Soviets: The Darlings of American Media
The public wouldn't stand for Nazis and their
actions being aggrandized by the media, so why do they accept the media's
Soviet-sheltering?
I have always noticed a peculiar dichotomy in the
ways in which Americans (and many leftist Europeans), prompted by their media
sources, view the Soviets and the Nazis. Consistent with my view that, in
practice, fascism and communism are identically implemented and yield similar
draconian regimes, I believe strongly that both the Nazis and the Soviets
epitomized the evil that characterized much of humanity's 20th century. Both
Nazi Germany and the USSR were led by vicious narcissists who had as their
ultimate goal the spread of their particular brand of whatever ideology and all
of the "ethnic cleansing" and bourgeoisie purges that came along with it. The
Soviets, although they joined us to fight the Nazis in World War II, did so for
the reason of furthering their own goals of European domination first and world
domination following. If you will recall, the Soviets signed a nonaggression
pact with Nazi Germany during the early hours of the war--unprincipled leaders
and regimes bend with the winds of money and power no matter how inconsistent
with their theoretical or ideological
beliefs.
We all know--and are rightly and constantly reminded in films, documentaries and articles--that the Nazis killed between 17 and 21 million people in their concentration camps. The figure about which we are not so constantly reminded is the number of civilian deaths directly attributed to Stalin and the Soviets: RJ Rummel--in his book entitled Death by Government--figures that 13.1 million people died in gulags, village raids and other Soviet purges during the war. The operative word here is during since the Soviets' atrocities did not end with the nuclear bombs falling on Japan, two terribly unfortunate events that, no one can argue, sealed the end of the most costly war in human history. Parenthetically, the death-toll from the bomb drops at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is, at its highest, including the outright deaths and the subsequent, fallout-type deaths, 275,000 people (Paul Johnson, Modern Times). This is a horrible statistic and was a tragedy, but the US gets immeasurably more blame for this act that ended the war than the Soviets get for the millions of people that they murdered both during and after the war. I do not understand this inconsistency, but it is promoted by governments, certain religious leaders and media.
The death toll for the Second World War floats between 50-85 million people, Rummel's numbers ending up higher on the spectrum:
• European War Dead (1939-45): 28,736,000
• Sino-Japanese War Dead (1937-45): 7,140,000
• War-related Democides:
We all know--and are rightly and constantly reminded in films, documentaries and articles--that the Nazis killed between 17 and 21 million people in their concentration camps. The figure about which we are not so constantly reminded is the number of civilian deaths directly attributed to Stalin and the Soviets: RJ Rummel--in his book entitled Death by Government--figures that 13.1 million people died in gulags, village raids and other Soviet purges during the war. The operative word here is during since the Soviets' atrocities did not end with the nuclear bombs falling on Japan, two terribly unfortunate events that, no one can argue, sealed the end of the most costly war in human history. Parenthetically, the death-toll from the bomb drops at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is, at its highest, including the outright deaths and the subsequent, fallout-type deaths, 275,000 people (Paul Johnson, Modern Times). This is a horrible statistic and was a tragedy, but the US gets immeasurably more blame for this act that ended the war than the Soviets get for the millions of people that they murdered both during and after the war. I do not understand this inconsistency, but it is promoted by governments, certain religious leaders and media.
The death toll for the Second World War floats between 50-85 million people, Rummel's numbers ending up higher on the spectrum:
• European War Dead (1939-45): 28,736,000
• Sino-Japanese War Dead (1937-45): 7,140,000
• War-related Democides:
⁃ Hitler: 20,946,000
⁃ Stalin: 13,053,000
⁃ Japanese: 5,964,000
⁃ Chinese Nationalist:
5,907,000
⁃ Allied Bombing:
796,000
⁃ Croatian: 655,000
⁃ Tito: 600,000
⁃ Romanian domestic democide:
484,000
⁃ Chinese Communist:
250,000
⁃ Hungarian democide in Yugoslavia:
78,000
⁃ [TOTAL (Democides):
48,733,000]
[TOTAL (1937-45): 84,609,000]
What happened after the war? The Nazis were completely and utterly defeated, while, at the same time, the Soviets were able to solidify their power by firmly--and with permission from the West--stamping their foot onto Europe. The decision reached by FDR, Churchill and Stalin at the Yalta Conference in the waning days of the war was, many believe, one of the largest blunders in diplomacy in history. The Americans and the British were so frightened and intimidated by Stalin that they capitulated to his wishes and gave him de facto control over the most ridiculous amount of people and land in Europe. To be sure, the most soldiers who died in the war were Soviet, but much of this fact can be tied to the recklessness of the Soviet commanders who used their men as pure cannon fodder, oftentimes for their own cannons. The Soviets needed to take Berlin so that they could discover the Nazi nuclear secrets and materials in preparation for the coming conflict with America and the rest of the West, their then-"allies." The Soviets were not interested in liberating or freeing anyone from Nazi oppression, but were interested in controlling more land and having more satellite states. For specific substantiation of this claim, one need not look any further than Soviet actions, or lack thereof, in the Polish theatre, specifically the Katyn Massacre and the help that they chose not to provide to Polish freedom fighters in Warsaw during the uprising there. After 250,000 Poles died for naught while Soviet soldiers sunbathed on the other side of the Vistula River, Hitler ordered the 3-month-long, systematic destruction of Warsaw. See Norman Davies's book entitled Europe, A History for more on this subject.)
How many former POWs were killed upon their return to the USSR after the war? 1 million, as some historians cite it, or more? How many Russian expatriates, labeled as "imperialist spies" upon their return, were killed? Davies writes that 5 to 6 million of them were killed. And who knows how many were literally enslaved by the communist governments? My favorite film is about Russian expatriates who return from France and who are enslaved for nearly 20 years before the mother and son escape. The husband, the only Russian-born person in the family, is forced to stay in the USSR until glasnost. If you haven't seen 'East/West' then you must. It illustrates the facts of life in the USSR and within the Soviet sphere of influence of which, I would venture to guess, not many of my peers are aware. Certainly, in a nation where fewer and fewer people can name the Vice President of the United States, I am sure that even fewer are aware of the scope of Soviet oppression throughout the 20th century. That scope is often quantified to encompass a number greater than all of those lives taken by Hitler and his cadre. Millions of people died during the 20th century, and not only during war.
I purchased a Soviet army uniform jacket when I was studying in St. Petersburg during the summer of 2001. I have worn it on a couple of Halloweens because it is a symbol of an extremely frightening and brutal regime, a regime of which I have historical and familial animosity. I have resolved not to wear it anymore because of what it represents and because of the hypocrisy that I would espouse when I complain about people wearing shirts that have "CCCP" written on them; "CCCP", in Cyrillic, is the abbreviation for the USSR. Are the people who wear that shirt and shirts with Che Guavera's face on them truly knowledgeable of the evil that those symbols represent?
Conversely, would a Nazi uniform jacket be considered appropriate for Halloween? We saw the outrage elicited in the UK (and elsewhere) when Prince Harry donned his Panzer jacket to a "fancy dress" party. My jacket has never produced such outrage. Granted, I am not a prince, but that should not matter. If the media had conditioned the American public or the world public at large to be as aware of Soviet atrocities as they are aware of Nazi ones, then remarks made by President Bush during his recent trip to Europe would have been welcomed more than they were shunned.
Brent Bozell, a person with whom I am coming to disagree as much as agree, wrote an excellent article that my dad cut out for me from the Investors' Business Daily newspaper. It is available on Town Hall, as well. In it, he demonstrates, in typical, meticulous Media Research Center fashion, the bias that the American people have come to take for granted in their reporting, a bias slanted toward the left and toward the Soviets. President Bush was chastised here at home for bringing up the cold, hard facts about the past, most particularly those facts as they related to the Yalta Agreement and the Baltic states. They, along with all of the other East/Central European countries were occupied by the Soviet Union for several decades. That is the truth. I highly suggest that you read the article; it's short and it gets right to the point.
I recently entertained a Hungarian psychiatrist who was in Atlanta for an international conference that took place over this past week. She and I discussed many things, one of them being her experience during World War II. She mentioned how, in Budapest, both the Nazis and the Soviets were constantly trading places in that battle theatre, and how either force could be occupying their neighborhood at any point in time. She remarked how the Nazis brought her chocolate for Christmas and were as professional as could be, while when the Soviets visited them they shouted to the family to give them their bread. I have heard this kind of first-hand account before, from my grandmother, no less. She remembers how the Nazis were very professional-acting and were respectful to her and her family (my dad was not yet born), but when the flea-infested Soviet soldiers dropped by, that they tried to rape her. I am not saying that the Nazis were gentlemen, but only that, although they fought for Hitler, they weren't wholly evil men, driven by some unholy genocidal rage. Many of them were evil, I'm sure, but many, like the current Pope Benedict XVI, were forced into service and often deserted their posts. My point by citing all of these first-hand accounts not to put a kinder, gentler façade on the Nazi soldier, but to recount first-hand experiences that have been shared with me about life during the war, experiences that are not often highlighted by our media.
Both the Nazis and the Soviets supported regimes that repeatedly committed brutally evil acts and neither should be scorned more than the other. The media need to cease with the protection of the Soviet story and inform the public about the terrible acts committed by the Soviets just as they have done with those of the Nazis. It is only when the left (and the right) realizes the deeds of their ideological countrymen throughout history that the advocation of restriction of personal freedoms by inhuman ideals (from whatever source, be it The Bible or the Communist Manifesto) will grow weaker and political moderation will occur. When people are kept in the dark about the truths of their history, they are ignorant of past mistakes and will eventually gravitate toward making them again.
[TOTAL (1937-45): 84,609,000]
What happened after the war? The Nazis were completely and utterly defeated, while, at the same time, the Soviets were able to solidify their power by firmly--and with permission from the West--stamping their foot onto Europe. The decision reached by FDR, Churchill and Stalin at the Yalta Conference in the waning days of the war was, many believe, one of the largest blunders in diplomacy in history. The Americans and the British were so frightened and intimidated by Stalin that they capitulated to his wishes and gave him de facto control over the most ridiculous amount of people and land in Europe. To be sure, the most soldiers who died in the war were Soviet, but much of this fact can be tied to the recklessness of the Soviet commanders who used their men as pure cannon fodder, oftentimes for their own cannons. The Soviets needed to take Berlin so that they could discover the Nazi nuclear secrets and materials in preparation for the coming conflict with America and the rest of the West, their then-"allies." The Soviets were not interested in liberating or freeing anyone from Nazi oppression, but were interested in controlling more land and having more satellite states. For specific substantiation of this claim, one need not look any further than Soviet actions, or lack thereof, in the Polish theatre, specifically the Katyn Massacre and the help that they chose not to provide to Polish freedom fighters in Warsaw during the uprising there. After 250,000 Poles died for naught while Soviet soldiers sunbathed on the other side of the Vistula River, Hitler ordered the 3-month-long, systematic destruction of Warsaw. See Norman Davies's book entitled Europe, A History for more on this subject.)
How many former POWs were killed upon their return to the USSR after the war? 1 million, as some historians cite it, or more? How many Russian expatriates, labeled as "imperialist spies" upon their return, were killed? Davies writes that 5 to 6 million of them were killed. And who knows how many were literally enslaved by the communist governments? My favorite film is about Russian expatriates who return from France and who are enslaved for nearly 20 years before the mother and son escape. The husband, the only Russian-born person in the family, is forced to stay in the USSR until glasnost. If you haven't seen 'East/West' then you must. It illustrates the facts of life in the USSR and within the Soviet sphere of influence of which, I would venture to guess, not many of my peers are aware. Certainly, in a nation where fewer and fewer people can name the Vice President of the United States, I am sure that even fewer are aware of the scope of Soviet oppression throughout the 20th century. That scope is often quantified to encompass a number greater than all of those lives taken by Hitler and his cadre. Millions of people died during the 20th century, and not only during war.
I purchased a Soviet army uniform jacket when I was studying in St. Petersburg during the summer of 2001. I have worn it on a couple of Halloweens because it is a symbol of an extremely frightening and brutal regime, a regime of which I have historical and familial animosity. I have resolved not to wear it anymore because of what it represents and because of the hypocrisy that I would espouse when I complain about people wearing shirts that have "CCCP" written on them; "CCCP", in Cyrillic, is the abbreviation for the USSR. Are the people who wear that shirt and shirts with Che Guavera's face on them truly knowledgeable of the evil that those symbols represent?
Conversely, would a Nazi uniform jacket be considered appropriate for Halloween? We saw the outrage elicited in the UK (and elsewhere) when Prince Harry donned his Panzer jacket to a "fancy dress" party. My jacket has never produced such outrage. Granted, I am not a prince, but that should not matter. If the media had conditioned the American public or the world public at large to be as aware of Soviet atrocities as they are aware of Nazi ones, then remarks made by President Bush during his recent trip to Europe would have been welcomed more than they were shunned.
Brent Bozell, a person with whom I am coming to disagree as much as agree, wrote an excellent article that my dad cut out for me from the Investors' Business Daily newspaper. It is available on Town Hall, as well. In it, he demonstrates, in typical, meticulous Media Research Center fashion, the bias that the American people have come to take for granted in their reporting, a bias slanted toward the left and toward the Soviets. President Bush was chastised here at home for bringing up the cold, hard facts about the past, most particularly those facts as they related to the Yalta Agreement and the Baltic states. They, along with all of the other East/Central European countries were occupied by the Soviet Union for several decades. That is the truth. I highly suggest that you read the article; it's short and it gets right to the point.
I recently entertained a Hungarian psychiatrist who was in Atlanta for an international conference that took place over this past week. She and I discussed many things, one of them being her experience during World War II. She mentioned how, in Budapest, both the Nazis and the Soviets were constantly trading places in that battle theatre, and how either force could be occupying their neighborhood at any point in time. She remarked how the Nazis brought her chocolate for Christmas and were as professional as could be, while when the Soviets visited them they shouted to the family to give them their bread. I have heard this kind of first-hand account before, from my grandmother, no less. She remembers how the Nazis were very professional-acting and were respectful to her and her family (my dad was not yet born), but when the flea-infested Soviet soldiers dropped by, that they tried to rape her. I am not saying that the Nazis were gentlemen, but only that, although they fought for Hitler, they weren't wholly evil men, driven by some unholy genocidal rage. Many of them were evil, I'm sure, but many, like the current Pope Benedict XVI, were forced into service and often deserted their posts. My point by citing all of these first-hand accounts not to put a kinder, gentler façade on the Nazi soldier, but to recount first-hand experiences that have been shared with me about life during the war, experiences that are not often highlighted by our media.
Both the Nazis and the Soviets supported regimes that repeatedly committed brutally evil acts and neither should be scorned more than the other. The media need to cease with the protection of the Soviet story and inform the public about the terrible acts committed by the Soviets just as they have done with those of the Nazis. It is only when the left (and the right) realizes the deeds of their ideological countrymen throughout history that the advocation of restriction of personal freedoms by inhuman ideals (from whatever source, be it The Bible or the Communist Manifesto) will grow weaker and political moderation will occur. When people are kept in the dark about the truths of their history, they are ignorant of past mistakes and will eventually gravitate toward making them again.
Posted: Fri - May 27, 2005 at 10:34 PM
Quick Links
Illegitimus Non Tatum Carborundum
Categories
XML/RSS Feed
Archives
FAVORITE LINKS
The Drudge Report
Neal Boortz
BBC News
MacNN
Andrew Sullivan
The Economist
Constitution Preservation.org
The Cato Institute
Air America Radio
Neal Boortz
BBC News
MacNN
Andrew Sullivan
The Economist
Constitution Preservation.org
The Cato Institute
Air America Radio
Emory Schedule
Notify List
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
iTunes Music Store
AMAZON LINKS
COUNTER
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 10, 2005 08:27 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 10, 2005 08:27 AM