Medvedev reiterates Russian stance on interpretation of WWII

"SINGAPORE, November 16 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev spoke out strongly and repeatedly on Monday against attempts to rewrite the results of World War II and the Soviet Union's contribution to the victory over Nazi Germany.

In late September, Medvedev voiced a similar warning to the United Nations, urging the international organization to act firmly against the rise of neo-Nazism.

"If falsifiers who are attempting to rewrite history are given real power, we will find ourselves facing demands for compensation. This is simply dangerous to the state," Medvedev told sailors aboard the Varyag missile cruiser, making a port call in Singapore, which hosted the APEC summit at the weekend.

He said historians could debate some issues, but said there was no controversy about the outcome of World War II, which was backed up by international and government decisions."

Medvedev reiterates Russian stance on interpretation of WWII | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire

 

I'm confused as to what that article is even talking about. It mentions nothing about Russias stance on the 'outcome' of WW2 (I wasn't aware that anyone believes that the Axis one? I mean, there was only one outcome of the war) not to mention that site looks pretty bogus (look at the links on the right side of the page...USA Prepares to Attack Russia....)...

 

Why is there a nazional socialist party in the Russia today? care to comment on that Mr Medvedev? ( just wondering about this if the foreign nazional socialist parties are always mentioned and blamed ).

There´s more in the net but as I don´t want to spread spam here´s something real...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/world/europe/14iht-execute.4.7116896.html

 

It's hard to say if, in fact, it was meant to discredit the Nationalist elements currently at work in Russia. It would certainly be an effective way of doing that.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a pretty active resurgence of National Socialist ideologies in Eastern Europe.

I can't really understand this. Why would you wish to embrace an ideology that led Germany to invade your country?

I wonder if maybe they want the power and strength that they feel was inherent in Nazism. I think the nationalist elements in some smaller countries feel that if it they had their own version of Nazism it would make their country powerful - as it appeared to do for Germany.

Who knows? Maybe they're right. I seem to recall reading that Germany experienced the fastest economic recovery in history under Hitlers rule - due to military spending, I'm sure.

 

Russian leaders have a lot to be ashamed of when it comes to their "way" of war. Their pechant for profligacy in the wastage of human lives was just appalling. At Stalingrad, penal soldiers were marched (in column of route) in the open and right up to German defence positions simply to spot gun positions and get a feel for the general layout of German defense.

Their leaders and office holders should have been on the docks at Nuremburg. I cannot recall even one case of a Soviet soldier or officer of any description being brought before a court for war crimes. Medvedev glosses over this aspect, as well he should do to maintain credibility, if it exists at all vis-a-vis the Soviet war effort.

I say they should look to their actions in the partition of Poland and in Finland. There would not have been a World War 2 without the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939.

Explain that one, Medvedev. The end result of WW2 in no way justifies the means that the Soviets took to place themselves at that point. It was the long suffering Russian soldier and factory worker who had to pay the price....

 

You took the words right out of my mouth. Having the soviets on the trail for war crimes in Nuremberg was just disgusting. I don't think the russians will ever change when it comes to their crimes that where committed during the war.

 

Soviet leaders on trial for war crimes?

 

That's called winning the war...

 

And it stinks just the same. A war crime is a war crime no matter which side the perpetrator belongs to.

The manner in which the Soviet Union used it's involvement in the Second World War to justify their precious revolution was niether popular nor humane. Lucky they were that National Socialism was even more barbaric. I personally believe that Germany wasted the opportunity of the century to rid the free world of the Soviet animal once and for all....they stuffed it up in a right royal fashion.

Stalinism can't claim to be any less evil than National Socialism.

All they can claim is that, eventually, they were on the winning side.

OH!.......Those Russians!....(Pop Group "Boney M", closing lyrics from their song "Rasputin")

 

While Stalin wasn't the ideal leader for the Soviet Union in comparison to Lenin, would you have rather seen Russia under incompetent Czarism? Under Lenin for decades the focus was put on food, shelter, etc, under Stalin it was industrialization. While Stalin's work paid off in the long run he did completly miss the other points.

I think all sides should be accountable towards their actions during the war, I doubt any war criminals will be sought out this late in the game asides from the Nazi criminals.

 

You bring up an excellent point! It is exactly this pursuit and prosecution of ONLY Nazi war criminals that creates the false impression that the Nazi's were the only one's that did bad things during the war.

Look at the case of the Sudetan Germans being expelled from their homes, losing all their belongings, being put into camps, starved and killed after the war. These were innocent civilians whose only crime was being German (or, in some cases, merely having a German-sounding last name). Yes, it was an almost exact mirror image of what was done by the Nazi's to the ethnic groups they didn't like - but does this justify it? Absolutely not.

A crime is a crime - isn't it?

 

One must be very careful when speaking of war crimes charges at Nuremberg. They aren't a blanket position, and don't include criminal acts committed in times of war, but specific "war crimes" which are a different animal all together. I think that it should be remembered just how carefully the charges brought against the Nazis were compiled in the London Agreement. They weren’t charged with "unrestricted submarine warfare", the Allies did that as well. They weren’t charged with "bombing civilians", the Allies did that too.

The Nazis were charged with four major counts of the London Agreement. The international treaties they violated and were charged with violating included the HAGUE Conventions, the Versailles Treaty, the Treaties of Mutual Guarantee, Arbitration and Non-Aggression, and in that instance were thus. The first is violations of the HAGUE Conventions. Article 1 contains the following:

"The Contracting Powers [Germany included] recognize that hostilities between them must not commence without a previous and explicit warning, in the form of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war." (emphasis mine)

Germany, of course, did not mind this agreement when it attacked Poland, France, Britain, Russia, or any other country without declaration of war. More violations of international treaties including those against the Versailles Treaty. Major violations include the following violations:

Articles 42-44 which include the "respect of the de-industrialized zone of the Rhine land. Article 80, which did not allow for the annexation of Austria and of course the rearmament of the country which was outlawed in many articles of the treaty, The Treaties of Mutual Guarantee, Arbitration, and Non-aggression which included the article:

"All disputes of every kind between Germany and Poland...which it may not be possible to settle amicably by the normal methods of diplomacy shall be submitted for decision to an arbitrable tribunal." This of course was violated with German attacks upon Poland with no attempt to follow the steps prescribed in the existing treaties.

It must be remembered that the Soviet Union didn’t sign the Versailles Treaty, and neither did the US. They had separate treaties which ended WW1 between their nations, and hose two nations didn't violate those treaties. But Germany did sign it, and did violate it.

Germany on many counts violated treaties that she entered into by her own free will (the exception is of course the Versailles Treaty which was imposed), which had supposed purposes of good faith. And the definitions of "just and an unjust wars" hinge upon that distinction, and have for two millennia. By attacking in spite of treaties/pacts/promises not to do so, creates an aggressive, or "unjust" war. This definition covers the violation of "Treaties of Mutual Guarantee, Arbitration and Non-Aggression."

The Soviets didn’t attack the Nazis, it was the other way ‘round. Now, if the section about the "rules of war" concerning retaliation in kind is extended to treatment of POWs, then the Soviets could be (splitting very fine hairs) justified in their treatment of the Axis prisoners they took after the Nazis mistreatment of their’s. Even with that said, none of the four major charges could be applied to the Soviets in any fashion.

The first main charge was conspiring to engage in the other three counts, which were;" "Crimes Against Peace," "War Crimes" and "Crimes Against Humanity." The Soviets most certainly didn’t fall into these definitions whether they were on the winning side or not.

Charge One: "Conspiracy to Plan Aggressive War". Conspiring to engage in the other three counts included for all the defendants any and all participation in any way to the benefit of the war machine of Germany. Whether through financial, physical, or ideological contributions, all members in the dock at Nuremberg were indicted under this count; "Conspiracy". The Soviets might have planned or postulated about such an action, but it came to naught in any case, so they cannot be included in the charge while the Nazis can be without doubt.

Charge Two: "Crimes Against Peace" was the planning and pre-party design of aggressive war. This also included any financial, physical, or ideological attempt to wage war as aggressors, not defenders. The leadership of the German nation as well as the armed forces and the financial institutions of Germany made this charge valid toward all of the defendants. This hinged as well on the Kellogg-Briand pact (Pact of Paris) which most participants had signed, but only the Nazis had violated in major fashion in the planning and execution of "war as a means of diplomacy" in Europe, and not in "self-defense".

The Italian Fascists had violated it in Abyssinia and been reprimanded in the League of Nations (so they weren’t charged with that post-war), the Japanese violated it in Manchuria and when reprimanded walked out of the League of Nations. Now the Soviets could be tied to the Nazis in the case of Poland, but as they themselves ended up victims of the Nazis; I think they were given a pass on that one (self-defense?). Why the Soviets were given a pass on their invasion of Finland remains a mystery to myself, however since they were expelled from the League of Nations at the time perhaps that was considered their "punishment"?

Charge Three: "War Crimes" included violations of the law of war (which is rather stupid because realistically in war, there are few enforceable rules.) That said; they included the shooting of POW’s, the forced labor usage of POW’s as slaves, as well as waging undeclared war, that is what was included in these "War Crimes" charges. While the Allies certainly shot POWs, and are equally guilty of this particular war crime, they didn’t do it as a state policy, which was proven by the Nazis own records that the Nazi state did.

Charge Four: "Crimes against Humanity" included violations of human rights. This charge included the enslaving of civilians and POW’s. It also included deportations and the involuntary relocation of conquered people. It was this section which also included the death and labor camps and the maltreatment of the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and other "untermensch". The Soviets certainly did enslave POWs, and in many instances civilians. However on the whole those non-combatants who were enslaved were their own citizens, i.e. members of the USSR, not citizens of conquered states.

In addition to those four main charges, the Nazi defendants were indicted on counts of violation of "violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances" as mentioned at the start of my little discouse.

Some of this has been gleaned from:

The Nuremberg Trials

and:

The Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928

 

On this point, I'd like to get your opinion on this article:

A German Patriot Reflects On September 1939

I know nothing about this Juergen Rieger but he makes some fairly compelling points which seem to indicate that further study is required. I had read somewhere else a brief mention of "border skirmishes" between Germany and Poland in August of 1939 but could find nothing else on the subject anywhere until I read the above link.

And on this point: when does what might be considered "contingency planning" turn into "conspiracy to plan aggressive war"?

I'm really just curious. But I know that the U.S. (among many others) is constantly bandying about plans for some kind of military action or another in response to theoretical world events. I heard they have a plan for the invasion of Canada - assuming, of course, that the Russians are flying in across the north pole or some such thing.

My point is: it seems easy enough for the victors to open up the defeated country's "contingency plan book" to the appropriate page and say: "Aha! You see? They were planning this war all along."

Can you see what I mean?

 

Mr. Rieger passed away recently,

Jürgen Rieger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not the kind of a character any respecting veteran (at least the ones I've heard of/talked to) would want fighting for them given how he was essentially a Neo Nazi.

 

Well, I suppose a neo-Nazi would defend the Polish campain would he not?

As to the second query, until this last military operation of the US in Iraq (which was misquided to my mind) all of America's war plans were defensive responses "in case of attack", and included all possible combinations of nations. Our "color plans" pre-WW2 truely did contain some odd variations on a theme, but none of them included a "first-strike, or premptive action". As I say, this is ony untrue in the case of "Iraqi Freedom", and has no bearing on this discussion.

In the case of the Nazis, they not only planned an aggressive (not defensive) war, they carried it out. See the difference? As I mentioned, the Soviets might have been charged with this offense in the case of their invasion of Finland, but since they had been "punished" for that before they themselves were attacked by the Nazis I think they got a "walk" on that one.

These are just my opinions of course, and how I interpret the charges and the difference between an "unjust and a just" war. Which is the core of the charges against the Nazis. Notice how the "Crimes Against Humanity" isn't focused solely on the "death camps", but slave labor, illegal transport of conquered peoples into camps, and other things as well. Even if the Aktion Reinhard camps were removed from the eqasion, the Nazis would still be quilty of the others.

Just my take of course, I am sure it has all kinds of holes in it.

 

It must also be mentioned that not only did Germany start this war but that Germany was the only nation during the war in which war crimes were state policy. Hitler made no secret of his intention for the "Slav" people in Mein Kampf and soldiers were constantly encouraged and even rewarded for their participation of various crimes... The Nazi's were also the only ones responsible for the creation of machines for which the sole purpose was to exterminate a people.

Yes, the Red Army was responsible for more crimes than any other allied nation but it was not state policy and these crimes were committed by individual soldiers as revenge for what they themselves suffered. Considering the calamity of destruction and numbers involved these Red Army soldiers were a many. This is not to excuse their crimes and or behavior but perhaps to help understand as to why they were committed. Many soldiers lost all to the invading Germans and all they were left with was hate and contempt for the people who were responsible for their misery. We are all lucky to have never have experienced what these poor soldiers had so to pass judgment so easily might perhaps be a little pre-mature...

With that said the German POW's and the civilian population was treated far better by the Soviets than they themselves were treated. So no, Soviet leaders should not have been on trial at Nuremburg for war crimes committed during WW2.

On a another note,
There were instances of Jewish American G.I.'s who would shoot captured German prisoners. Was it right? No. Was it understandable? Yes. Excusable? Some thought so.

 

Yes, I suppose he would. But does that invalidate the history he makes use of in his article? More succinctly: is any of his historical data accurate?

What I'm trying to do is take the neo-nazi out of the equation and examine the historical evidence he presents.

But this goes back again to those "border skirmishes" I read about and which my linked article appears to expand upon in greater detail.

Let's assume that Mr. Rieger has grossly inflated the actual facts of the matter. Assuming it's not a complete fabrication on his part, there still remain the "core" historical facts - those initial events which he (we assume) took and inflated to support his position.

What I'd like to know is: what are those historical events? I was just wondering if someone on this forum might be able to shed some light on this.

 

"DissidentAggressor", this is the best reply to your questions I can come up with. The Nazis staged the border incident which they immediately broadcast as proof of Polish intransigence. Historical documents show that the border clashes were instigated by Germany, not Poland. All of his "history" is false, or distorted to excuse Nazi aggression.

Armed clashes along the border became increasingly frequent in August 1939 as Abwehr operations (German military intelligence) worked to penetrate Polish forward areas and were opposed by the Polish Border Defense Corps, an elite unit originally designed to halt Soviet penetration of the eastern frontier. These clashes alarmed the French who urged the Poles to avoid "provoking" Hitler.

Polish forces had been partly mobilized in secret in the summer of 1939. Full mobilization was to be declared in late August, but was halted at French insistence. Mobilization was again declared on August 30, but halted to French threats to withhold assistance, and then re-issued the following day. As a result of this, only about a third of Polish forces were equipped and in place on Sept. 1.

On August 31, operational Polish air units were dispersed to secret airfields. The navy’s three most modern destroyers executed Operation Peking and slipped out of the Baltic Sea to join the Royal Navy. Polish submarines dispersed to commence mine laying operations.

As Hitler gathered his generals (before launching the attack on Poland), he ordered them to "kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language... only in this way can we achieve the living space we need." Mobile killing squads Einsatzgruppen would follow the main body of troops, shooting POWs and any Poles who might organize resistance. On the night of August 31, Nazi agents staged a mock Polish attack on a German radio station in Silesia, dressing concentration camp prisoners in Polish uniforms and then shooting them. Hitler declared that Germany would respond to "Polish aggression." (all emphasis mine)
　
See:

Invasion of Poland | World War II Database

 

Thank you.

And thanks for the link!

 

German POWs treated well?

What happened to the approx. 90,000 Germans captured at Stalingrad then? The figure for homecomers came to just over 5,000 for that lot....and Italians captured in the same campaign had to resort to cannibalism....great treatment.

Civilians treated well?...I don't think so. The Red Army was NOTORIOUS for frontline discipline just dissappearing entirlely once the backs of their superiors were turned. Look to Konigsberg as an example of the type of treatment they meted out. They could have set the example after the barbaric way in which the Germans treated them, but Oh no....they had to "take revenge". And lets not blame the ordinary Ivan for "individual laxation of discipline." Their officers and commanders turned a blind eye and are as guilty as sin.

The facts are that Russia involvement in WW2 was NOTHING for Russian veterans to be proud of. Two wrongs don't make a right, however you spin it.

British Tommies lost relatives and friends to the Germans, but their troops did not, as a general rule, carry on in the same sub-human fashion as the Germans AND Russians. If Britain and the United States had withdrawn from the war and made sepoerate peace with the Germany, Russia would have been swallowed up by the Germans, with only a slight "burp" to show it ever existed. Russia should be forever grateful that such a scenario was not on the cards. If we knew the true story of the Stalin regime in 1939, if the common people had realised what a morally bankrupt administration was running the Soviet Union, we may well have left the Germans to conduct their "new crusade against Bolshevism" unfettered....and all the indications are that Russia would have dissappeared.

Modern Russia needs to stop pulling the Orwellian wool over the eyes of those that know exactly what they had to do to prop up their sordid regime, and cease trying to justify state sanctioned murder and imprisonment of not only prisoners and civilians, but of their own people.

Until this happens, Russia will be, I'm afraid to say, forever viewed as pariahs, rather than facing up to their crimes as the Germans have done,....and moving on into the future as genuine partners in the global sphere, rather than an anachronism to it.

As Orwell said...."Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." Medvedev controls the present in Russia at the moment, but one day, his people may well realise how the "Ministry of Truth" still operates in modern Russia to guarantee the regime, just as it did for Stalin. Future generations of Russians will not be the victims of state "bull", not while there are Western historians around to remind them of their actions. The Stalin regime was WORSE than the evil they were fighting, and no amount of paper from the modern Kremlin will ever change that.

The Revolution has turned Russia into a backward state. It's time to demythologize their leaders, and own up for past crimes.

Failure to do so will hamstring Russia for another 70 years. Do the people really want this? I don't think so. Russian politicians should start listening to the majority. All we ask of them is a "Government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people."

It's up to the ordinary Russian to stand up and be counted....and soon.