over people with a tank) which is the reason why we welcomed the US forces and joined NATO as soon as we could after 1989. Not sure what citations should I send you, I live here (Czechia). You can probably read about it on Wikipedia, I'd do the same.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      US forces tend to do their shooting and running over in Central/South America and the Middle East. Many countries in those areas are less impressed by US benevolence. The US is an empire. So was the USSR. So are China and modern Russia. Some provinces are treated better than others, but empires are empires, and propaganda, political manipulation, corruption, violence, and torture are how they roll - together with resource capture, labour management, and various levels of market development. Europe had a notable level of propaganda and political manipulation, and still does, and not so much of the overt violence. But just because the corruption, violence and torture were happening elsewhere doesn't mean they weren't happening at all.
thrwway34 6y ago
If you will March your troops through minefield 'like it's not there' (e.g. Zhukov's revelations) it will definitely lead to losses.

mhh__ 6y ago

A lot of the double agents who defected did say they were doing it for vaguely benevolent reasons, although it gives me some satisfaction to say that many (e.g. Philby) died depressed, allegedly suicidal alcoholics upon facing the realities of house arrest in the Soviet Union. Aldrich Ames seems to genuinely believe that what he did is morally equivalent to doing for ideological reasons.