anyone see Stalin man of steel last night?

[cherokee]

it was on the history channel. They gave a really good history lesson for those not familiar with Stalin and Soviet history. My wife had to leave the room, she couldn't take watching it.
I really enjoyed it. they showed pictures of my wife's hometown Zaporozhye, Yalta, Kiev and of course all over Russia. I'm sure they'll rerun it sometime.

[tfcrew]

... in response to anyone see Stalin man of steel last nigh..., posted by cherokee on Oct 6, 2003

..and edit out the commercials
Seriously, why didn't Mrs. Cherokee want to watch anymore?

Karl

[Streetwise]

... in response to If somebody might record it...., posted by tfcrew on Oct 6, 2003

I have just finished reading "Stalingrad" by Anthony Beevor, a graphic but factual history of the WW2 siege. During WW2, 26 million Russian lives were lost (I believe the civilian toll was around 18 million.) By way of comparison, the total German losses (military and civilian) throughout the whole war came to around 5 million. It's well known that a large proportion of the Russian deaths were caused by starvation as the people faced winter with no provisions (due to blockades and seizure of food by the Nazis as they advanced across the country.) With those kind of figures it's hard to imagine anyone in Russia whose family was not affected somehow.

As the TV programme no doubt shows, even to be captured alive by the enemy was considered treacherous and punishable by death. I think it is no disrespect to the soldiers of the Red Army to point out that the city was held due to the soldiers being more concerned about the guns of the NKVD in their backs than those of the Germans at their front.

I visited the war museum in Kiev whilst on a date, and after a while my young lady friend did not feel able to stay in there. I guess your partner's reaction was also pretty natural under the circumstances.

[WmGo]

... in response to 26 million... , posted by Streetwise on Oct 6, 2003

Actually, the almost universally accepted historical
figure of *Soviet* losses was *20* million, not 26. Also,
AND VERY IMPORTANT is the fact that the majority WERE NOT
Russian!!! 7.5 to 10 million were *Ukrainian* and about 5+ million *Belarussian*, the rest a combination of Russians and Asians from Siberia and the Far East. This is a commonly overlooked and/or misunderstood fact of WWII history. Russia proper was "barely" (kind of, couldn't find the right word)invaded by the Germans. It was Belarus and Ukraine that suffered the brunt of the invasion and war. And the Russian controlled and led Red Army killed 1-2 million of the 7.5 to 10 million Ukrainians. The pity is therefore to go mainly to the Ukrainians and the Belarussians, not the Russians.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THIS!

Balshoi Spaciba.

P.S. I attended a lecture/speech this evening by former
Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. He was quite impressive.

[WmGo]

... in response to 20 not 26 million... and most not Russia..., posted by WmGo on Oct 6, 2003

He spoke at the world famous, prestigious
and preeminent Auburn University as a part of
its International Leadership Forum.

He spoke on the subjects of world poverty, haves
vs. have nots, environmental issues, the need for folks
to exercise their right to vote, that America should
exercise its power in partnership with other countries
as opposed to independently, etc., nothing out of the ordinary or that you could not get in his books.

I could not figure out whether he is a national democrat (note little "d") or a internationalist. At times he sounded like he favored the preservation of the nation-state and sometimes he sounded like he favored supra-national governing bodies.

[Bobby Orr]

... in response to Answer to BobbyO and Stan on Gorby, posted by WmGo on Oct 7, 2003

It is always interesting how pivotal figures in history are viewed both in their home country and abroad after they retire etc.  He is young enough to have profound insights over time.

[WmGo]

... in response to Thanks, posted by Bobby Orr on Oct 7, 2003

and to make a good buck on the
speaking circuit -

[Streetwise]

... in response to 20 not 26 million... and most not Russia..., posted by WmGo on Oct 6, 2003

The sources assumed civilian losses approaching 18 million, but they admit that an accurate assessment is hopeless. I take your point about the Ukrainians bearing the brunt of the German advance (despite many welcoming them initially as liberators) however; I should have referred to Soviet rather than Russian losses.

Whilst Ukraine and Belorussia clearly paid a higher overall price than Russia, both during the advance and retreat of German troops, my understanding was that the Nazis were 70 miles from the outskirts of Moscow in October '41, and in August '42 they reached the Volga, where Stalingrad remained under siege until the encirlement of 6th Army the following January.

[WmGo]

... in response to Impossible to be precise, posted by Streetwise on Oct 7, 2003

Yes, the Nazis got close to Moscow, surrounded and besieged Leningrad for 900 days(St. Petersburg) and there was the famous battle of Stalingrad, I just couldn't find the right word to compare the complete conquest and obliteration of Belarus and Ukraine to the partial invasion of Russia (90+ percent of Russia was not invaded or occupied by the Germans).

The 20 million figure includes everyone - military as well as civilian. Interesting is the fact that the first time the world even heard the figure was when Kruschev proclaimed it long after the war and after the death of Stalin. There are many theories why the USSR did not reveal the extent of the losses until so long after the war. Some say they did not want the West to know how weak they were following the German surrender  because they supposedly feared a Western invasion, others say Kruschev was just trying to win world sympathy (while he was pounding his shoe at the UN).

History is a fascinating subject.

Regards!

[LP]

... in response to True, posted by WmGo on Oct 7, 2003

...there are times it's difficult to be objective about Grermany when one studies the history of both world wars. It's also difficult to be objective about the Soviets. Considering the body count, it seems Stalin wins hands down over Hitler. And a study of what went on during the Chernobyl accident is enough to raise the hackles of anyone. It's a pity more MOB men don't feel a need to learn more about the history of the FSU.

As you know, those who forget the past (or fail to learn from others) are doomed to repeat it (or duplicate other's mistakes.) That seems to also apply to this business.

[Lynn]

... in response to Yes, it sure is...., posted by LP on Oct 9, 2003

as Hitler said "It is fortunate for us that the people do not think."

[jrm]

... in response to Impossible to be precise, posted by Streetwise on Oct 7, 2003

During the course of World War II, no country suffered more or lost more lives than Ukraine. It suffered under the retreat of the Russians, burning/blowing up everything that would be of use to the Nazi's. Then suffered under the occuppation the Germans. And when they retreated, Ukraine suffered again,under the Russians.

[Bobby Orr]

... in response to 20 not 26 million... and most not Russia..., posted by WmGo on Oct 6, 2003

Anything worth saying about Gorbachev's thoughts?

[Jersey Mike]

... in response to Highlights of Gorbachev speech?, posted by Bobby Orr on Oct 7, 2003

Interesting that Gorbachev is pretty much universally reviled back in the former Soviet republics, perceived there as having been outmanuevered by Reagan and Bush, and then turning the place over to the Mafia-types who run the country today.  The average former Soviet Union resident seems to regard the pre-Gorby (1985) era as the good ol' days.  When Gorbachev tried running for reelection in Russia in 1996, he picked up a grand total of 1.5% of the popular vote in his home country - and he is a lot less popular than that in the other republics.  Admittedly, the Soviet Union would have likely collapsed under its own weight eventually, even if Gorbachev had never existed.  

Fortunately for Gorby, he has always been popular with the American liberal 'intellectuals', and has a successful career as a lecturer and consultant.  Is this a great country or what?

[jrm]

... in response to Re: Gorbachev, posted by Jersey Mike on Oct 7, 2003

n/t