La Russophobe has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://larussophobe.wordpress.com
and update your bookmarks.

Take action now to save Darfur

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Russian Imperialism and World War II

On Tuesday, Russians marched in World War II garb to commemorate the 65th anniversary of a parade by thousands of Soviet troops who were heading off to the front in 1941. Writing in the Times of London (and arguing that Russia should get more credit than it does for defeating Nazi Germany), historian Norman Davies reminds us that at the beginning of World War II Russia was right next to Germany at the feeding trough of imperialism, greedly scarfing down as many smaller contries as it could get its hands on:

The attack on the Third Reich was a joint effort. But it was not a joint effort of two equal parts. The lion’s share of victory in Europe can be awarded only to Stalin’s forces and it is a fantasy to believe that he was fighting for justice and democracy.

Separating the facts from the myths and the propaganda is not easy. One of the trickiest problems in establishing a credible narrative of the war arises from the misconception that the largest combatant state, the USSR, stayed neutral before the German attack of June 1941. Soviet accounts have always preferred to focus on the so-called Great Fatherland War, and carefully avoids close examination of Stalin’s political and military machinations in the preceding years.

Western commentators have usually followed this line, reluctant to publicise their embarrassment at Hitler’s initial partner becoming the ally of the democratic West.

In reality, in the first 22 months of fighting when the Wehrmacht attacked and occupied eight countries, the Red Army attacked and occupied five. These manifest aggressions make nonsense of any claims of neutrality or of defensive responses to the provocations of others. In November 1939, for example, Stalin’s unprovoked invasion of Finland resulted in a war that lasted for twice as long as any of Hitler’s early campaigns.

Similarly, the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in 1940 was no mere “strengthening of the defences” or “readjustment of frontiers”. It was a brutal act of depredation that destroyed three sovereign European states, together with a quarter of their population. All these events were facilitated by the Nazi-Soviet pact, which gave Stalin the same licence for banditry in the Soviet sphere that Hitler was exploiting in the German.

3 comments:

La Russophobe said...

UGLY:

Oh, does being a "dull little dictatorship" mean a country is fair game for imperialism? In that case, America has carte blanche to take over Russia any time it chooses, right?

La Russophobe said...

UGLY:

So let me get this straight. If America invades Russia the way it invaded Iraq, and Russia can't handle America's conventional forces, then you think Russia would launch a nuclear strike on the US? And in so doing, invite a retaliatory strike that would obliterate Russia forever?

And you feel that Russian ICBM's are realiable enough to launch such a strike, despite US missile defense systems and even though the rest of Russia is a total basket case and soccer teams can't even drive to their matches, right?

Pure unmitigated gibberish.

But let's say it's true. Let's say that instead the US decides to simply destroy Russia economically, using it's many allies and its massively greater economy. What then? Still a nuclear strike?

Don't make me laugh.

Anonymous said...

> Oh, does being a "dull little dictatorship" mean a country is fair game for imperialism? In that case, America has carte blanche to take over Russia any time it chooses, right?

Isn't that what your beloved America has been doing ever since its inception - invading 'dull little dictatorships'???. Do you want to know how many vibrant democracies have been destroyed by the token of democracy? check www.americanempireproject.com