World War 2 Talk - View Single Post - Stereotypes About The Red Army And Russia

drgslyr · 26-10-2008, 11:11 AM

Gotthard Heinrici. The crux of our discussion is essentially the legitimacy of the explanation of events described in the memoirs of the German generals, so I am going to comment on that topic alone rather than delve into any specific topics covered in said memoirs. First off, we agee that a reader should excersice caution when reading historical accounts of this type (or any type for that matter). It is easy to fall into the trap of believing something simply because it was written down in a book. Everyone falls into this trap on occasion, although the people most prone to taking things at face value are the ones least knowledgable about a subject - whatever that subject may be. As a person learns more they form their own opinions, and of course we all have the tendency to form and solidify opinions based on what we want to believe, for whatever reason we want or need to believe them. This long-winded setup leads me to my point: If you and I are motivated to lean towards different viewpoints based on what we would like to believe (which we probably are), then we will assign different degrees of relevance to any source material related to the subject. Whereas I may be guilty of being overly tolerant of the viewpoints expressed in the memoirs, you, I believe, are equally as guilty of dismissing the assertions of the authors as false or misleading, when it is just as possible that they truly believed that their assessment of events were legitimate and correct. Unless there is hard evidence to the contrary, any disagreement with their assertions is speculation.

I want to give an example of my point by exploring something you quoted:

"... lets take for example "Panzer Battles" by Maj General FW Von Mellenthin. A fascinating book and very readable and indeed he was one of the few Wehrmacht officers to serve in North Africa, in the east and in the Western Campaign of 1944. He devotes an entire chapter to the psychology of the Red Army and the make up of the Soviet Soldier. In the second paragraph he refers to them as "these Asiatics". If I may quote a paragraph he says "With the same indifference the Russian soldier endures heat and cold, thirst and hunger. Unheard of Hardships make no impression on his soul.He lacks any true religious or moral balance, and his moods alternate between bestial cruelty and genuine kindness. As part of a mob he is full of hatred and cruelty yet alone he can be friendly and generous. These characteristics apply to the Asiatic Russian, the Mongol, the Turkoman and the Uzbek as well as to the Slavs west of the Urals". Now I dont know about you but that is borderline rascism. "Lacks any true moral or religious beliefs", "Bestial Cruelty", "Part of a mob". Who are we talking about here because that could be applied about the Germans under Hitler as well. I'm not saying dont read Von Mellenthin's book or that it lacks merit but that paragraph shows how little he thinks of the Soviet citizen and that extended right through the whole of German Society. He thinks they are inferior!!"

Clearly you take offense to Mellenthin's description of the Soviet Soldier. He was, however, giving his impression of what he believed he witnessed. Was Mellenthin a racist - I don't know. Was his description accurate - I can't say, although I do believe that the impression he has written was truthful in his eyes. For me, making these observations does not discredit Mellenthin in any way.

After re-reading your follow-up post I don't think our opinions on this subject (at least) differ that much. Your main point seems to be that people should keep their mind open to alternatives to the traditional explanation of events because the viewpoint of one side has been disproportionately represented - and I am all for the search for truth, so yay you! The point I am trying to make is that the recollections of the authors of the memoirs and the conclusions they have echoed about the course of events during the war and the implications of those events shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand as propoganda or self-serving, when it is possible they are providing the most legitimate fundamental explanation of an event (even if that explanation is overly simplified as a whole).

Since we're claiming allegiance to football teams, GO PACK!!!

26-10-2008, 11:11 AM	#87 (permalink)
drgslyr Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 119	Gotthard Heinrici. The crux of our discussion is essentially the legitimacy of the explanation of events described in the memoirs of the German generals, so I am going to comment on that topic alone rather than delve into any specific topics covered in said memoirs. First off, we agee that a reader should excersice caution when reading historical accounts of this type (or any type for that matter). It is easy to fall into the trap of believing something simply because it was written down in a book. Everyone falls into this trap on occasion, although the people most prone to taking things at face value are the ones least knowledgable about a subject - whatever that subject may be. As a person learns more they form their own opinions, and of course we all have the tendency to form and solidify opinions based on what we want to believe, for whatever reason we want or need to believe them. This long-winded setup leads me to my point: If you and I are motivated to lean towards different viewpoints based on what we would like to believe (which we probably are), then we will assign different degrees of relevance to any source material related to the subject. Whereas I may be guilty of being overly tolerant of the viewpoints expressed in the memoirs, you, I believe, are equally as guilty of dismissing the assertions of the authors as false or misleading, when it is just as possible that they truly believed that their assessment of events were legitimate and correct. Unless there is hard evidence to the contrary, any disagreement with their assertions is speculation. I want to give an example of my point by exploring something you quoted: "... lets take for example "Panzer Battles" by Maj General FW Von Mellenthin. A fascinating book and very readable and indeed he was one of the few Wehrmacht officers to serve in North Africa, in the east and in the Western Campaign of 1944. He devotes an entire chapter to the psychology of the Red Army and the make up of the Soviet Soldier. In the second paragraph he refers to them as "these Asiatics". If I may quote a paragraph he says "With the same indifference the Russian soldier endures heat and cold, thirst and hunger. Unheard of Hardships make no impression on his soul.He lacks any true religious or moral balance, and his moods alternate between bestial cruelty and genuine kindness. As part of a mob he is full of hatred and cruelty yet alone he can be friendly and generous. These characteristics apply to the Asiatic Russian, the Mongol, the Turkoman and the Uzbek as well as to the Slavs west of the Urals". Now I dont know about you but that is borderline rascism. "Lacks any true moral or religious beliefs", "Bestial Cruelty", "Part of a mob". Who are we talking about here because that could be applied about the Germans under Hitler as well. I'm not saying dont read Von Mellenthin's book or that it lacks merit but that paragraph shows how little he thinks of the Soviet citizen and that extended right through the whole of German Society. He thinks they are inferior!!" Clearly you take offense to Mellenthin's description of the Soviet Soldier. He was, however, giving his impression of what he believed he witnessed. Was Mellenthin a racist - I don't know. Was his description accurate - I can't say, although I do believe that the impression he has written was truthful in his eyes. For me, making these observations does not discredit Mellenthin in any way. After re-reading your follow-up post I don't think our opinions on this subject (at least) differ that much. Your main point seems to be that people should keep their mind open to alternatives to the traditional explanation of events because the viewpoint of one side has been disproportionately represented - and I am all for the search for truth, so yay you! The point I am trying to make is that the recollections of the authors of the memoirs and the conclusions they have echoed about the course of events during the war and the implications of those events shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand as propoganda or self-serving, when it is possible they are providing the most legitimate fundamental explanation of an event (even if that explanation is overly simplified as a whole). Since we're claiming allegiance to football teams, GO PACK!!!