The Fallen of World War II - Well Worth Watching!

[Edward]

It seems that in today's assessment, Hitler and Nazis have become equivalent with evil - absolutely, positively no argument here - but Stalin and Mao seem, IMHO, to deserve the same assessment, but at least in the general public's view, aren't seen that way.

Combination of factors, I should think. Because Stalin was an ally, none of the allied countries' media were motivated or briefed to demonise him in the way they would have done had 'we' been fighting him and not Hitler. Mao was also further away, and largely inward-looking. The West didn't care so much in general if they were killing their own rather than those from outside. Had Hitler not been The Enemy, I think we'd have seen a culturally more ambivalent approach to him too. Possibly it also has something to do with the difference of approach, as distinct from raw numbers, where Stalin killed those he perceived as a threat (made worse by high paranoia) as distinct from Hitler who actively wanted to entirely wipe out certain groups of people from existence.

As well as that (but, of course, not unconnected re the role of the media) is that I think most people simply weren't as aware of Stalin and Mao's crimes against humanity. I'm sure the easy otherisation of especially the Chinese made it seem less immediate too than the crimes against Europeans by Hitler. (Thinking especially of the otherisation deployed in US anti-Japanese propaganda of the war period).

As an aside note, in December past I went to an event organised by a colleague in the law school which was a talk given by a Polish woman who had survived the Holocaust as a child. Much like visiting Aushwitz and Birkenau, it's one thing to be aware of what happened, and quite another to be directly confronted with the physical evidence. The thing that really struck me, though, was just how recently the term 'Holocaust' was coined - circa 1961, if I remember correctly.

Hitler's plan for the USSR was even more horrific than what actually happened -- for starters, he wanted to slaughter between fifty and sixty percent of the total Russian population. That's about eighty million people, with the rest to be enslaved for the glory of the greater Reich. Add in the Nazi plans for the other SSRs, which would have slaughtered another seventy million people, and it's evident that even Stalin at his worst had never contemplated anything like that. The Russians knew the Nazis considered them "untermensch," subhuman creatures worthy only of death or enslavement -- and they knew they were fighting not just for their nation, but for their survival as a people.

Indeed. Sometimes in this world many folks do find themselves caught in a position where they feel the need to back the lesser evil, for the reason alone that it's less evil.

 

[pawineguy]

I think part of the problem with these interesting debates / conversations is that the complexity of these historical events don't lend themselves to short, simple analyses. My 2 cents:

1. I find that many people don't say "but Stalin" but rather, "and Stalin."
2. 100% agree that the citizens of the Soviet Union paid an enormous role in the defeat of Hitler, more so than any other country.
3. Their horrific casualty numbers were in part due to Stalin's policies of not evacuating civilians, marching troops into minefields, summarily executing retreating troops, and generally treating his people as cannon fodder
4. Did we benefit from these policies? Undoubtably. As Allies, they did little to earn trust.
5. The Germans, as the losers, had to answer for their execution of Hitler's plans, while the people of the Soviet Union did not have to answer for following Stalin's orders, no matter how atrocious.
6. While Stalin only moved certain ethnic populations, due to the realities of the day, millions of those refugees died of disease and starvation.
7. I can't find a single redeeming quality about Stalin, but the reality of history is that we benefitted from his brutal execution of the war.

 

[LizzieMaine]

7. I can't find a single redeeming quality about Stalin, but the reality of history is that we benefitted from his brutal execution of the war.

An even more interesting question is what would have happened if Trotsky had been in power instead of Stalin. Trotsky was far more intent on the cause of "world revolution" than Stalin, and far less concerned with domestic industrialization -- their differences on these points are what led to their break. The industrial strength accomplished under Stalin was essential to the USSR's ability to hold off Hitler as long as it did, especially in the months before aid from the other Allies kicked in. Without Stalin's Five Year Plan, as brutal as it was, to ensure that industrialization, a Trotskyite USSR would have been no match whatever for Germany.

A Kerenskyite Russia would likewise have collapsed almost immediately. Hitler's designs on the Russian territory had as much to do with his hatred for the "untermenschen" as it did his hatred of Communism, and even without a Bolshevik USSR he'd have still wanted the Russians exterminated and their territory occupied by the Master Race. A population composed largely of illiterate or semi-literate peasants with little motivation to industrialize would have offered no challenge to that occupation at all.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The thing that really struck me, though, was just how recently the term 'Holocaust' was coined - circa 1961, if I remember correctly.

In the US it was popularized by a TV miniseries called "Holocaust," shown in 1978. While the term had begun to spread academically before that, it was only after the TV show that it became mainstream language among Americans. I don't remember ever hearing the phrase before that. I had read Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" not long before the TV program aired, and he used the phrase "Final Solution" to describe the Nazi plans for Jewish exermination. That phrase, to me, is even more horrifying -- because it captures the cold-bloodedly businesslike mindset with which it was carried out.

 

[Fading Fast]

Every once in awhile, some politician (left or right) today will use the phrase "Final Solution" referring to some plan to fix this or that issue and I am always amazed that both he or she and the press covering him or her, I assume, have no clue about the magnitude of historical horror that phrase carries as they cover the story without seeming to pause. To Lizzie's point, "Holocaust" has become the identifying name, but I still get chills anytime, in any context, when I hear the phrase "Final Solution."

And it still says a lot that the Nazis, for all the confidence they claimed to have in the righteousness of their "Final Solution" and all the "Master Race" blather, used a euphemism (at the time, "Final Solution" was pretty dry) and most took great pains not to have documented evidence of their personal participation in the Holocaust. At some core human level, even deep in the evil of Nazism, the Nazis (maybe not every single one, but most) knew what they were doing was wrong. They still wanted to do it, but they knew, at some arrant human level, that exterminating a race was evil.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yep, whenever I see a sportswriter say "the Sox hope to find the final solution to their left-handed pitching problem" or something along those lines, I flinch. It's a phrase that cannot be reclaimed in the mind of anyone who knows anything about its Nazi-era associations, and people who write for a living, especially, ought to be aware of that.

That type of euphemism was highly characteristic of the Nazi state, though. Someone once characterized the day-to-day operation of Hitler's Germany as epitomizing what happens when corporate middle-management takes over a government, and I think that's exactly the right analogy. The Nazis in charge of implementing the Holocaust weren't all racialist-nationalist Fascist fanatics out to rule the world. Far too many of them were the sort of dull, unimaginative petit-bourgeois business executives you find in any office, "just implementing policy set by the CEO."

 

[Fading Fast]

Yep, whenever I see a sportswriter say "the Sox hope to find the final solution to their left-handed pitching problem" or something along those lines, I flinch. It's a phrase that cannot be reclaimed in the mind of anyone who knows anything about its Nazi-era associations, and people who write for a living, especially, ought to be aware of that.

That type of euphemism was highly characteristic of the Nazi state, though. Someone once characterized the day-to-day operation of Hitler's Germany as epitomizing what happens when corporate middle-management takes over a government, and I think that's exactly the right analogy. The Nazis in charge of implementing the Holocaust weren't all racialist-nationalist Fascist fanatics out to rule the world. Far too many of them were the sort of dull, unimaginative petit-bourgeois business executives you find in any office, "just implementing policy set by the CEO."

While the exact meaning of the phrase seems a bit amorphous to me - based on how I've seen it used - your comment (bolded above) echoes Hannah Arendt's "The Banality of Evil" phrase used to describe, specifically, Adolf Eichmann's bureaucratic demeanor and, more broadly, the juxtaposition of the mundane administerial aspects of the Holocaust versus its enormous horror.

I'd broaden your comment - my opinion, not putting words in your mouth - of who many of these people are to say that you see them in, yes, corporate middle management, but also in many mid-level government manager roles and mid-level not-for-profit manager roles. There are many very effective, hard working and smart mid-level managers, but there is no question that some subset of that population seem to be automatons who follow policies and procedures with a narrow-mindedness and unquestioning perspective that is soul crushing to encounter. Many of those people - and it makes sense because if you thought too much about it, it would challenge most people's moral compass - had successful careers in the administrative details of the Holocaust: don't think / just do.

I read the book back in the early '80s (I think), but if my creaky memory serves, Herman Wouk, in "War and Remembrance," did an outstanding job of putting the reader in the perspective of a concentration camp commander and the logistical problems he faced in doing his job once he divorced himself from the morality of it. As the reader, you are amazed, but "get" that he had blocked the morality of it from his mind and just dealt with it as a massive logistics challenge.

Chilling.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Of course, not all those cold-blooded executives were Nazis -- or even Germans.

IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation.

 

[tonyb]

We humans sure are prone to killing one another, eh?

The film provides "perspective," for sure. Of course it's better that fewer people die than more people die, but every death is its own tragedy. Knowing that a loved one died in an armed conflict that claimed but a small fraction of the lives lost in WWII is small comfort to the grieving survivor.

Knowing the mass slaughter of our co-speciesists we humans are capable of, it is forever incumbent upon us to find gentler ways of settling our differences. The hard data indicates that we're doing a better job of it on balance over the past seven decades. But still, millions die. And the young die disproportionately.

 

[jamespowers]

I think part of the problem with these interesting debates / conversations is that the complexity of these historical events don't lend themselves to short, simple analyses. My 2 cents:

1. I find that many people don't say "but Stalin" but rather, "and Stalin."
2. 100% agree that the citizens of the Soviet Union paid an enormous role in the defeat of Hitler, more so than any other country.
3. Their horrific casualty numbers were in part due to Stalin's policies of not evacuating civilians, marching troops into minefields, summarily executing retreating troops, and generally treating his people as cannon fodder
4. Did we benefit from these policies? Undoubtably. As Allies, they did little to earn trust.
5. The Germans, as the losers, had to answer for their execution of Hitler's plans, while the people of the Soviet Union did not have to answer for following Stalin's orders, no matter how atrocious.
6. While Stalin only moved certain ethnic populations, due to the realities of the day, millions of those refugees died of disease and starvation.
7. I can't find a single redeeming quality about Stalin, but the reality of history is that we benefitted from his brutal execution of the war.

Agreed, set and match. You nailed it. Some people forget that Stalin and Hitler were allies before we were allied with Russia. We were later allied with Russia because Stalin and Hitler couldn't figure out how to divide Poland without each trying to screw the other. It killed Stalin that Hitler got the best of him(screwed him before he could screw Hitler by invading the territory before Russian troops got there) and that was the only REAL reason they didn't stay allies. There is a reason why Hitler's remains were sent to Russia. Stalin had such a vendetta against Hitler that he wanted to make absolutely sure he was dead. Stalin was no better than Hitler---he was worse and he lasted longer to thwart us for decades afterward. :doh:

 

[jamespowers]

We humans sure are prone to killing one another, eh?

The film provides "perspective," for sure. Of course it's better that fewer people die than more people die, but every death is its own tragedy. Knowing that a loved one died in an armed conflict that claimed but a small fraction of the lives lost in WWII is small comfort to the grieving survivor.

Knowing the mass slaughter of our co-speciesists we humans are capable of, it is forever incumbent upon us to find gentler ways of settling our differences. The hard data indicates that we're doing a better job of it on balance over the past seven decades. But still, millions die. And the young die disproportionately.

You make an excellent point. Looking back over human history into time immemorial, we find that peace as it relates to a period of time is by far the exception rather than the rule. There have been wars that have lasted as long as our current period of peace many, many times in history.....

 

[LizzieMaine]

Agreed, set and match. You nailed it. Some people forget that Stalin and Hitler were allies before we were allied with Russia.

Of course, Stalin pursued that alliance only after proposals for an alliance between the USSR in 1938 and 1939 with Britain and France were rejected. While Stalin unquestionably had designs on those portions of Poland -- and Finland-- that had formerly been part of Imperial Russia, many observers at the time were well aware that neither the USSR nor Germany were sincere in pursuing an alliance -- it was largely seen as buying time for both sides before an inevitable invasion of the USSR by Germany. Operation Barbarossa came as no surprise to anyone who'd read between the lines in 1939-40.

 

[jamespowers]

Of course, Stalin pursued that alliance only after proposals for an alliance between the USSR in 1938 and 1939 with Britain and France were rejected. While Stalin unquestionably had designs on those portions of Poland -- and Finland-- that had formerly been part of Imperial Russia, many observers at the time were well aware that neither the USSR nor Germany were sincere in pursuing an alliance -- it was largely seen as buying time for both sides before an inevitable invasion of the USSR by Germany. Operation Barbarossa came as no surprise to anyone who'd read between the lines in 1939-40.

And it came full circle with Russia establishing East Germany by just going in and grabbing it---no shots fired---just hubris. :doh:
Stalin tried to get us involved in many convoluted ways as well. He was a schemer of the highest order who used whatever he could to get what he wanted. He used his allies in the US at the time to great avail---standing by and watching knowing what was going to happen. Stalin was afraid of a two front war which would have ended Russia. If the Japanese AND the Germans hit them from both sides they would have been done. Drawing us and the British in to fight the Japanese made his war easier. So in reality, we were helping him just as much as he was helping us. He would have lost many more men if Japan and German had nailed them from both sides. Hitler tried many times to get the Japanese to fight Russia from the other end of the continent but it never materialized----because of the US, Britain and a host of other countries that kept them nailed down in the pacific.

 

[pawineguy]

And it came full circle with Russia establishing East Germany by just going in and grabbing it---no shots fired---just hubris. :doh:
Stalin tried to get us involved in many convoluted ways as well. He was a schemer of the highest order who used whatever he could to get what he wanted. He used his allies in the US at the time to great avail---standing by and watching knowing what was going to happen. Stalin was afraid of a two front war which would have ended Russia. If the Japanese AND the Germans hit them from both sides they would have been done. Drawing us and the British in to fight the Japanese made his war easier. So in reality, we were helping him just as much as he was helping us. He would have lost many more men if Japan and German had nailed them from both sides. Hitler tried many times to get the Japanese to fight Russia from the other end of the continent but it never materialized----because of the US, Britain and a host of other countries that kept them nailed down in the pacific.

This is a point about a two front war that many miss. Stalin invaded Poland the day after he secured an agreement with Japan. He knew he couldn't fight on two fronts, just as Germany ultimately couldn't. While Lizzie is certainly correct that everyone knew that a German invasion was coming, Stalin was the only one who didn't seem to get the message, and his armies paid for it with division after division being totally overwhelmed and surrounded during the initial invasion. They also lost the majority of their aircraft, destroyed sitting on the ground.

 

[pawineguy]

An even more interesting question is what would have happened if Trotsky had been in power instead of Stalin. Trotsky was far more intent on the cause of "world revolution" than Stalin, and far less concerned with domestic industrialization -- their differences on these points are what led to their break. The industrial strength accomplished under Stalin was essential to the USSR's ability to hold off Hitler as long as it did, especially in the months before aid from the other Allies kicked in. Without Stalin's Five Year Plan, as brutal as it was, to ensure that industrialization, a Trotskyite USSR would have been no match whatever for Germany.

A Kerenskyite Russia would likewise have collapsed almost immediately. Hitler's designs on the Russian territory had as much to do with his hatred for the "untermenschen" as it did his hatred of Communism, and even without a Bolshevik USSR he'd have still wanted the Russians exterminated and their territory occupied by the Master Race. A population composed largely of illiterate or semi-literate peasants with little motivation to industrialize would have offered no challenge to that occupation at all.

Both good points, and if Hitler had waited much longer to invade, he may have found Stalin's armies much much stronger and most likely wouldn't have rolled over them like he did. Once they were really cranking, their production of tanks (25,000+), hundreds of thousands of trucks, tens of thousands of planes, etc... would have made an enormous difference. The other what if is that I think about is had Hitler delayed and the Soviets were better prepared, how much quicker could we have opened that second front using supplies that were diverted to Stalin. The output from the US and GB that went to the Soviet Union is just staggering.

 

[jamespowers]

Both good points, and if Hitler had waited much longer to invade, he may have found Stalin's armies much much stronger and most likely wouldn't have rolled over them like he did. Once they were really cranking, their production of tanks (25,000+), hundreds of thousands of trucks, tens of thousands of planes, etc... would have made an enormous difference. The other what if is that I think about is had Hitler delayed and the Soviets were better prepared, how much quicker could we have opened that second front using supplies that were diverted to Stalin. The output from the US and GB that went to the Soviet Union is just staggering.

Exactly and that figure is completely evocative of how many of these we sent to Russia:

15,000----that they used to move guns, men and supplies to defeat the Germans. For lack of just this one truck, it would have nearly made Russia enemic as they did not have the plants or even the ability at the time to churn out vehicles like this as fast as we could---along with tanks, guns and munitions. The fact that the Germans were within the last bus stop outside Moscow just shows you how close they got to their objecvtive----if not for us.

 

[jamespowers]

This is a point about a two front war that many miss. Stalin invaded Poland the day after he secured an agreement with Japan. He knew he couldn't fight on two fronts, just as Germany ultimately couldn't. While Lizzie is certainly correct that everyone knew that a German invasion was coming, Stalin was the only one who didn't seem to get the message, and his armies paid for it with division after division being totally overwhelmed and surrounded during the initial invasion. They also lost the majority of their aircraft, destroyed sitting on the ground.

That is another thing about the megalomaniac Stalin---it was not that he didn't get the message----he didn't give a damn how many of his citizens he had to throw at the Germans as canon fodder. He had absolutely no concern for his people. It was absolutely all about him and proving to the world that he was some kind of great strategist. THAT was why so many of his people were killed during WWII that really didn't have to be. That wasn't strategy any more than Japan's "voluntary" Kamikaze pilots were. It was desperation! :doh:

 

[pawineguy]

Exactly and that figure is completely evocative of how many of these we sent to Russia:

15,000----that they used to move guns, men and supplies to defeat the Germans. For lack of just this one truck, it would have nearly made Russia enemic as they did not have the plants or even the ability at the time to churn out vehicles like this as fast as we could---along with tanks, guns and munitions. The fact that the Germans were within the last bus stop outside Moscow just shows you how close they got to their objecvtive----if not for us.

Total jeeps and trucks were 400,000! The Studebaker being the most famous of course... also 7000 tanks, 11,000 airplanes and almost 2,000,000 TONS of food. Stalin complained that we didn't invade quickly enough, but he couldn't complain about our logistical support.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The only reasonable explanation I've ever seen for Stalin's getting caught flat-footed on the 22nd of June was that he was absolutely convinced that Hitler wouldn't invade until the war with Britain, one way or the other, was resolved. The NKVD had very reliable intelligence coming via moles in German diplomatic channels right up until the invasion itself, but Stalin refused to accept that his theory could possibly be incorrect and disregarded these warnings, possibly assuming that they were red herrings designed either to lure him into premature action, or to convince Britain that Germany was planning to shift its attention elsewhere. This type of thinking would fit in well with his well-documented paranoid tendencies.

 

[jamespowers]

Total jeeps and trucks were 400,000! The Studebaker being the most famous of course... also 7000 tanks, 11,000 airplanes and almost 2,000,000 TONS of food. Stalin complained that we didn't invade quickly enough, but he couldn't complain about our logistical support.

Yeah, like we didn't give them enough support. They even had the nerve to complain about the quality of our tanks too! Considering that theirs were made for all of 15 hours of combat and 1,500 hours of regular use, that is laughable. lol lol
Considering that we could have supplied several Marine divisions with those supplies, it made the war last longer---for us. :doh: