A Poll--Was the war in the east a just and honorable cause?

The German crusade against Bolshevism is one that is traditionally looked down upon by Western writers and historians because of its ferocity and the sheer scale in which life was lost, but was the dream of a communist-free world a good one? I think so. Stalin's regime and Soviet communism were the true evil in WWII, Nazi fascism is far too overplayed compared to what was going on in Russia before, during, and after the war.

Famine, poverty, and "enemies of the state" were the overwhelming cause of death before the war with Germany, and Hitler's paranoid policies of Eastern dominance over Western Europe werent so paranoid afterall once you look at what happened after the war. I not talking about the racial superiority question, just fighting communism.

There are way to many issues to discuss in a single post, but Ill be breif and state my opinion--I for one believe that Germany was right to fight the Soviet Union. Granted the military and social consequences after the war were disasterous and far reaching, the goal of conquering the Bolshevik menace was not crazy, nor just limited to Nazi fanatics.

It was all a human disaster I know, but can anyone disagree that the goal of defeating a world enemy is one that most have in the civil Western society?

I know Im being real brief on the subject but all to often Germany is depicted as the evil aggressor and the USSR was the victim of the savage war--it wasnt. Stalin and the terrible Soviet system were the reason for the fighting, the Germans just took it upon themselves to rid the East of a terrible regime and game some 'living space' (I cant spell Lebenstraum or however you say it ) along with it.

Patton saw it.
Westerners from all over the occupied territories answered the call.
And after the war no one could deny who the real enemy was.

Id like to hear your opinions too since we have an international community in here, I think this could be a good thread with an educated debate.

 

I think that Communism and Nazism were on the same sides of the coin. These ideologies were natural enemies thus a conflict was inevitable. They both built concentration camps and implemented a genocide program. They both persecuted religious groups and killed military leaders at a whim. Of the lesser of two evils, I would think that the German cause would be the one I would support. In all honesty, I would have preferred the allies sitting back and watch the two wear each other out. Would have prevented more suffering caused by the cold war. That's my two cents worth.

 

I think you are both oversymplifying the problem here. I can agree that both systems were equally evil, the Soviets, unlike the Germans, were not out to eliminate a total population because of it's different 'race'.

Now it is 0030 in Germany, and in 2 1/2 hours the 60th anniversary of Barbarossa is coming!

I understand part of your reasoning, but you forget, that by depicting Barbarossa as an essentially good operation, you are also showing your support of the racial supremacy ideas that triggered it. Barbarossa was not a war between Communism and Nationalism (after all Hitlers party was called "Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands" = National SOCIALIST Workers' party of Germany), and the Soviets only started lossing less men due to desertioans and surrender after they invoked Russian patriotism and the truly non-communist heroes of the past, like Nevsky, Suvurov, Kutuzov et al.
If any of you can give me a reasonable response on why this is worse than following Goebbels, Hitler, Himmler, Goering, I will agree on your argument.
The Soviet Union was a communist experiment and a really bad one, too. It failed 12 years ago, and this is good so. Communism is in general a stupid idea, it shows complete disregard for the individual. The man made famines in the Ukraine and Russia are terrible examples of this, but they are in no way connected to Hitler's decision to invade the country. He wanted Lebensraum at the expense of the Slavic peoples in the east. He wanted slaves, and land and resources. He had even said on a Berghof-conference, that once the AA-line (Archangelsk-Astrakhan) is firm, he might leave Stalin to continue "his very interesting communist experiment in the east".
The Holocaust was terrible as it was, but it was in no way comparable to the intended extermination of the Slavic peoples in the east (Poles, Czechs, Russians, Ukrainians, Yugoslavs, etc). Communism was the least trouble, remember that the Soviet union was the only communist country at the time, and a really bad example above that. The communist parties in other countries were little developed and owe much of their post-war power to the Germans, since it was them that toppled the pre-war governments and all but destroyed any organized opposition and with it any chance of a non-communist government after the war. Nobody in Eastern Europe weakened the anti-communists as much as the Germans did. All communist parties only started to gain support whenever Hitler decided to invade the respective country. I think it is inadequate to say that the war in the east was a just and honourable cause, it was as evil as a war can get, both sides contributed to this evil, and since both sides also lost heavily in this conflict, the ultimate winner -pronounced with the benefit of hindsight- was freedom and democracy.

 

Excellent posting Miro, the only thing I dissagree with is, that the Russians actually killed more people than the Germans did (both combatives and non-combatives)

They openly were not out to destroy an entire race, but did murder some 30 million of its own citizens, also murdering many thousands of Polish Officers at the Katya Forrest??, and needlessly murdering many Czechs, Poles, Austrians, more Russians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, people from the Urals etc, and then including wellover 1 million German women during and after capitulation, and whomever tried to help their women out, babies were smashed into brickwalls, their heads were used as hammers. Then possible up to another 1 million German POWs.

I understand some reasons for some brutalities being committed and we know that most were by 2nd class troops. Their is no denying the fact that stalin was as equally as evil (if not more than) Hitler.

Truely both regimes were full of evil, but which was worse? I leave this question up-to-you my friend.

 

I would not say that by choosing the German side versus the Soviet would be saying that I support their racial supremacy ideas.

I believe that you have put the Soviets in a lighter perspective. You say that the communist parties in other countries were too small to cause problems. That may be true and it is also true that the war merely escalated their growth to the point that they took over governments. Nevertheless, this would have been inevitable because sooner or later they would have received support from Moscow. I do not know the numbers but I would venture to say that the number of people (gypsies, jews, cossacks, etc.) that Stalin enslaved and murdered would exceed that of the german genocide program. The question here is if the war in the East was honorable....no. But, it would not have been a bad idea to let them fight it out and destroy each other. Having the two worst ideologies knock each other off would cause the world no loss in sleep.

 

My post wasnt about condoning the racial superiority question, there are many examples of the so called 'Untermensch' (sp?) civilians following the Germans back on the retreat of 43 onwards to escape Stalin's regime and the Communist system.

Fascism isnt much better, but anyone who says that Stalin and the communists were the lesser of the two evils is fundamentaly wrong--over 30 million people lost their lives during the various Communist regimes throughout the U.S.S.R.'s history, not counting the suicidal battle casualties caused by Red Army commanders.

This, versus over 6 million due to the Nazi regime are practically uncomparable.

What about Manstein and the ex-Russian general's (forgot the name) plan to use over 400,000 Russian POW's to fight against the Red Army in the East? Thats half almost half a million men who lived under Soviet communism, then were captured and saw what Germany had to offer, and had chosen to fight for Germany's cause. Of course the plan never weant into effect due to Hitler's opposition that a subhuman race would stand side by side with Nordic German warriors, it still shows who the people themselves thought were the worse of two evils--Russia.

This thread wasnt one to dive into the whole racial question and barbarism in the east by Germany, the ultimate goal of Hitler's was to rid the world of an enemy, not just because he was 'subhuman', but because the true evil in the world lie with communism. Hitler's fascism isnt to be taken lightly because it was awful too, but it was nothing compared to Soviet barbarism.

 

Agreed. And I believe it is Vlasov that you are referring to.

 

Vaslov is correct, and what is surprising is that Himmler wanted to use them as Waffen SS troops.

 

It only comes to show that Himmler's agenda of making the Waffen SS the sole bearer of arms a higher priority than an pure Aryan SS. Nevertheless, I think other countries joined in the crusade against Bolshevism for the same reason.

 

Thanks for the replies everybody.
To answer the most urgent question straight away: I do not like comparing evils and then picking the better. Even if there are reasons to believe you picked the better, ultimately you always pick evil. Stalin led one of the most terrible regimes in history. Russia from 1914-1945 might have lost some 60-70 million people. Only part of that is due to Hitlers invasion. But you can in no way give dues to a crusade of extermination just because it MIGHT have destroyed an equally evil regime. Npobody can say for sure what would have happened had the Wehrmacht reached the AA-line, maybe communism would have collapsed, maybe not. Maybe 50 million Communist refugees would have swamped the US, and what would have happened then. No single happening made communism stronger than the onset of Operation Barbarossa. But The Axis onslaught with its terrible trail of Einsatzgruppen, mass shootings, etc was not beaten by communism, it was beaten by the strength of Russian patriotic feeling (the main battle cry being "Za Rodinu"-"for the fatherland"). It was not beaten by the NKVD or the Communist elite, but by the sacrifices of countless divisions of Ivans and Alexeys and their brethren from other peoples, that after the initial shock fought with such determination and vigour (the 62nd army in Stalingrad was outnumbered threefold and surrounded on a narrow strip of land for almost 3 months in 1942- after the September battles only few surrendered or deserted). Even the GULAG prisoners believed in victory. The output of the GULAG labour camps was bigger than that of similar factories in any other country, including the US. Even in prison, Russian patriotism was still great and sacrifices were superb. All this happened behind a communist facade, but the real driving force was not Bolshevism but Patriotism.

 

Both Russia and Germany suffered horribly after World War I - from loss of life and economic collapse. It was Stalin, however, that came up with two 5-year plans (one right after eachother). Both saw millions of deaths - bolsheviks, peasants, opposition members, workers - and the Russians eradicated the bolsheviks. ((correct me if i am wrong.)) That there caused many many more deaths then the Nazis attempt of eradicating the Jews. I would say Stalin/Russians were worse then the Germans. The Russians only had enough weapons for 1 in every 3 soldiers, yet they still made them fight. That is a crime in upon itself. The Russians were no worse then the Germans when it came to POWs. I have recently acquired a videa series called The World at War (9 videos covering WWII). For every 100 (or was it 1,000?) Russian prisoners captured, only 3 would survive. And the Russians were no worse. The KGB and secret police would do the same things to the Germans they captured, that is, if they didnt shoot them first.

Another thing is that if Hitler hadnt attacked and tried to take Europe first, Stalin would have. And that, my friends, would have been a much worse scenario then the Germans.

 

So far, some excellent points have been made. Was Hitler right to fight a war? No; because he did so not with the intention of "liberating" Soviet citizens, but with liquidation and brutality in mind. There's some evidence to suggest that had the SS and Heer been more limited in their agressions against the Russian peasantry, that those in the Ukraine and Baltic states would have been more than pleased to help cast off the yoke of Stalin's agression.

The Soviets were a convenience for the Allied powers. In order to keep Stalin from siding with Hitler, Britain and America were forced to "make it worth his while" in terms of supplies and other goods. Thus, lend lease and Allied support for the war. There might have been a far greater propaganda push against the Soviets after WWII when the Cold War began, but who had proped Stalin up until 1942? The Allies.

Both Hitler and Stalin were brutal and maniacal. We needed the one to trounce the other.

 

Hi Guys, Russia's social structure had totally collapsed after World War I, during which the people of Russia suffered greatly. This was followed by a vicious civil war, then savage power struggles within the Soviet state. Stalin's excesses were abominable, but the ideology of Communism strove towards certain positive ideals, including the elimination of racism and ethnic persecution and providing, for the first time in Russia's history, free education and health care for the masses of people. I believe that by the time of the war, the average Russian was living longer, healthier and with a higher standard of living and education than at any time in that country's history. I've heard all sorts of fantastic figures bandied about as to the numbers of Stalin's victims but very few attributable to legitimate sources. And a very good argument could be made that Stalin perverted the course of the ongoing developement of the Communist state. In my round about way, I'm saying that communism wasn't necesarily bad for Russia, although communism as practiced by the Stalinist regime resulted in needless suffering. To the question of whether a German invasion would have remedied the suffering of the Russian people--which I hope is the actual question here--I think history has answered that with a resounding "no". Also, I don't think it is either moral or ethical for one state to declare war on another state when the first state doesn't have a legitimate national interest to protect. Best Regards, JP

 

Excellent posting and I totally agree with you.

One has to imagine, what could have been, had Hitler not instilled his racist policies on the average Russian citizen or soldier.

I am in VERY firm belief that, had the German High Command let some subordinate Generals have their way, they could have created several new armies, to use against stalin and they most certainly would have won the war.

Just Vaslovs army, had what around 300,000 in it. I imagine that they colud have easily had hundreds of thousands more volunteers from the Russian POW population alone, AND, word would get around either by German propaganda, and word of mouth, to the average frontline Russian soldier aabout these units, and no doubt, many im sure would have defected to the other side.

 

Hi Mr. Evans, I think your position is absolutely correct. The peoples of the Baltic States resented the fairly recent Soviet takeover of their countries. Ukraine also had a very strong independence movement and, I think it's safe to say that the average peasant throughout Russia bitterly resented the lack of religious freedom, enforced collectivization and overall brutality of the Stalinist state.
Had German policies catered to these pent-up frustrations, instead of imposing more hardships and an ideological doctrine from Hell, much larger numbers of Russians would have actively opposed the Soviet state.
Byelorussian and Ukrainian peasants at first welcomed the Germans with garlands and food.
This changed to the rise of active partisan movements fighting in the rear areas of the German Army. This armed resistance was clearly a result of German policies in occupied regions. And these policies can be laid at the doorstep of Nazi racial beliefs
and the resulting mismanagement and oppression of the occupied territories. Best Regards, JP

 

I agree, and its a shame too that the higherups, were so stupid as to do what they did to the peasants. Had they done otherwise, and after the wars ending, the resat of the freedom loving world would have not had to live under the threat of Nuclear war during all those Cold War years

With the popular revolt, they WOULD have sacked stalin, and probably have put Moletov (spelling?) in the top position, at least he wasnt a maniac-escapee-from-the-Moscow-lunatic-ayslum, like ol' uncle joe was.

PS, not mad at you, I just love using these little faces... and

 

I agree with both of you C.Evans and Jadgpanther. I've seen old footage of ukrainains giving flowers to passing german soldier. If Hitler hadn't been so harsh on them the germans wouldn't have needed as many troops in the occupided areas. I've also read about a story about Hans Von Luck how going into a russian town they captured, he walked into a church and they thanked him because it was their first service in 20 years because of the Soviets. It just shows how willing they were at first to let the germans come. Hitlers decision on how to treat them in my opinon decided the fait of the war in the east.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Miro:
[QB]I can agree that both systems were equally evil, the Soviets, unlike the Germans, were not out to eliminate a total population because of it's different 'race'.
QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Stalin wiped out many ethnic races, I don't know the names of them but there are far fewer ethnicly distinctive groups now than there were befor the war. The Germans had nothing to do with the losses. Stalin began 'Russianising' the Soviet Union by inforcing the Russian language on the Soviet Republics then he forcibly collectivised them, starved them, moved entire communites to the Gulags and wiped them out.

 

Why would invading Russia be a just cause? Internal politics was really not a deciding factor. Germany's policies were just as bad and no one considered invading them before the war began.Hitlers invasion of Russia was nothing short of a land grab, I dont believe in dressing it up with false noble purposes.

 

The Germans thought so, mainly to get rid of communism.