View Full Version : Uncle Joe

04-20-2005, 06:24 AM
Not trying to stir it up, just found this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4461275.stm) interesting and thought here a good place to share.

04-20-2005, 06:40 AM
Nice read.

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-20-2005, 01:13 PM
Interesting. And I am NOT surprised. Time has a tendency of dulling the senses.

04-20-2005, 01:22 PM
Stalin was almost as bad as Hitler in my books.

Ok maybe that is a little harsh but he was not a nice guy that's for sure.

Think of this, early in the war if Norway had given the UK the thumbs up to attack the Russians through them, he might well be Hitler number 2.

04-20-2005, 02:20 PM
Obviously the author has no idea, what is going on in Germany.
I seldom read such nonsense.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Germany has faced up to its past, but since 2002 there has been some backsliding <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not at all. If you regard the scale of the commemorating the victims in the death camps here in Germany recently, you can hardly think so.

There is even a memorial for allied bomber pilots, who were killed by outraged German people, after they were shoot down.
At the same time, the name of a great German fighter pilot is dishonoured.

On the Volkstrauertag we commemorate [b]all[b] victims of terror, war and violence from whatever nation they may be.

There is not a single event, on which we commemorate German victims only - think about that!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Antony Beevor pointed to a couple of books in Germany that were very important in this re-assessment. Crabwalk by Gunter Grass described the loss of civilians on a refugee ship torpedoed by the Russians while trying to escape from Danzig in January 1945. Der Brand (The Fire) by Jorg Friedrich dealt with the carpet-bombing of German cities and called on Britain to acknowledge that it, too, had committed war crimes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Mr.Beevor doesn't tell is, who these two authors are.
Friedrichs past work have pointed out several crimes of the Wehrmacht more detailled than any non-German author ever did.
He knows about war crimes, but does not care, whether the murderer is British or German.
Obviously it seems "political correct" to have German murderers only...
Grass has been awarded with the noble price for "Blechtrommel", which critizises the nazi regime in a very hard and rethorical brilliant way.

These men are not blurring anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It has gone down well in Germany, perhaps because it shows heroism by some German officers, including SS officers (as well as an appealing and brave young boy) in the face of the advancing Red Army. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Completely wrong. This just ridiculous... has this author seen "The Downfall" at all?
Obviously he did not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There has to be a comparison of characters, so some unpleasant people like SS General Wilhelm Monke are shown as better than they were. "

SS soldiers under Monke were responsible for a massacre of about 100 British prisoners near Dunkirk in 1940. In the film, he is simply shown as a noble defender of the last Berlin redoubt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"The Downfall" is a film about Berlin 1945, not Dunkirk 1940.
What do you expect? A subtitel: 'Watch out- he is a bad guy!'?
Sorry, but in Berlin 1945, Mohnke was an excellend and noble man, whatever he has done before.
(It does not make him unguilty at all - he remains a murderer.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"The other issue is that you do not see cause and effect in the film. You see the claustrophobia of the bunker but see nothing of the civilian suffering which Hitler's madness brought about," said Beevor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Having watched the films many times, owning it as DVD, I can say this is simply wrong! Is there an other "Downfall"-film??
Hitlers orders, which made the civilians suffer, are expressed.

And General Weitling calls Hitler responsible in this movie, too - expressis verbis.

Quite good finishing sentence...

04-20-2005, 03:21 PM
Interesting read...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Exposing Stalin's "retouching"

The Commissar Vanishes: The falsification of photographs and art in Stalin's Russia, an exhibition based on documents from the Collection of David King--Berlin, Haus am Waldsee, Argentinische Allee 30

~~> http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/dec1998/exh-d29.shtml
Footnote: King's work indicates that the deliberate falsification of Soviet history did not end with Stalin. Following the dictator's death in 1953, and Khruschev's secret speech of 1956 outlining Stalin's crimes, the forgers in the Kremlin received fresh orders, i.e., the selective obliteration of Stalin from a number of important pictures and publications. He who lives by the razor dies by the razor!

David King's book in English: The Commissar Vanishes: The falsification of photographs and art in Stalin's Russia, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1997.

And in German:

Stalin's Retuschen, Foto-und Kunstmanipulation in der Sowjetunion, Hamburger Edition, 1997. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

04-20-2005, 07:29 PM
I think what interests me about this article are not the authors views specifically, but the lager issue at hand. How are nations responsible to themselves and the rest of the world for wrongs of the past? And how dose this responsibility change w/ time? How do you separate the celebration of accomplishment from the shame of wrongs done? How many generations must separate the criminals from the innocent? Or dose national identity include national shame?

Also, what is more interesting than the Hitler-Germany debate, is what Stalin means to Russia. Both are responsible for crimes beyond what minds can ponder or language can express. However, unlike Hitler, Stalin's contribution to history is more substantial than his crimes alone.

How do Stalin's crimes mitigate his accomplishments; or visa versa? Can the two even be separated? I wonder, in a hundred years, will Stalin be the criminal who happened to preside over some of Russia's most remarkable moments, or will he be the man who wrestled the Soviet Union into a superpower by being a criminal? Either way, I've little doubt that Stalin‚‚ā¨ôs name will be written beside the likes of Ivan, Catherine, and Alexander long after what would seem like the important men of today are known only to scholars.