Streetwise Professor

November 16, 2010

The War on the History of the War Continues

Filed under: History,Military,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 7:20 pm

Russia plans to impose extraterritorially its uniquely self-serving interpretation of WWII history (h/t R):

Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, created a commission of 28 legislators and senior intelligence officers which will identify foreign “revisionists” who “disparage the international prestige of the Russian Federation”.

The move, condemned as “Orwellian” by its critics, comes shortly before the Russian parliament is expected to pass controversial legislation outlawing the “rehabilitation of Nazism”.

The bill has attracted criticism because of its definition of Nazi rehabilitation, with those who “belittle” the Soviet Union’s role in the war or criticise it in any way being regarded as equally culpable as those who glorify Hitler.

Those found to contravene the new law, which Russia insists is little different from Germany’s Holocaust-denial legislation, face up to five years in prison.

Foreign countries whose officials who the commission rules to be guilty of the new crimes will face sanction as well. The bill gives Russia the authority to expel ambassadors or sever diplomatic relations with offending nations and to impose full transport and communications blockades on them.

. . . .

A Russian MP yesterday said that the Baltic states deserved “to suffer punishment” for holding such views.

The new law could also be used to bar Western historians who accuse the Red Army of carrying out atrocities during its advance on Berlin or point out that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were once allies under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

It is particularly disgusting that Russia asserts that this legislation is equivalent to German Holocaust denial laws.  Indeed, this is an inversion of those laws, because it makes denial of historical facts and suppression of historical debate official state policy.   Moreover, it is bad enough that a country adopts an official historical viewpoint, and enforces it with coercive means. It is beyond the pale to force other sovereign nations to adopt the same official viewpoint.  Can you say imperialism?  I knew you could.

Distortion of the Stalinist past, or amnesia about it, is not limited to WWII:

Our data verify that Russians have limited knowledge about the Stalin-era repressions. Only 28 percent correctly indicated that “millions or tens of millions” suffered, 31 percent cited lower figures, 24 percent simply did not know, and 17 percent had never even heard about them. This manifestation of “absent memory” is especially pronounced among 20-year-olds: 35 percent of them have not heard of the repressions.

It is peculiar that Russia, which after 1991 could have foresworn any responsibility for USSR and its gruesomely bloody history, has instead embraced an airbrushed, distorted vision of it.  It would not have taken much mental agility to separate, for instance, the bravery of Soviet soldiers and their essential role in defeating Hitler from the crimes of the mendacious leaders and the Party committed before, during, and after the War.  Such a separation would have built up some good will and trust.  But rather than attempting to separate Russia from the USSR, Russia conflates the two: historical revisionism about the actions of the USSR is deemed to “disparage the international prestige of the Russian Federation.”

RF=USSR.  USSR=RF.  I didn’t say it.  They did.

But I guess “peculiar” is not the right word.  “Revealing” is, and what this all reveals about the Russian ruling elite is quite disturbing.  And yet they continue to express surprise and anger at the fear, mistrust, and loathing that Russia inspires among its neighbors.  I mean, really: get a clue.

But the whitewashing of the past, and the angry and at times violent reaction to those who object to this whitewashing suggests that cluelessness is not really the problem.  Rather, these are symptoms of a malignant narcissism that impedes natural development and healthy relationships with other nations and peoples.  That is something that one cannot reset, and even the attempt creates the grave risk of being exploited by the narcissist.  So though it’s all to easy to dismiss this as a tempest in a historical teapot, that would be unwise.  This battle over the past is all about the present, and those in the US and Europe and elsewhere should pay heed to what this says about Russia and those who rule it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. The British Empire included 315 million Indians, only 75,000 of whom died in the war. Thus the “Briish Empire” as a whole technically had a comparable number of military dead to Russia. However the UK itself had 885,000 war dead out of a population of 45 million. Compare this to Russia’s 1.8 million war dead out of a population of 175 million. There figures for all sides are all from: I don’t know wheere you get your POW figures; according to the referenced wiki atuicle Germany had a total of 2.4 millions POWS (including French and British) and Austria-Hungary. At any rate, POWs isn’t the same as killed (cannon fodder).

    Comment by Bulat Meladze — November 19, 2010 @ 9:12 am

  2. Shouldn’t you just ignore SO? I suppose he could believe what he says. But, it seems likely he just wants to anger people to get hits on his website.

    Comment by David Hoopes — November 22, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

  3. Bulat Meladze is right about Sovok distortions of Russia before 1917.

    At the behest of its Western allies, Russia took an offensive at the start of WW I, instead of withdrawing as planned. Had this not been done, France stood a good chance of being completely defeated.

    Imagine if the USSR launched an offensive immediately after the Nazi attack against it?

    Contrary to the Sovok stated crap at this thread: Russia defeated Prussia with a victory lap in Berlin – Suvorov’s undefeated record included victory in Western Europe — Russia played the primary role in defeating Napoleon – Austria relied on Russia to put down a revolt in Hungary – the Japanese had geography and Western support on its side – with Tokyo being the one which initiated a peace process to end its war with Russia – due to Japan realizing its own problems with continuing the war.

    The “logic” that some exhibit leaves something to be desired. America losing in Southeast Asia didn’t make the US a weaker power to Vietnam and a non-super power.

    Comment by John Hughes — November 23, 2010 @ 8:08 am

  4. The reason for the higher losses on the western front is simply that it was the vital theatre of the first world war, where the majority of the German military was concentrated, as was the majority of the allied forces. The eastern front was entirely secondary to the German war effort, as evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of it resources were dedicated to the war in France.

    By the way Bulat, you really should learn to read your own sources kiddo.

    From your own source

    Pop(millions) Military Deaths Civilian Deaths Total Deaths Deaths % Pop Military Wounded
    UNITED KINGDOM 45.4 885,138 109,000 994,138 2.19% 1,663,435
    TOTAL BRITISH EMPIRE 379.5 1,114,914 111,000 1,225,914 0.30% 2,090,212

    RUSSIAN EMPIRE 175.1 1,811,000 1,500,000 3,311,000 1.89% 4,950,000

    Please note simpleton, that the number of Russian wounded is far higher than that suffered by Britain, the fact of the higher losses KIA in France is simply that the fighting was far more intense than that in the secondary theatre of the eastern front, which Germans considered to be a holiday camp when compared to the fighting in France and Belgium. In WW1 the Germans prayed to be sent to the east, while in WW2 they prayed to be sent to the west. Also if you take the casualties as a proportion of the total population of the British Empire (fair enough if being done for the total population of the Russian empire) well the British Empire did far better than the Russian Empire.

    As for my source for Russian POW’s also from Wikipedia

    “Cornish gives a total of 2,006,000 military dead (700,000 killed in action, 970,000 died of wounds, 155,000 died of disease and 181,000 died while POWs). This measure of Russian losses is similar to that of the British Empire, 5% of the male population in the 15 to 49 age group. He says civilian casualties were five to six hundred thousand in the first two years, and were then not kept, so a total of over 1,500,000 is not unlikely. He has over five million men passing into captivity, the majority during 1915.
    When Russia withdrew from the war, 3,900,000 Russian POWs were in German and Austrian hands. This by far exceeded the total number of prisoners of war (1,300,000 million) lost by the armies of Britain, France and Germany combined. Only the Austro-Hungarian Army, with 2,200,000 POWs, came even close.”

    In addition “A 2001 study by the Russian military historian G.F. Krivosheev provided these revised figures- Killed in action 1,200,000; missing in action 439,369; died of wounds 240,000, gassed 11,000., died from disease 155,000, POW deaths 190,000, deaths due to accidents and other causes.19,000. Total war dead 2,254,369. Wounded 3,749,000. POW 3,342,900.” Krivosheeva, G.F. (2001). Rossiia i SSSR v voinakh XX veka : poteri vooruzhennykh sil : statisticheskoe issledovanie / pod obshchei redaktsiei. Moscow: OLMA-Press.

    The Russian military performed abysmally in WW1, suffered more POW losses than all other combatants combined, and only had one significant victory in WW1, the Brusilov Offensive of 1916, which failed to achieve any decisive result.

    Compare this to the 100 days of British victories in 1918, after which Ludendorf called Haig the master of the field.

    In addition, even in bloody battles like the Somme and Passchendale, the British (who were attacking) only suffered comparable losses to the defending Germans, at a time when all the advantages were with the defence. In fact Ludendorf stated that the allied victory in 1918 was entirely due to the British Imperial efforts on the Somme and at Passchendale which bled the German army white.

    Oh and most military historians consider that massive surrenders of men are just as bad (if not worse) than KIA, because they are total losses in terms of comabt effectiveness, and point to incredibly low morale.

    For example, in WW1 the British Imperial forces lost only 200,000 men as POW’s, compared to at least 3,300,000 for Russia.

    Comment by Andrew — November 23, 2010 @ 10:38 am

  5. The Wiki reliance on history is revealed by the idiotic boasts being made.

    France was in no position to launch the offensive into Germany that was taken by Russia. The Russin offensive saved France.

    By 1917, the Russian military’s situation with supplies was better than it had been. Unfortunayely for Russia, this aspect was too late.

    Comment by John Hughes — November 23, 2010 @ 9:19 pm

  6. You mean the Tannenberg?

    That was the only Russian offensive into Germany, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

    The Somme offensive and Brusilovs offensive, one British the other Russian, saved France. The Somme was a direct offensive against the German Army, and resulted directly in the Germans withdrawing to the Hindenburg line, while the Brusilov offensive was initially successful against the Austrians, it collapsed once German reinforcements arrived.

    The simple fact of the matter is that in WW1 the eastern front was a secondary front for Germany, and considered a safe posting, while the war was decided on the western front. This is shown by the fact that despite Russia surrendering in December 1917, the war continued until November 1918.

    And as to the equipment question, yes the situation of the Russian army vis equipment had improved somewhat, but was still light years behind what the Germans and Western allies considered even remotely necessary for modern warfare, and the increase in equipment was more than offset by the complete collapse in discipline, morale, and training that had resulted from the failures of 1914, 1915, 1917, and 1917.

    Comment by Andrew — November 24, 2010 @ 1:48 am

  7. As already noted at this thread:

    A key particular being Germany’s march towards France getting thwarted at a time when France was in no position to attack Germany like Russia.

    What would be the result of an immediate Soviet frontal assault against Germany’s 1941 attack on the USSR?

    What would’ve happened if Russia stood by its original WW I plan of getting the Germans to move into Russia – in a way that extended German lines, as Russia better prepared itself?

    The mantra about lacking equipment, training and morale could be thrown at the USSR in the earlier moments of WW II.

    Russia played a significant role in WW I, which Sovok and anti-Russian propagandists overlook. Bulat Meladze provides a refreshingly different and accurate perspective.

    Comment by John Hughes — November 24, 2010 @ 2:37 am

  8. The German drive into France was mainly thwarted by the French and British, the Russians played a part in WW1, but certainly not as significant as you are making it out to be Mr Hughes. The French did attack Germany, but unfortunately they used the execrable plan XVII, resulting in the battle of the frontiers.
    The German offensive was stopped at the Marne, by the joint Franco-British attack at the Marne.

    As to “What would be the result of an immediate Soviet frontal assault against Germany’s 1941 attack on the USSR?”, probably an unmitigated disaster, most likely just as bad as what they suffered anyway given the totally deficient tactics and lack of strategy of the Red Army in 1941.

    “What would’ve happened if Russia stood by its original WW I plan of getting the Germans to move into Russia – in a way that extended German lines, as Russia better prepared itself” The Russians would have been knocked out of the war even earlier than they were, considering the Germans found it far easier to supply their army in WW1 than in WW2, and given the fact that Russian wartime industry was only beginning to provide increased amounts of equipment, and then not enough, in 1917.

    “The mantra about lacking equipment, training and morale could be thrown at the USSR in the earlier moments of WW II.” The Russians certainly did not lack equipment in 1941 when the Germans invaded, having the largest artillery arm, the largest tank arm, and the largest air force in the world, however they managed to lose pretty much all of their equipment due to faulty tactics and general incompetence. The faulty tactics and incompetence continued right through the war, including the battle of Berlin, where Chuikov himself admitted the tables were turned and the Stalingrad School of street fighting veterans had a steep learning curve themselves in how to attack a city.

    “Russia played a significant role in WW I” yes, they were to the western allies what the Italians were to the Germans, a liability. The Russian revolution, like the attempted revolution in Germany, was a direct result of catastrophic military failures at the front. The massive numbers of Russian soldiers who surrendered, even during the Brusilov offensive of 1916, show the catastrophe that was the Russian military effort in WW1. By contrast, only around 200,000 British Imperial troops surrendered from 1914-18.

    Comment by Andrew — November 24, 2010 @ 3:06 am

  9. That should be “what the Italians were to the Germans in WW2”

    Comment by Andrew — November 24, 2010 @ 3:57 am

  10. Your extensive Wiki like research doesn’t include the views of Ludendorf, Hindenburg and British General Sir Frederic Maurice, among others. The so-called Western Allied “Miracle on the Marne” was greatly assisted by the Russian move against Germany.

    The fact of the matter is that Russia maintained pressure on the Germans, even after Tannenberg. The Russian offensive in Galicia relieved the pressure faced by the Western Allies at Verdun.

    At the start of WW II, Soviet arms were nowhere as significant as they became later on. In WW I, Russia would’ve been much better off if it stood by its original plan of having the Germans come after Russia, instead of pursuing Germany. The change in plan was the result of German advances threatening the West – notably France.

    Comment by John Hughes — November 24, 2010 @ 6:47 am

  11. The miracle on the Marne was slightly assisted by the Russian advance.

    Try reading John Terraine, or any other reputable historian on the subject, the failure of the Schlieffen plan had far more to do with Belgian resistance, the bloody nose given to the Germans at Mons, the French railway system, and the changes made to the initial plan by Moltke.

    The Russian offensive in Galicia caused very few German troops to be withdrawn from the fighting at Verdun, as opposed to the Somme offensive which resulted in the a much more significant withdrawal of German reserves and especially artillery who were rushed north.

    Ludendorff considered the Somme battle to be a disaster for German arms, just as he considered Passchendale as a disaster for German arms. Of course being involved in the early victories in the east he had his own opinion of Russian soldiers.

    Comment by Andrew — November 24, 2010 @ 10:46 am

  12. Oh and a further point, the Russian strategic plan for 1914 always consisted of a dual drive into East Prussia and Galicia upon the start of war if Germany attacked France first, and this was the plan they followed called Plan 19.

    There was also a defensive plan, called plan G assumed that Germany would launch the war with a full-scale attack against Russia; the opposite of what actually transpired. Unusually, Plan G was content to permit German infringement of Russia’s borders, with the consequent loss of territory and large-scale casualties, pending completion of Russian army mobilisation.

    In short, the Russian military assumed that the country could readily bear a string of defeats at the start of the war, such was the reserve of manpower ultimately available to the army. Once effectively mobilised, they believed that the Russian army would inevitably eject Germany from within its borders. Napoleon had failed to conquer the vastness of Russia; it was assumed that Germany would likewise fail.

    Given that the Russian public and military were found to be incapable of absorbing casualties, one suspects that this plan would have caused a revolution to occur by 1916 at the latest.

    Comment by Andrew — November 24, 2010 @ 10:54 am

  13. Russian war plans prior to the problems faced by France didn’t call for a thrust into Germany in the very early stages – rather, a withdrawal on the basis of what was previously noted. Such hypothetical planning go back to 1912.

    The aforementioned (in my last set of comments) Hindenburg, Ludendorff and Maurice are referring to how the Germans had to dramatically transfer a good portion of it forces from the western to eastern front. At one point, Germany had 137 divisions against the Russians, to 83 on the Anglo-French front.

    Hence, it’s an extreme absurdity to liken WW I Russia to WW II Italy. (Another extreme absurdity at this thread was the one claiming that Alexander Nevsky isn’t such a well known figure in Russia.) If anything, the analogy with WW II era Italy is better applied to the WW I Austro-Hungarian forces, which Germany bailed out.

    Comment by John Hughes — November 24, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

  14. Wrong as usual John, plan 19 dates from 1910. And your comments that the Russians should have used their initial planning are disingenuous at best, given that Plan 19 was created by Danilov.

    As for 137 divisions in Russia and 83 on the western front, more of your BS I suspect. For example in August 1914 there were 2 cavalry corps and 7 armies in the west and only 1 army in the east, even the transfer of a part of 2nd Army and the majority of 4th Army left 5 & 1/2 armies in France and 2 & 1/2 in Russia and the funny thing was these troops did not even arrive in the east until the German 8th army had single handedly annihilated 2 Russian armies totaling 3 times its size.

    In 1915 the Germans had 94 divisions on the western front and around 55 to 60 on the eastern front. Even this force was sufficient to drive the Russians from Poland despite the massive advantage in men the Russians had.

    In 1916 the Germans actually transferred over 500,000 men from the eastern front (leaving the eastern front almost entirely to the Austrians) to the western front to use at Verdun, many of these troops were expended during the assault on Verdun and during the desperate defence at the Somme, and when Brusilov surprised the Austrians the Germans were only able to transfer around 160,000 men east, though these were sufficient to stop the Brusilov offensive dead in its tracks and then also crush Romania.

    Comment by Andrew — November 24, 2010 @ 1:21 pm

  15. You continue to exhibit a poor knowledge of what actually happened. Ludendorff, Hindenburg, Maurice and some others serve as expert sources, which run counter to your limited knowledge.

    Your erroneous comments on this subject are in line with your absurd claim that Alexander Nevsky isn’t such a well known historical figure among Russians.

    Comment by John Hughes — November 24, 2010 @ 6:40 pm

  16. No John, it is you that shows a basic lack of knowledge of history, and English for that matter.

    However, the fact that in 1916 the Germans transferred 500,000 men from east to west, and were then only able to assist the Austrians with 150,000 men shows which front was more important to the Germans. Roughly twice as many Germans served on the western front as on the eastern.

    “A measure of the relative effectiveness of the Entente’s armies can be deduced by comparing German casualty figures for the two major fronts. Over the war period Germany committed slightly fewer than twice as many divisions to the Western Front as it did to the Eastern; but its 1,214,100 dead or missing in the west were 3.8 times the 317,100 dead or missing in the east. A German soldier on the Eastern Front was therefore nearly twice as likely to survive as one on the Western. He was also over five times as likely to survive as a Russian, and that is more significant.”

    The Russian army was for the most part ineffective in WW1.

    I suggest your knowledge of what happened in world war 1 is very poor Mr. “Hughes”

    Comment by Andrew — November 25, 2010 @ 3:39 am

  17. Like the figures for deaths, those for Russian prisoners of war and missing vary considerably. The most authoritative post-war study gave 3,409,433 captured and 228,838 missing. When the figures for captured or missing are placed alongside the figures of dead, the Russian army differs markedly from the other major belligerents. For every 100 dead in 1914-18 Russia had 251 captured or missing, Austria-Hungary 150, Italy 92, Germany 65, France 46 and British/British Empire forces 21. In other words, Russian soldiers far more often than others were either led into situations where capture was inevitable, or were very much readier to surrender than others.
    The course of events and the military censorship reports tend to indicate that failures of generalship accounted for most captures in 1914-15, and readiness to surrender for most in 1916-17. Put briefly, the early debacles eroded the soldiers’ faith in their leaders and willingness to fight for the regime that they represented. The British Military Attache, Major-General Knox, once remarked that Russian army training placed too much emphasis on dying for the country, and not enough on conquering for it. It appears to have failed in both respects; even at the lowest point in French morale, the mutineers of 1917, though refusing to attack, neither refused to defend nor abandoned the front en masse.
    Russians did both.

    Comment by Andrew — November 25, 2010 @ 4:05 am

  18. It was the manpower losses of 1914-16 that caused the decline of 1917. They in turn were caused by Tsarist Russia’s inability to conduct a modern war, in which good generalship had to be supported by immense quantities of artillery and ammunition, and backed by a sophisticated logistical system, which could not only feed and supply the armies in the field, but maintain the civilian population at reasonable standards of diet and morale. Too often the Russian infantryman was called on to retake with blood what the German had taken with high explosive, and by the spring of 1917 he had had enough.

    The seeds of the revolution had been sown at Tannenberg, the Mazurian Lakes, Gorlice-Tarnow and a score of lesser disasters. In 1916 morale was finding it hard to accept even the casualties that went with victory, and when the Romanian debacle nullified the Brusilov offensive’s gains, it, too, was remembered for its casualties rather than its achievements. But the manpower losses were not caused by exceptional sacrifices. All the major belligerents except the late-arriving United States had a higher proportion of their populations killed than did Russia. But they also had far fewer surrenders.

    Comment by Andrew — November 25, 2010 @ 4:20 am

  19. Your overly selective cherry picking and lack of wit lingers on.

    Before the end of 1916, Russia had taken over 300,000 prisoners of war. Consider the number of prisoners taken by France and Britain at that point in time.

    My stated numbers are on target. You’re either lying, or are stating numbers that aren’t in line with the specific time period referenced.

    On this subject, you might be a star among anti-Russian propagandists and some Sovoks. In academic and relatively objective circumstances, your screeds are correctly viwed as drivel.

    Comment by John Hughes — November 25, 2010 @ 6:11 am

  20. Listen John, the only person lacking wit here is you. Along with your poor English skills old chap, your stupidity is beyond doubt.

    The Russian disasters of the eastern front in WW1 are well known to anyone who has studied the Great War, and the truth is that out of every 3 divisions deployed by the German army in WW1, 2 served on the western front, and only one on the eastern front.

    The western allies killed 1,214,000 Germans while the Russians only managed to kill 317,100. A pretty poor record for the Russians. Documented fact.

    Russian troops surrendered in droves throughout the war, the highest surrender rate of any combatant. Documented fact.

    The Eastern front in WW1 was a secondary theater for the Germans, get over it.

    And as I stated previously, the prisoners you mention were almost entirely Austo-Hungarians, who had the second highest surrender rate of any combatant.

    Kind of like the Italians crowing about taking French prisoners in world war two.

    By the way, why don’t you use your real name? Given your woeful English skills I doubt it is “John Hughes”, and if it is, then that shows your woeful lack of anything remotely resembling an education.

    Comment by Andrew — November 25, 2010 @ 7:51 am

  21. Oh, and as mentioned above, British French, and German soldiers seldom surrendered, for every 100 dead the Germans had 65 men surrender or go missing, whereas for every 100 dead the Russians had 251 surrender or go missing. A shocking rate by any calculation.

    The incredibly poor performance of the Russian army in WW1 was a major factor made the Nazi’s believe that crushing the USSR would be a walkover.

    Comment by Andrew — November 25, 2010 @ 8:01 am

  22. The poor English and stupidity is coming from you Andrew.

    Your long winded babble and idiotic observations fail to address the facts and fact based opinions, running counter to the mix of Sovok and anti-Russian propaganda.

    Comment by John Hughes — November 25, 2010 @ 12:48 pm

  23. Another predictable round of inaccurately dull propaganda from Andrew.

    Andrew lingers on even though he wasn’t one of the turkeys pardoned by Obama.

    Comment by John Hughes — November 25, 2010 @ 2:38 pm

  24. Factual observations thanks John, and considering you can’t even spell properly, viwed as drivel and The Russin offensive saved France, and Unfortunayely for Russia, well your comments about poor English are laughable.

    The simple fact of the matter John, is that Germany was defeated by the British and French in France, the eastern front was a side show, and against German troops the Russian army was ineffective, failing to win a single victory against the armies of Imperial Germany.

    As previously noted 2 out of every 3 German divisions were in France, the western Allies killed 1,214,000 Germans while the Russians only managed to kill 317,100, the Russians had the highest surrender rate of any belligerent, losing over 3,300,000 men due to mass surrenders, while the British Empire only had around 200,000 soldiers surrender during what was a far more intense series of battles in a far more lethal environment than the eastern front.

    The Germans plainly considered the eastern front a secondary theatre as shown by their transfer of almost all their forces from east to west at the beginning of 1916 (over 500,000 men) most of whom were expended in the battles of Vedun and the Somme, and only needed to transfer 150,000 men to deal decisively with the Brusilov offensive against the Austrians, smashing it dead in its tracks and then inflicting a massive defeat on the Russians and Romanians.

    Try reading history rather than neo-imperialist modern day Russian propaganda “John”, primary sources tend to help.

    BTW, at no point in WW1 were there more German divisions on the eastern front than the western, another historical fact.

    Comment by Andrew — November 26, 2010 @ 12:14 am

  25. WW1 was fought and won primarily in the West. WW2 – in the East.

    Comment by So? — November 26, 2010 @ 12:41 am

  26. For once I agree So?

    Comment by Andrew — November 26, 2010 @ 12:44 am

  27. More deceit from Andrew.

    Way too simplistic of a characterization on your part So? – for the fact based reasons brought up at this thread.

    What’s up with the earlier comment suggesting Bulat’s take to be that of some kind of an anti-Jewish conspiracy theorist? Text book caricaturing and ironic when considering Stalin’s comments about Jews.

    Dream all you want, as some in Russia and elsewhere take a more objective (as in less ideological) view of the past.

    Comment by John Hughes — November 26, 2010 @ 1:12 am

  28. Listen “John”, the numbers you gave for divisions on the eastern and western fronts are simply factually incorrect for WW1.

    They do however match the numbers for divisions in the eastern and western theatres in WW2.

    So much for you knowing anything.

    You have provided no facts whatsoever, and appear to be an inveterate liar.

    Russia in WW1 was ineffective against Germany, won no victories against Germany (though it did hand a couple of defeats to the Austro-Hungarians which were reversed by the Germans), it suffered the highest rate of surrenders, and the Germans did not consider it a major threat, maintaining throughout the war a ratio of 2 divisions in the west to one in the east. In addition, the divisions used in the east tended to be of lower quality, such as the divisions raised in Alsace and Lorraine which were not trusted to fight on the western front.

    In 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917, a minimum of 2/3 of the German army was on the western front, as was the overwhelming majority of the German air forces.

    Russia was knocked out of the war in 1917, and the troops transferred to the western front by the Germans were still insufficient to overcome the western allies.

    There is nothing ideological here, just simple facts.

    Comment by Andrew — November 26, 2010 @ 3:57 am

  29. You duck the “simple facts.”

    Even your preferred level of source material contradicts your brazen and bogus claims:

    Although incomplete, there’s a good deal there which debunks your idiotic anti-Russian propaganda. I can provide greater detail. I sense it’s a waste of time with a rabid maniac like yourself.

    So? chimes in with a broad and misleading generalization. No one here has said that the Soviet WW II effort was < Russia's in WW I. However, it's an absurdity to say that Russia's WW I effort wasn't significant. It's off the wall to liken Russia in WW I to Italy in WW II. The Auttro-Hungarian WW I-Italy WW II analogy is a more accurate one.

    Comment by John Hughes — November 27, 2010 @ 12:58 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress