As of this posting, Fedia starts of by addressing what I said – minus what he replies to.

So that there’s no misunderstanding, I dealt with facts which included my stating opinions based on facts – utilizing some primary source material. It’s therefore wrong to claim otherwise.

None of my points were disproven on subject matter which has aspects to it that are perhaps more of a matter of opinion than a clear case of one view being completely right over the other. Some of the issues involve more than two opinions.

In any event, I appreciate a resonably respectful interaction of different opinions.

As a foot note to my last set of comments, Soviet citizens were limited in their criticism of Stalin. It therefore stands to reason that once away from Stalin’s grasp, there would be more criticism of Stalin from Soviet citizens.

IMO, the mentioned opportunism or idealism issue is one having evidence of both elements.

So that there’s no misunderstanding, I don’t belittle the deaths resulting from the Nazi attack on the USSR. In addition to what some others said about their families, I lost a family member in an air raid.

I respectfully suggest as broad a study as possible on the subject. On this point, an informal bibliography of sorts was posted at this thread. At times, it seems that further study is geared to find additional support to one’s existing opinion – versus seeking opposing views and directly replying to them – with the idea that there might be a valid counterpoint.

From a patriotic Russian view as well as others, there was a basis to oppose much of what was going on in the USSR during the Stalin era. There was expat opposition for sure in support of this stance. Whether exap or not, there was no 100% uniform way in how these views developed.

Once again, noticeably emphasized words like “betray” and “opportunist” can be selectively applied in a way that conform to a given bias. Although not necessarily inaccurate from a technical standpoint, the emphasis on such words can at times serve to oversimplify the subject, in a way that downplays other variables. To one degree or another, we all seem to have a given set of biases. For accuracy sake, the idea is to try to level this feeling as much as possible.

The personal side of reviewing history was earlier noted to explain how the discussed topic is approached. When discussing such matter, there is perhaps a non-recognition of the experiences that others holding different views have faced.

The family who loses a son who was suddenly drafted to fight in Finland with no formal military training – in a compaign that wasn’t so well planned. The father of that family who is arrested on a bogus charge having to do with someone else needing to name names for lesser punishment – as part of a conspiracy, which otherwise didn’t exist.

On Patton, the movie about him starring George C. Scott had much of the unchallenged bluster about how the politicians kept him from liberating more of Europe – a point that I agree is lacking in accuracy. One thing I’ll partially put in Patton’s favor had to do with his treatment of Soviet citizens who his forces came across. Compared to his peers, Patton showed more of an effort to not automatically have them turned back over to the USSR. At the same time, he also appeared to be more willing to overlook some of those who committed ghastly acts.

… I believe it’s been translated to English.

http://www.potomacbooksinc.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=153746

Akismet can be a bitch at times…

Looks like Akismet doesn’t like links to the .ru domain. Isn’t that russophobic?

Here’s how one Soviet POW described the process (sorry, don’t have time to translate, maybe someone could help?):

В лагере образовывался полицейский просто. Начинает человек, только что такой же, как все, кричать и устанавливать очередь, начинает бить, все уклоняются или уступают. Он наглеет. И уже чувствуя, что заработал, берет лишнюю баланду. В следующий раз он уже распоряжается, и у него, показавшего преданность и старание, появляется желание узаконить свои льготы, а может, и получить новые. Тогда он идет в полицию. Потом, будучи полицейским, он постепенно привыкает быть царьком и отказаться от сладострастия вселять страх уже не может. Встречая осуждение других, испытывая укоры совести, начинает придумывать себе оправдание, и вдруг оказывается, что [130] он с советской властью не согласен, выкапывается в памяти, когда его обидели или его родственников, что другие говорили. Еще шаг, и он начинает искать благородную миссию в своем новом существовании — оказывается, он борец за национальную независимость. Это уже знамя. Так появлялись националисты. А тут еще почва — враг, готовый под свое крыло взять, оправдать его изуверское поведение.

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/obrynba_ni/07.html

In general, I highly recommend this memoir. I believe it’s been translated to English.

What’s a “sovok”?

Совками обычно называют три совершенно разных категории населения: коммуняк, ымперцев и собственно совков……

Post 2

Oops, where’s my comment gone?

AK responds: Akismet can be a bitch at times (anti-spam thingie). But it’s still indispensable.

Ah, shows how much I know about the subject. Still, as a wise man said,’ when you are in three holes you don’t stop digging but find another shovel’.

‘Himmler was a deluded sociopath who seriously thought even up until 1945 that the Western Allies would condescend to negotiate with him. He was a simple man and very far from rational.’

Sociopath, yes. Deluded… General Paton wanted a truce with the Nazis. Even Truman said he supported an on-going war of attrition between the Nazis and Soviets. Whether or not forcing unconditional surrender was a logical move for the West is open to debate.

‘First, he was fully committed to the “Teutonic Crusader” vision of the war to East, far more so than the majority of senior Nazis. He would never, I think, have pursued the Vichy route with Russia – even if the Nazis had somehow took Moscow, which was probably near impossible by 1943.’

Probably not, but that wasn’t what I said. I was just making a wild conjecture, that it could have seemed to the collaborators that (like Imperial Germany) the Nazis could destroy the ruling regime before collapsing. Not saying it would be wise or ethical; just a hypothesis.