|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > Worth to wach|
|Posted by: C-2 December 16, 2009 06:24 am|
|Posted by: C-2 February 26, 2010 08:49 pm|
Many interesting jurnals from 1914 to the 60's.
|Posted by: Imperialist February 26, 2010 10:56 pm|
Wow, talk about a propaganda movie! Although generally it is based on real historical events the anti-Russian spin is there between the lines, especially towards its end. "Turning human tragedies into a farce has become normal in Russia. Ridiculing the Ukrainian famine, the Holocaust is the norm."
It would be interesting to see a similar Russian propaganda movie that would propably try to show how the rotten West colluded with Hitler, turned him towards the East through appeasement, failed to open a second front in time etc.
The propaganda slug-fest would at least offer us a stereo picture on the events.
I also have some doubts about some punctual parts of the movie:
1. They claim the US treated the SU as an Axis power. I doubt that. From what I remember the US continued to trade with the SU. I'll have to check later.
2. What Molotov speech in the 1940 are they talking about? They could have mentioned at least the month if not the exact date.
Anyway, thanks for posting. It was interesting.
|Posted by: MMM October 17, 2010 04:33 pm|
| Dunno about a movie, but there's a very "interesting" book, written by the former Soviet ambassador in England at the beginning of WW2, Ivan Maiski: "Who helped Hitler?" (of course, the answer is "Western powers" and it doesn't mention the Molotov-Ribentropp pact!); I read the book (Romanian version appeared in 1963) when I was in high-school, way before graduating History and it still struck me as very partisan and presenting only certain facts which were against UK/France. In the last years, something quite anti-occidental (not directly accusing, but more on the line of derision) is the German / Russian version of the interrogatories taken by NKVD from the personal help of Hitler: Otto Gunsche, Heinz Linge - The Hitler Dossier.
Got it, read it, laughed (slightly bitter, though) a little, but it still has good things in it! I'm talking about the Romanian version,of course...
PS: no commercial in here, of course...
|Posted by: ANDREAS January 17, 2011 11:51 pm|
I recently saw on Discovey World in the series Greatest Tank Battles a documentary (can't find a better name) about the Battle of Kursk, basically a documentary with scenes edited out of the tank battles of 2nd WW and Cold War... What was shocking for me was the story of an old Russian ex -ww2 tankman, who told repeatedly that he had fought for Stalin and secondly for Motherland (can you believe that??) and he called all german soldiers (no matter if SS or Wehrmacht) "fascist devils". The point is -can you take this program as a propaganda (antifascist), since a story of a ex-soviet tanker, but a communist fanatic (at least his speech), may be the subject of a program about famous battle tank? I mean the same could apply for righteousness for a ex Waffen SS soldier, to talk about his victories against the Americans in Normandy and France? And to say that he fought for Hitler and secondly for Germany... Obviously such an issue can never be seen on television, as long as the demons were just the fascists, not also the communists...
|Posted by: dragos January 18, 2011 12:23 am|
|You are taking it too passionate. Just look at it from a different perspective: the man interviewed is living history. This is how the mentality was back then. You can say this about most of the aired veteran interviews, be it about WW2 or Iraq War, as long as they were on the "correct" side.|
|Posted by: Victor January 18, 2011 07:16 am|
I received this book as a gift a while ago, but didn't give it too much attention. Maybe I should check it out sooner than later if you recommended it.
|Posted by: MMM January 18, 2011 04:09 pm|
|Well, it's certainly worth losing the time to read it - but in order to understand it, some things must be taken with the proverbial "grain of salt", as an innocent reader might get a wrong impression...|
|Posted by: ANDREAS January 18, 2011 08:16 pm|
Ok, I admit I overreacted a bit,
An old veteran lives in the past and maybe his war experience wasn't a pleasant one, on the contrary. But as a romanian (fact valid for all nations of Eastern Europe), is no need to remind somebody that evoking Stalin is monstrous for many of us... actually for all of us! Without mentioning a special reason, I say however that I recommend to all the movie "Portretul luptatorului in tinerete" (to those who didn't see it on HBO)... Don't forget, but try to forgive...
|Posted by: Radub January 19, 2011 09:43 am|
Well, no matter how hurtful that may be for any enemy that the Russians fought, there is no denial that they fought "for Stalin", "for Motherland" and wished "death to Fascists". There is ample proof that that was indeed what the Russians were told to fight for and believed that they fought for. They were told this on the radio, in the newspapers, posters on walls and instructions from their officers.
Look at the thousands of slogans written on aircraft and tanks saying "Za Stalina" (For Stalin), "Za Rodinu" (For the Motherland) and "Smiert Fashistam" (Death to Fascists). That was what they fought for!
These are historical facts. Denying this in the name of some kind of "political correctness" is plainly wrong.
Yes, Stalin was not the nicest man in history, but at that time, he won the war and pushed the Germans all way back to the Reichstag. To his people (and many other nations), that was all that mattered and "the rest" was irrelevant. To millions of people, it was an end that justified the means. Remorse, anger and recrimination came later...
We live in a free world. If a man wishes to worship Stalin and hate fascists, he is perfectly within his rights to do so. Many people still worship Hitler. Many people still worship Mao. Many Romanians worship Ceausescu, Vlad Tepes (and a few other sociopath/sadistic tyrants) but hate Basescu (yet he may be worshipped in the years to come... ). It is called "freedom of opinion" and it is a human right enshrined in the UN Charter of Human Rights. You may not like that, but that "freedom of dissent" is also a right that you are free to enjoy.
|Posted by: MMM January 19, 2011 11:30 am|
Hitler was worse than Stalin, and that was all that Red Army knew - and all that mattered, for that fact!
|Posted by: ANDREAS January 19, 2011 11:58 pm|
As I said I can understand the personal reasons of a former combatant, and even that his known univers is (was) that of the USSR risen as a great power on The Big Victory brought by Stalin in WW2. What I don't understand is that a person, even without education, who after maybe 70 years lived in so different times, with so many changes, is still thinking in the same terms like then. I have no respect and not a single normal person should have for somebody (even a veteran) who said he has fought for Stalin, a criminal leader (he had the chance to find out about this later) who has killed, at a large scale, his own people, many minorities and lots of opponents, real or imagined. And a lot of his comrades... sent to a sure death or killed by Stalin's political commissars. And as a romanian... I wonder how somebody can be so relaxed about this issue... after all what we found out from our recent history.
I hope you quoted from the possible point of view of an ordinary Soviet citizen. Because for someone who knows history, I think you don't have this opinion.
|Posted by: Radub January 20, 2011 09:55 am|
The man was talking about the reasons why he went to war THEN not what he thinks NOW.
Let me give you an example: a child in the 80s used to watch Tom and Jerry cartoons and played "Nu te supara frate" and "Fazan". Now such a person does not do so anymore. Such a person changed, grew up, evolved. If one asked this former child, now an adult, "what did you do when you were a child in the 80s?" and this person answered "I used to watch Huidu&Gainusa on my computer and I listened to Subcarpati on my mobile phone" it would obviously look fake.
We do not know what this man thinks NOW about Stalin, and to be honest, I could not care any less. He only told us how he experienced history as it happened THEN and I want him to tell me as accurately as possible how he did it.
The biggest mistake is to look at the yesterday with today's eyes and apply todays' standards and thinking on yesterday's events/people.
Today I know the winning "6 din 49" lotto numbers. Why did I not use them yesterday, knowing what I know today?
|Posted by: MMM January 20, 2011 04:32 pm|
| @Andreas: of course that's what I meant! Look again and see "that was all that Red Army knew"! Obviously, I know that Stalin has made more victims than Hitler, but also his "reign" was substantially longer than Hitler's (1924-1953 vs. 1933-1945). But let's forget statistics and see the point of view of the common soldier: they killed the invaders!!!!!
@Radub: what can one do if no other standards are available (than those of today?)
|Posted by: DanMk January 20, 2011 06:07 pm|
|There is a saying..."history is written by the winner". For me, Stalin and Hitler are the same, but you can't say the same about the russians. After all, Stalin did save the Soviet Union and also "liberated" Eastern Europe, from the nazi invaders, who used to buy eggs from my grandmother. Anyway, my point is, that everybody sees things in their way and it's hard to understand someone's point of view, until being in that someone's shoes.|
|Posted by: dragos January 20, 2011 06:09 pm|
|Posted by: Radub January 20, 2011 07:58 pm|
When I was in university, we had a module on "communication". One of the tasks we were given was: "Explain a Walkman casette player to a medieval man". Where do you start? It is harder than you imagine. We have a tendency to take a lot of things for granted.
Let's get back to "a russian soldier said he fought for Stalin and Motherland".
We know NOW that Stalin was a bad man, but few people actually knew that during the war. Few knew that Stalin was a bad man even after the war because he and his machine controlled the means of information. People began to get a glimpse during Nikita Khruschev's reign when the information began to surface (and even then, many Russians refused to accept it). To millions of Russians, he still is a great man and he killed only those "who deserved it".
|Posted by: ANDREAS January 20, 2011 10:03 pm|
All dictators are good at speeches. They seem to be credible, mobilise people, speak about patriotism, but they are ... just dictators! Stalin wasn't a good speaker but the soviets liked him than... and some of them even now!
|Posted by: ANDREAS January 20, 2011 10:24 pm|
Without begining a debate I say that any generalization is damaging and far from reality. Thus, from the source of departure the book STALINGRAD written by Antony Beevor I had for the first time an image of the war through the eyes of the Russians, civilians and soldiers. Can't say how real it is or just a good written book, but for me, it was interesting. If we take this book as a pseudo historic document, then the image of Stalin's popularity in the Red Army should change. Ok, late in the war the germans were much to hate, following the massive distructions taken from 1942 onwards, and later those made during the slow withdrawal of Russia. This was part of my reason when I was surprised by the fanatism of that ex soviet tanker. I can bet that this "I fought primarily for Stalin" was not real (deep inside their beliefs) in the mass of the soviet forces. Remember Vlasov!
|Posted by: MMM January 21, 2011 08:13 am|
|Yeah, remember Vlasov! How many followers did he have (as a percent from the entire Red Army figting on the West Front, that is...)? And not only because of the German behaviour, but because they really hated the idea of Motherland being conquered! IMO, at least...|
|Posted by: Radub January 21, 2011 10:30 am|
But this man, in as far as I undertand, spoke about humself and what he believed. He did not speak for the entire Russian Army.
Fanatism is not necessarily a bad thing. Soldiers need to believe strongly in something to keep them going through the grime and devastation of the war. Fanatism is a good motivator.
Yes, many Russians hated Stalin's guts. No leader is popular with everyone.
|Posted by: Florin January 21, 2011 10:35 pm|
| I did one of my worst mistakes in the last few weeks...
While trying to download the movie kindly offered by C-2, I got the message to upgrade my RealPlayer software. Beware! It is an official hoax from the company creating the RealPlayer.
The latest version of Real Player is a software made to be very sluggish by purpose, but meanwhile you will get the prompt to "upgrade" to RealPlayer Plus for faster downloads, for only $39.99 !
This confirm my previous experience with new software versions: new is worse!
I regret my old RealPlayer software, and now it is too late.
And yes, this movie about Soviet Union's history is really interesting - that is why I still want to download it.
|Posted by: Florin January 22, 2011 05:55 am|
| The movie at the center of this topic, lasting 85 minutes, has 789 Mb.
Real Player software interrupts the download when the data transfer reaches 400 Mb. These first 400 Mb are of course lost. It happened to me twice, so it is no accident.
Any ideas about other ways to download this interesting documentary about Communism and National Socialism?
|Posted by: MMM January 27, 2011 07:34 pm|
| IDM: Internet Download Manager.
Annoying, trial version, but... it works! After you finish your "job", uninstall it without thinking again!
Later edit: same crappy thing happened to my Real Player, as well! Uninstall, reinstall the free, "good" version!