Hacker News Reader

>My hope is that in the light of Russian actions in Ukraine, the western world will review its attitude towards Russian/Soviet role in the context of WW2

I don't know about you, but this gives me massive "We've always been at war with Eastasia" vibes. We really shouldn't be normalizing "reviews" of our attitude towards other countries in the context of history, based on whatever is politically expedient today.

Illusion of winning WWII or in Russia Great Patriotic War is the main influence behind these inhuman crimes. They believe that because they won Nazis, they can't be the bad guys ever and all they do is morally right.

>I don't know about you, but this gives me massive "We've always been at war with Eastasia" vibes. We really shouldn't be normalizing "reviews" of our attitude towards other countries in the context of history, based on whatever is politically expedient today.

I think you are misled about the degree to which much of our "history" is based on what _was_ politically expedient at the time. Nothing the parent poster has said is false, it is precisely addressing convenient myths that have been left to stand.

To provide some examples:

The Wehrmacht was not innocent when it comes to the holocaust, but it was politically expedient to pin the blame on the SS and promote the idea that the Wehrmacht was largely "clean". So until the past couple of decades, that's what the histories said.

Hitler wasn't single-handledly responsible for most of the decisions that were pinned on him by the German military high command after the war. But the German high command were tasks with writing the histories, and it was certainly in their best interests to do so.

A lot of "revisionism" is more akin to removing the convenient lies of the past than it is to your analogy.

As to how this applies to the Russian myths of WWII, here is a thread from a historian: https://mobile.twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/14973067463306...

>I think you are misled about the degree to which much of our "history" is based on what _was_ politically expedient at the time.

What changed between now and the cold war? You'd think that it'd be very expedient to do some revisionist history when they had nukes pointed at us, or were engaging in proxy wars all over the globe.

>A lot of "revisionism" is more akin to removing the convenient lies of the past than it is to your analogy.

Of course, the revisionism isn't going to be as blatant as "We've always been allied with Eastasia" today and "We've always been at war with Eastasia" tomorrow. This time it's going to be "removing the convenient lies of the past", and the next time (when we want to be allied with russia) it's going to be "judging them by the standards of the time" or whatever.

The disturbing thing is that there is direct correlation between those people glorifying Soviets during WW2 and justifying Russian actions in Ukraine today.

> My hope is that in the light of Russian actions in Ukraine, the western world will review its attitude towards Russian/Soviet role in the context of WW2. So far the blame on starting WW2 was put almost solely on Nazi Germany, and painting Soviets almost as victims only.

Don't worry, this has been already happening for years. Nazis are being normalized constantly.

btw you'll be surprised but England made a deal with Nazis a few years prior to Soviets. Another thing that may surprise you is that Poland occupied small part of Czechoslovakia when Germans conquer it (after they made deal with England).

Believe me, there are plenty of surprises for you once you decide to study history instead of being feed by mass media. You'll enjoy it.

> Don't worry, this has been already happening for years. Nazis are being normalized constantly.

No need to twist my words here. You know very well what I meant with it.

> Believe me, there are plenty of surprises for you once you decide to study history instead of being feed by mass media. You'll enjoy it.

I’ve lived in different political and economical systems and on both sides of the iron curtain which makes me think I have developed good immunity against all kinds of propaganda.

Everywhere you mention had been within the Russian Empire 20 years earlier.

Also the Russians made a peace treaty with Germany after the UK and France had. Neither the UK or France would agree with a mitual self-defense treaty with Russia prior to the Ribbentrop peace treaty.

Drawing a detailed map of neighboring countries with a line in the middle demarcating which part you are going to occupy and which part goes to your partner in crime is NOT a peace treaty FFS.

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1939pact.asp

"In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party. Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San. The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments. In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement. Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas. Article IV. This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret." Moscow, August 23, 1939.

> Everywhere you mention had been within the Russian Empire 20 years earlier.

That is not really an argument. I can select an arbitrary time period (other than 20 years) and show that none of these were part of Russian empire at that time.

> Everywhere you mention had been within the Russian Empire 20 years earlier.

I mean, so what? Modern Russia is not the Russian Empire; it is a successor state of the Soviet Union. It formally seceded the same day as Ukraine (and Belarus). If it wasn't happy with this situation, then it shouldn't have done so.

Even if modern Russia _was_ a rump state of the Soviet Union (which, again, it isn't) it would have no more right than anyone else to former dependencies.