Stereotypes About The Red Army And Russia

[boykin530]

This is a pretty old thread. Was the poster named "Stalin" just trying to be shocking ? I doubt he's a regular around here. Is that right ?
Kids..what are we gonna do with em ?

[jet roxas]

we sometimes forget to read the old book. in the book of revelation, stalin is one of the four angels who will smite the earth...and of course hitler, churchill and roosevelt.
don't be shock kids....these angels of death are the fulfillment of the prophecy.

[drgslyr]

Originally Posted by Gotthard Heinrici

No offense taken Boykin. read "Panzer Battles" by Von Mellenthin, "Lost Victories" by Erich Von Manstein, "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian. You will find some of these myths and stereotypes being alluded to either directly or indirectly. And who said Glantz was a bad author? If he is then who would you suggest is better?

I've just got to ask, if it's written by a German author does that make it, by default, untrue? It seems that your agenda is to vindicate the poor perception of the Soviet military machine by Western authors, and so you automatically disregard any testament of accounts from a German source as false and misleading because these accounts don't correspond to the perception of events as you wish them to be. From what I can discern, according to you the Germans were all self-serving liars and any Russian declassified document is gospel.... blah, blah, blah.

I appologize for the tone of this post, but I decided not to go back and revise it because it reflects how I feel about the methods you employ to make arguments for the revisionist history you propose. You are incensed that the Western view of history is disproportionately taken from the German perspective, but how can any arguments you make be taken seriously when you dismiss German sources out of hand as untrue? To a certain extent there is validity in all of the "myths and stereotypes alluded to" (as you describe it) by the German authors. Certainly other factors than the generally accepted were at play in any operation, and it is inevitable that men writing memoirs will skew their recollection of some events to show themselves in a more favorable light, but to make the claim that an explanation of events cannot be true or accurate because it comes from a German source (and therefore must be some type of cover-up) makes, for me at least, any argument you might make specious.

[drgslyr]

Originally Posted by jet roxas

we sometimes forget to read the old book. in the book of revelation, stalin is one of the four angels who will smite the earth...and of course hitler, churchill and roosevelt.
don't be shock kids....these angels of death are the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Your prophecies maybe, not mine. Anyway, I'm only responding because I wanted to get to the 100 post mark.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Originally Posted by drgslyr

I've just got to ask, if it's written by a German author does that make it, by default, untrue? It seems that your agenda is to vindicate the poor perception of the Soviet military machine by Western authors, and so you automatically disregard any testament of accounts from a German source as false and misleading because these accounts don't correspond to the perception of events as you wish them to be. From what I can discern, according to you the Germans were all self-serving liars and any Russian declassified document is gospel.... blah, blah, blah.

I appologize for the tone of this post, but I decided not to go back and revise it because it reflects how I feel about the methods you employ to make arguments for the revisionist history you propose. You are incensed that the Western view of history is disproportionately taken from the German perspective, but how can any arguments you make be taken seriously when you dismiss German sources out of hand as untrue? To a certain extent there is validity in all of the "myths and stereotypes alluded to" (as you describe it) by the German authors. Certainly other factors than the generally accepted were at play in any operation, and it is inevitable that men writing memoirs will skew their recollection of some events to show themselves in a more favorable light, but to make the claim that an explanation of events cannot be true or accurate because it comes from a German source (and therefore must be some type of cover-up) makes, for me at least, any argument you might make specious.

Ok, first of all I would never discount any source of history - I merely pointed out that I have found certain German Memoirs to be "loaded". I never said they shouldnt be read but caution should be taken reading ANY history relating to the German-Soviet War as both Soviet and German sources can be flawed. By flawed I mean that although there is good historical data contained within, the author may have an axe to grind. you've said it yourself, they wanted to put themselves in a more favourable light. Let me further explain it. Most German sources will allude to the fact that in 1941 the weather defeated the Wehrmacht, that General winter ensured that Moscow was held and that, just as the Germans were freezing to death, The Russians were only then able to make a counterattack. No mention is given of the fact that the Russians also had to fight in the same conditions as the Germans. The Generals were quick to blame Hitler over the lack of winter clothing yet no winter clothes were mentioned by any German Army study before the Campaign. The Generals agreed that the Russian Army could be beaten before the end of the Autumn. This explains why Halder began to worry after the end of Summer 1941 when they had captured more troops than the initial German study had planned for. He couldnt understand how there were so many russians still fighting. Now a lot of blame can be placed at Hitler's door but when you read the memoirs of some of those Generals you would think that it was all his fault.

Speaking of the fact that you accuse me of disregarding certain works, 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!! They werent inferior. By the way by you accusing me of revisionism, exactly what do you mean? Are you suggesting I am pro-Soviet? My area of expertise is not the Soviet State, and as regards revisionism I have no time for "revisionists" like Suvorov and his ilk. I do not believe that Stalin was about to attack Hitler at least not right away and the dispositions of the Soviet Armies back up my opinion of this.

The Soviet Army was a powerful and potent weapon which almost got destroyed in the terrible losses of 1941 but managed to pull itself back from the brink and reforged itself. By the time of june 1944 the Wehrmacht was facing a brave and determined enemy who was capable of long reaching strategic offensives. Its soldiers might not have been as well trained as the "landsers" of 1939 and 1940 but their men were able to fight well.

Once again I do not say to anyone not to read the German General's memoirs but I would advise that they be taken with a pinch of salt and if you disagree then show me your evidence to the contrary.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Originally Posted by drgslyr

I've just got to ask, if it's written by a German author does that make it, by default, untrue? It seems that your agenda is to vindicate the poor perception of the Soviet military machine by Western authors, and so you automatically disregard any testament of accounts from a German source as false and misleading because these accounts don't correspond to the perception of events as you wish them to be. From what I can discern, according to you the Germans were all self-serving liars and any Russian declassified document is gospel.... blah, blah, blah.

Please tell me where I have said that they were liars -self -serving well in some situations yes that was the case. I never said that the Russian historians were any better by the way. Have a look back at the thread - I'm not pushing the Soviet side at the expense of the Germans, merely commenting that for 50 years the west has had to rely on German testimonies only and if you only read one side then you can only see half the picture.

[drgslyr]

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!!!