Page 1 of 2

Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:18 pm
by rubato
Now that the anti-Russian mythology, hysteria, and propaganda have abated perhaps it is time to honor a debt?


"We are the heirs to their accomplishments. We are their debtors. And we cannot repay what we owe to them. We can only remember it."

______________________________________
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/10/s ... .html#more


Perhaps we should turn our historical-memory attention here a little bit away from the Cuban Missile Crisis at 50...

Our Debt to Stalingrad by J. Bradford DeLong - Project Syndicate:

BERKELEY – We are not newly created, innocent, rational, and reasonable beings. We are not created fresh in an unmarked Eden under a new sun. We are, instead, the products of hundreds of millions of years of myopic evolution, and thousands of years of unwritten and then recorded history. Our past has built up layer upon layer of instincts, propensities, habits of thought, patterns of interaction, and material resources.

On top of this historical foundation, we build our civilization. Were it not for our history, our labor would not just be in vain; it would be impossible.

And there are the crimes of human history. The horrible crimes. The unbelievable crimes. Our history grips us like a nightmare, for the crimes of the past scar the present and induce yet more crimes in the future.

And there are also the efforts to stop and undo the effects of past crimes.

CommentsSo it is appropriate this month to write not about economics, but about something else. Seventy-nine years ago, Germany went mad. There was delinquency. There was also history and bad luck. The criminals are almost all dead now. Their descendants and successors in Germany have done – and are doing – better than anyone could have expected at grappling with and mastering the nation’s unmasterable past.

Seventy years ago, 200,000 Soviet soldiers – overwhelmingly male and predominantly Russian – crossed the Volga River to the city of Stalingrad. As members of Vasily Chuikov’s 62nd Army, they grabbed hold of the nose of the Nazi army and did not let go. For five months, they fought. And perhaps 80% of them died in the ruins of the city.

On October 15 – a typical day – Chuikov’s battle diary records that a radio message was received from the 416th Regiment at 12:20 PM: “Have been encircled, ammunition and water available, death before surrender!” At 4:35 PM, Lieutenant Colonel Ustinov called down the artillery on his own encircled command post.

But they held on.

And so, 70 years ago this November – on November 19 to be precise – the million-soldier reserve of the Red Army was transferred to General Nikolai Vatutin’s Southwestern Front, Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky’s Don Front, and Marshal Andrei Yeremenko’s Stalingrad Front. They went on to spring the trap of Operation Uranus, the code name for the planned encirclement and annihilation of the German Sixth Army and Fourth Panzer Army. They would fight, die, win, and thus destroy the Nazi hope of dominating Eurasia for even one more year – let alone of establishing Hitler’s 1,000-year Reich.

Together, these 1.2 million Red Army soldiers, the workers who armed them, and the peasants who fed them turned the Battle of Stalingrad into the fight that, of any battle in human history, has made the greatest positive difference for humanity.

The Allies probably would have eventually won World War II even had the Nazis conquered Stalingrad, redistributed their spearhead forces as mobile reserves, repelled the Red Army’s subsequent winter 1942 offensive, and seized the Caucasus oil fields, thus depriving the Red Army of 90% of its motor fuel. But any Allied victory would have required the large-scale use of nuclear weapons, and a death toll in Europe that would most likely have been twice the actual World War II [European theater] death toll of perhaps 40 million.

May there never be another such battle. May we never need another one.

The soldiers of the Red Army, and the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union who armed and fed them, allowed their dictatorial masters to commit crimes – and committed crimes themselves. But these crimes fall short by an order of magnitude of the great service to humanity – and especially to western European humanity – that they gave in the rubble along the Volga River 70 years ago this fall.

We are the heirs to their accomplishments. We are their debtors. And we cannot repay what we owe to them. We can only remember it.

But how many NATO leaders or European Union presidents and prime ministers have ever taken the time to visit the battle site, and perhaps lay a wreath to those whose sacrifice saved their civilization?
____________________________________________--


yrs,
rubato

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:16 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Yeah I feel about that the same way I would about two pit bulls savaging each other to death before the survivor started to eat children.

Soviet assistance to Hitler in dismembering Poland and the non-aggression pact gave both dictators time and space to continue enslaving their own people and other nations (depending on which one we speak of). Stalin and the Russians would gladly have allowed Hitler to destroy Europe if he hadn't made the most stupid blunder of all - attacking Russia.

So I'll go to Stalingrad one day perhaps - and regret all the lives on both sides lost in that awful place. But thank the Russians? :fu

Meade

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:27 pm
by Big RR
well, that's just the politics of an alliance of convenience; and both sides benefitted each other. Face it, even after VE day, and before they knew the atomic weapons would work, Truman was counting on the Soviets to aid in the invasion of Japan. The Soviets had hoorrible losses facing the best Germany had to offer, the Vehrmacht, leaving the US/Brits to fight far more of the reservists and less trained soldiers; they did us a great service and deserve our gratitude, whatever we feel about Stalin (and Meade, you assessment of him is pretty spot on). They deserve our thanks because of their actions, because of what they did not who they are.

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:55 pm
by dales
Image

Looking at the sneering ruskie, gen'l....................von Paulus looks a tad worried.

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:01 pm
by dales
But how many NATO leaders or European Union presidents and prime ministers have ever taken the time to visit the battle site, and perhaps lay a wreath to those whose sacrifice saved their civilization?
____________________________________________--


yrs,
rubato


RONALD REAGAN did one better by laying a wreath at a Waffen SS cemetary. :ok


Image

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:58 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Was not. Out of 2000 graves some 29-30 were of SS men. It was a colossal blunder in not realising who was buried there before the event was committed to. But once committed Reagan chose to go ahead rather than shame Chancellor Kermit Hole (was that his name?) .... and added a concentration camp visit which previously had been off the schedule.

How many Russian government officials have visited Normandy?

Meade

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:37 pm
by dales
Your know fun , gen'l. :nana

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:19 pm
by Lord Jim
Now that the anti-Russian mythology, hysteria, and propaganda have abated
Oh good Lord, rube is once again attempting to commit "history"...

Image


(Of all the things he knows so little about, he knows the least about this....)

Yes, the Soviets would be seen as a bunch of sweethearts, were it not for " anti-Russian mythology, hysteria, and propaganda "

Where to begin...(just off the top of my head...)

In the 1930's, we have the forced collectivization in The Ukraine that starved 10 million people to death....

Plus twenty million killed in subsequent military and political purges...

The liquidation of the Polish Resistance leadership in the Katyn Forrest...

The military subjugation of Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia after WW II...

The crushing of the uprising in Hungary in 1956....

The decision to bring the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation with the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962...

The crushing of the uprising in Czechoslovakia in 1968....

And, oh yeah...

The invasion of Afghanistan, the shooting down of a civilian jet liner, their likely involvement in the assassination attempt against John Paul II, ( unless you buy the idea that the Bulgarian Secret Police operated without orders from Moscow)

Aside from those few historically inconvenient facts, it's all "mythology, hysteria, and propaganda"... :roll:

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:21 am
by dales
I say, good show........Jim. :ok

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:38 am
by rubato
The successful defense of Stalingrad against the Nazis was an act of sacrifice of the Russian people on behalf of us.

A real historian would recognize the difference between that and the acts of the Soviet leadership.

Or a person not wholly drunk or innately stupid.

yrs,
rubato

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:22 am
by dales
And why has the name of STALINgrad been changed?

I wonder why. :lol:

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:42 am
by Lord Jim
The successful defense of Stalingrad against the Nazis was an act of sacrifice of the Russian people on behalf of us.
What utter rubbish....

Given what took place at Volgograd ...

The Russians are a wonderful people; they fight like sons of bitches....

As Stalin wryly observed in an exchange with Churchill, "It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Russian Army"...

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:56 am
by MajGenl.Meade
rubato wrote:The successful defense of Stalingrad against the Nazis was an act of sacrifice of the Russian people on behalf of us. A real historian would recognize the difference between that and the acts of the Soviet leadership.
Or a person not wholly drunk or innately stupid. yrs, rubato
Utter baloney. The "Russian people" had no choice, no voice and bugger-all interest in "us". What they did have is a leadership willing to sacrifice any number of their own people (and especially peasants, cossacks and other undesirables of the moment) in order to keep prestige and capture half of Europe (or all if possible) and keep it for all time under the dictatorship of the 'proletariat' - i.e. Josef Stalin and his henchpersons. They craved arms, food and all manner of materiel from the decadent West (their sworn foe - which they didn't forget although we did); they required the immediate creation of a western front to distract Hitler and his henchrats from the USSR.

Revisionist liberal Obama loving Clinton hugging crap. And that's just the blogger (not a real historian by the way).
Meade

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:35 am
by Lord Jim
What took place in WWII wasn't "a struggle against barbarism" on behalf of three worthy allies...

It was a struggle on the part of two worthy allies fighting for the survival of civilization, making common cause with the lesser of two evils....

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:53 am
by Lord Jim
We spent roughly forty-five fifty years struggling against these bastards, "ducking and covering" until we finally triumphed...

Thank you, Mr Reagan... :ok

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:51 am
by Lord Jim
Churchill, as he so often did, said it best:
"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:23 pm
by dales
Lord Jim wrote:We spent roughly forty-five fifty years struggling against these bastards, "ducking and covering" until we finally triumphed...

Thank you, Mr Reagan... :ok
Hear, hear! :ok

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:45 pm
by Lord Jim
Dale, my daughter and my son are growing up in a world where they have to take their shoes off to get on a plane...

But they will only learn about MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) and "nuclear winter" and "global nuclear annihilation" from reading about them in history books...(I'll take that trade any day)

In fact Tati is currently doing a school project about "The Cold War" and she asked me what it was like growing up worrying about a nuclear missile attack....

I told her we didn't think about it all that much, but that it makes me very happy to know that she and her brother will never have to worry about it...

And I have Ronald Wilson Reagan to thank for that....

Image

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:18 pm
by Joe Guy
Lord Jim wrote: And I have Ronald Wilson Reagan to thank for that....
In the words of a not so good politician, 'That's like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise.'

Re: Stalingrad at 70

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:52 pm
by Lord Jim
In the words of a not so good politician, 'That's like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise.'
Not at all Joe, it was a planned strategy from the time he took Office...

Rebuild American military capabilities to the point that the Russkies would see that they couldn't possibly match our resources, once we put our mind to it....

Then pivot, and negociate from strength....

That was the two part Reagan strategy from the outset...(don't take my word for it, there's a lot of literature on it)

And it worked brilliantly....