Question about Soviet Historiography

[dps]

It also helps that Poland as well as the Baltics didn't want to be allied with the Soviets regardless of what happened (I think the Poles wouldn't agree to Soviet deployments even in the event of a German invasion) and Britain and France didn't push the East Euros.  I may be remembering wrongly--been about seven years since I studied the subject--but Soviet historians harp on this diplomatic isolation.  The USSR had to take what it could get, which was the M-R Pact.  But it's okay because everything worked out fine.

The Poles didn't want Soviet troops in their territory in any way, shape, or form.  The Poles may have actually been more anti-Soviet than Hitler was.  In fact, during the Munich crisis, the Soviets were willing to intervene on the side of the Czechs, and the Romanians actually agreed to allow Soviet troops passage through their territory to Czechoslovakia, but the Poles threatened to intervene on the side of Germany and to invade Romania if that happened.

[Solmyr]

I still have my old history atlases from the 80s, and while they don't go into extensive explanations, the maps show "Western Ukraine" and "Western Belarus" asking to join USSR in October 1939 and the border changing accordingly. No military movements are shown at all.

[grumbler]

So the apologists argue that the capitalists were basically Hitler without the funny mustache, and that Stalin (an even bloodier dictator than Hitler) was the only good guy?  I guess that's why unions have such a poor rep in much of the West! 

But thanks, Martim, for your post.  I, myself, can never keep all of those lies straight, and, when I can't have lunch with the former ambassador from the union I know you will at least spout the line.

Although I have my suspicions, Martim never said he agreed with the Soviet view of history.  The question was asked, and he answered.

And I thanked him for it. 

[DGuller]

I still have my old history atlases from the 80s, and while they don't go into extensive explanations, the maps show "Western Ukraine" and "Western Belarus" asking to join USSR in October 1939 and the border changing accordingly. No military movements are shown at all.

I was still a child when USSR fell, so I didn't get to learn the adult history of USSR from USSR.  When I was about 10, the history curriculum changed rather abruptly from teaching about heroic Red Army fighting Banderovites to heroic Ukrainian resistance fighters ambushing and slaughtering Red Army units.  From what I remember about USSR history from USSR, though, there was no such thing as an invasion following Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.  The territories just went and joined USSR. 

[Syt]

I have a German atlas from late 1939 that's a bit befuddled as to what to do with Poland. It still shows the borders, but the country has no label. I think their country blurb says something along the lines of internal struggles in Poland and aggression against Germans necessitated the Wehrmacht to step in, leading to the collapse of the state.

I need to check when I get home.

[Martim Silva]

So the apologists argue that the capitalists were basically Hitler without the funny mustache, and that Stalin (an even bloodier dictator than Hitler) was the only good guy?  I guess that's why unions have such a poor rep in much of the West! 

In Socialist ideology, there is Capitalism (a example of which is the Western Powers), and Capitalism in Decay (its most extreme form, which is Fascism). You may want to google it.

So no, from the Union's POV there is not much difference between the two: they're both evil (yes, one more than the other) but from Moscow's view in 1939 the Union (the only alliance of socialist states, plus Tannu Tuva) very much had to play its own agenda.

Although I have my suspicions, Martim never said he agreed with the Soviet view of history.  The question was asked, and he answered.

Indeed, one thing is what went in the History books, the other is reality (like the M-R Pact, which was not officially admitted). In fact, my explanations on the Pact were not part of any History book in the Union; I just added them for extra explanations.

Of course, state secrets are kept as such for many decades, and things that are not shiny are never taught to kids.

One can see that in the Western history books about the post-war period in Germany, that just present the Western Allies as 'Liberators' and then nicely skip the events in Germany from mid-1945 to the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, so as not to mention what they did in the country in the meanwhile.

Not that the westerners deny it (the documentation is avaliable in sources and specialized books - just google The Patton Papers, After the Reich, the Monnet Plan, Adenauer's comments about the Saarland, etc), it's just not something taught nor mentioned in 'normal' books.

The Poles didn't want Soviet troops in their territory in any way, shape, or form.  The Poles may have actually been more anti-Soviet than Hitler was.  In fact, during the Munich crisis, the Soviets were willing to intervene on the side of the Czechs, and the Romanians actually agreed to allow Soviet troops passage through their territory to Czechoslovakia, but the Poles threatened to intervene on the side of Germany and to invade Romania if that happened.

Indeed, the Union was willing to take steps to prevent German expansion. But it became clear that not only the border states were all hostile to the Union, but also that the Western Powers would really not truly field their armies in such a circumstance. Something that played a large role in the 1939 calculations of what was being asked of the Union.

I still have my old history atlases from the 80s, and while they don't go into extensive explanations, the maps show "Western Ukraine" and "Western Belarus" asking to join USSR in October 1939 and the border changing accordingly. No military movements are shown at all.

In what was Poland, not much was needed: only 18 polish battalions were there, and did not put up a real fight for obvious reasons. And most of the population there was non-polish anyway.

And apart from Finland - which was why it was renegotiated with Germany - either the areas were peacefully ceded (Bessarabia and North Bukovina) or they allowed for Union military bases and then asked for annexation. Guess you'd say under duress, but the Union sees it as reunion of natural lands that belonged to the country.

I was still a child when USSR fell, so I didn't get to learn the adult history of USSR from USSR.  When I was about 10, the history curriculum changed rather abruptly from teaching about heroic Red Army fighting Banderovites to heroic Ukrainian resistance fighters ambushing and slaughtering Red Army units.  From what I remember about USSR history from USSR, though, there was no such thing as an invasion following Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.  The territories just went and joined USSR.

You are very young... 

And I wasn't aware of that change in the history curricula. Interesting. Though, to be fair (now), while Stepan Bandera is portrayed as a fascist that was duly destroyed by the Red Army, in fact he was more of a right-wing nationalist that fought both sides. Kind of an ideological nutter with a mean streak. Anyway, that made him a marked man for the Union and it's easier to present him as a mere fascist.

And yes, the Pact was not made public, same as any other big political secret.

[Valmy]

One can see that in the Western history books about the post-war period in Germany, that just present the Western Allies as 'Liberators' and then nicely skip the events in Germany from mid-1945 to the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, so as not to mention what they did in the country in the meanwhile.

Not that the westerners deny it (the documentation is avaliable in sources and specialized books - just google The Patton Papers, After the Reich, the Monnet Plan, Adenauer's comments about the Saarland, etc), it's just not something taught nor mentioned in 'normal' books.

I certainly learned all that in College.  We never made it to the aftermath of WWII in Grade School so...what is a 'normal' school here?  I guess those Euro schools that actually teach a bit of modern history.

[derspiess]

So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948?  And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?

[Ed Anger]

So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948?  And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?

You had to ask, didn't you?

[Valmy]

So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948?  And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?

He is talking about the starving winter and all that.  The camps where we 're-educated' the German POWs before releasing them back in the wild.  Lots of Germans died in those early days of allied occupation.  Mistakes were made (and not-so-mistakes the Germans were not exactly popular amongst the Allies in 1945).

If you read the true nutters on the internet about it they basically claim that Eisenhower committed genocide on the Germans.  Because we were totally interested in killing every last German or something.  Of course the silly part is back in the day the Soviets were howling mad that we went so easy on the Germans and this showed how we were really fascists after all.  Now, it seems, we were brutal murderers who were fascists after all because we did NOT go easy on them.  One way or the other we are fascists and murderers.  Just get that part straight and you will be fine.

[derspiess]

So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948?  And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?

He is talking about the starving winter and all that.  The camps where we 're-educated' the German POWs before releasing them back in the wild.  Lots of Germans died in those early days of allied occupation.  Mistakes were made (and not-so-mistakes the Germans were not exactly popular amongst the Allies in 1945).

If you read the true nutters on the internet about it they basically claim that Eisenhower committed genocide on the Germans.  Because we were totally interested in killing every last German or something.  Of course the silly part is back in the day the Soviets were howling mad that we went so easy on the Germans and this showed how we were really fascists after all.  Now, it seems, we were brutal murderers who were fascists after all because we did NOT go easy on them.  One way or the other we are fascists and murderers.  Just get that part straight and you will be fine.

Oh, that.  Yeah, well I think we ought to acknowledge what happened to German POWs shortly after the war.  Obviously it wasn't as bad as what happened to Soviet-captured Germans, and wasn't quite as intentional.

I assumed he was talking about all of Germany (civilians, etc.).

[jimmy olsen]

One can see that in the Western history books about the post-war period in Germany, that just present the Western Allies as 'Liberators' and then nicely skip the events in Germany from mid-1945 to the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, so as not to mention what they did in the country in the meanwhile.

Not that the westerners deny it (the documentation is avaliable in sources and specialized books - just google The Patton Papers, After the Reich, the Monnet Plan, Adenauer's comments about the Saarland, etc), it's just not something taught nor mentioned in 'normal' books.

I certainly learned all that in College.  We never made it to the aftermath of WWII in Grade School so...what is a 'normal' school here?  I guess those Euro schools that actually teach a bit of modern history.

My school made it to Vietnam. 

[derspiess]

Too bad they didn't leave you there.

[mongers]

One can see that in the Western history books about the post-war period in Germany, that just present the Western Allies as 'Liberators' and then nicely skip the events in Germany from mid-1945 to the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, so as not to mention what they did in the country in the meanwhile.

Not that the westerners deny it (the documentation is avaliable in sources and specialized books - just google The Patton Papers, After the Reich, the Monnet Plan, Adenauer's comments about the Saarland, etc), it's just not something taught nor mentioned in 'normal' books.

I certainly learned all that in College.  We never made it to the aftermath of WWII in Grade School so...what is a 'normal' school here?  I guess those Euro schools that actually teach a bit of modern history.

My school made it to Vietnam. 

My country didn't make it to Vietnam.

Thank you Harold Wilson. 

[Eddie Teach]

My American History class worked backwards, so we got to the Civil War.