Aldrich Ames seems to genuinely believe that what he did is morally equivalent to doing for ideological reasons.
To be sure, the Soviets would have lost the war if it were not for the U.S. The Russian breadbasket had been taken by the Nazis, and the retreating Russians burned everything to the ground as they gave ground. But when you look at the erasure of the Russian role in fighting the Nazis, as well as the troublesome views of leaders like Churchill, you wonder not only about Fuchs, but also about the clean version of history we're taught about that war.
Of course propaganda has nothing to do with it /s
The US is an empire. So was the USSR. So are China and modern Russia. Some provinces are treated better than others, but empires are empires, and propaganda, political manipulation, corruption, violence, and torture are how they roll - together with resource capture, labour management, and various levels of market development.
Europe had a notable level of propaganda and political manipulation, and still does, and not so much of the overt violence. But just because the corruption, violence and torture were happening elsewhere doesn't mean they weren't happening at all.
I guess I should thank the SU for stealing our uran, making my fellow citizens forcibly work in the mines as a punishment for not being communist enough, and for hindering our economical development by decades (of the country that used to be one of the most advanced European states before the war, and got destroyed AFTER the war so much that it fell below Africa in HDI)? Well, thanks...
I think you don't even need the hindsight, just look at history: Soviet Union and Nazi Germany started the war as allies, their first action was splitting Poland... why would anyone expect they would have stopped there?
So, essentially, we are supposed to thank Russians for liberating us from their former allies (and even that only happened because their former allies stabbed them in the back first). I don't know... after the Nazis attacked the Soviet Union, what options had Soviet Union left other than fighting back?
If you become friends with the Nazis, start a war together as allies, then you get betrayed by them, then you defend yourself successfully (with help of many other countries) and finally defeat them... that doesn't really make you a textbook example of a good guy. You need a lot of propaganda to make people forget how this all started.
I'm curious as to which of Churchill's views (or acts) you think were more problematic than Stalin's.
And in the aftermath of WW2, which countries prospered more, those liberated by and/or occupied by the West, or by the Soviets?
Having a high death toll in itself is not a sign of good leadership or self sacrifice.
It’s a sign that some bugger is ordering someone else to put themselves in danger on pain of being shot if they don’t.
And the idea that Russians had to be forced at gunpoint to defend their country is so ludicrous and offensive I have no words.
See for example sources like: https://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/research/news-and-events/...
Stalin purged as many of his experienced officers as possible during the 1930s because he saw them as a threat.
Many show trials were filmed and you can watch them if you wish.
The yes men Stalin replaced them with made a lot of stupid decisions.
As a consequence a lot of people died unnecessarily.
If they’d have refused to follow stupid orders the alternative were death or gulag if the were lucky.
Sheer numbers and simple bravery are what got the Russian people through the war.