Putin to Make Equating Stalin, USSR to Hitler, Nazi Germany Illegal

[gebhk]

The law is not good or bad. It just reflects existing unwritten rules in Russian society. I doubt that the law will be used frequently as the existing much softer law is being used seldom. The law is apparently politically motivated. Corrupted Putin's regime tries to present itself as a defender of traditional values and views that are supported by the vast majority in Russia.

That partly depends on how you consider the 'Law'. Personally, I subscribe to the view that all laws are inherently bad because they limit the freedom of the individual and of society. Therefore, lawmakers should be very careful that any laws they craft do more good than ill or prevent even greater ill - in effect are a necessary evil.

You say the law is neither good nor bad. I would have to disagree because - if I take on board your comments about it, it does little good except for (perhaps - that remains to be seen) the political career of the president and his team. The use of the law as a political gimmick brings the law itself into disrepute. The problems it causes to historical debate and any useful lessons that can be drawn from that, Sid has already outlined and I don't think there is need to repeat this. In addition, all laws are subsequently used for all manner of purposes that the lawmakers never envisaged, rarely good. On balance therefore this is bad law. The idea that it won't be used frequently simply points to it being an unnecessary law and therefore reinforces the view that it is a bad law rather than the opposite.

As an aside, the Russian federation is not just Russia so should what is an unwritten law in Russia automatically apply to non-Russians? And does the majority hold the view that it IS an unwritten law? What is the support for this position (opinion polls, for example)? And even if it were true, firstly, even if the majority in the Russian Federation believe in this, after all unwritten rule of polite society, it does not automatically mean that they also believe that those who transgress, should be prosecuted (or persecuted, depending on your point of view) by the law. Secondly just because the majority of society supports a certain view, that does not mean it is OK to legitimise it. I am sure Hitler may well have justified many of his most vicious and pernicious laws in this manner and history is littered with vicious laws supported by the majority (or some might say, pandering to the mob) aimed at persecuting those who were different or held different views or wished to do things differently from that majority.

You propose to restrict the discussion only be the 1st question that I dare say is not right.

Not at all - I was quite happy to discuss the similarities and differences to laws in other countries. Indeed you may recall that I brought my own examples to the table (the blasphemy laws). On the contrary, looking at how similar laws work - and even more usefully how they have worked in the past, is a valuable tool in determining whether such a law is a good law.

Again, the law is not worse of better that similar laws in other countries.

I would agree. Where we seem to differ is in the meaning of this. You appear to be suggesting that other people having such laws lends justification to the Russian Federation having them. It is with that, that I disagree.

[Peter89]

The law forbids namely publicly made statements of common character while details, facts can be freely discussed. Personally I have no any problem with the law. Inevitable self censorship is much more serious problem.
I indeed believe that it is not right to equate the Soviet union and Nazi Germany after 22 June 1941. A lot of my relatives died during that war. They died for the Motherland, for the very existence of Russian people. A lot of German soldier died as well but for what exactly? The causes were quite different.

There are a few problems with this view.

First, a totalitarian state can commit crimes against its own people, thus invading it might be seen as liberation. Even when a totalitarian state attacks a totalitarian state, one might feel to be liberated. We know examples of this both during the German occupation of the western SU and during the Soviet occupation of Central Europe.

Second, the Red Army didn't stop at the 21 June 1941 border, thus, the Germans and others were fighting for their countries, too. The very existence of a people is very hard to deal with, as it is unlikely that the total population of the SU would be killed. In many sense, a German soldier might have felt the same in 1944-1945.

Third, the Soviet Union invaded and in some cases occupied territories even before Barbarossa, including non-totalitarian or even democratic nations. Thus, the Soviets did not behave as defenders of their own country, but as an aggressor. Barbarossa was about the fight between two aggressors.

Fourth, while volunteers and officiers of course felt a personal motivation for war, the average soldier had very different motivations. For example, my relatives just wanted to live through the conflict.

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

As I have previously been banned by the same moderator, forgive me if I don't necessarily subscribe to "Moderator is always right"!

It's interesting ... though I'm not surprised.

I have no idea whether the moderator was right or wrong to ban Sergey. My point was that on this thread you were misrepresenting what actually happened. His banning was the result of a pattern of behaviour, not some isolated incident.

I will not comment this incident anymore. It happened long ago and I prefer to follow the principle - The moderator is always right.

Yes, Russia remains Russia - to Russians. However, a high proportions of Moscow's citizens were not ethnic Russians under the Czars or the USSR and even today nearly 20% of Putin's Russia's population are not ethnic Russians.

Modern Russia is predominantly ethnically Russian. And despite big number of migrants Moscow is even more ethnically Russian than whole Russia.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Население_Москвы
91.65% in Moscow called themselves Russian
In Russian Empire only handful of Jew lived in Moscow. They were not allowed to settle here. But after Bolshevik revolution hundreds thousands of Jews moved to big cities and especially to Moscow. In 1926 there were 6.51% of Jews in Moscow.

They might well hold a different view. Indeed, given that 14 of the former USSR's 15 constituent SSRs show no desire to return to rule from Moscow, it seems pretty evident that this is so. Even within today's Russia, it would be difficult to argue persuasively that most Chechens want to be part of Russia and the same might be true of other territorial minorities as well.

The biggest ethnical minority in Russia are Tatars (and ethnically close peoples Bashkirs and Chuvash - Christians btw). Due to my work in power energetics I visited Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Chuvashia many times. I don't think that the Tatars have different views than the Russians as they are deeply integrated in Russian society. The Chechens are special case of course.

The fact that we hold different opinions doesn't make them of equal value or even one of us right.

Agreed.

The parallels between the USSR and Nazi Germany are obvious to outsiders (as are the differences). To us the Eastern Front essentially looks like a struggle between two often quite similar Totalitarian powers with their four/five year plans, official leadership personality cults, state propaganda, mass compulsory youth movements, mass women's organizations, state-sponsored trades unions, secret and political police, mass concentration/Gulag/extermination camps, disregard for the rule of law, sham or non-existent elections, one-party states, denial of even loyal opposition, lack of a free press, etc., etc.. The USSR just seems the less implacable of two relative evils.

I believe that it is pointless to continue to make circles in the discussion. I would like only to note that views from inside and from outside frequently are different.

[snpol]

Banned forumist Sergey just suggested that size of population of Hungarian town of Siofok at war time was about the same as now. And he was banned.

Sorry for the interruption in the otherwise interesting topic, but could you please point to this comment?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1987&hilit=Siofok&start=420
It happened long ago - in 2011. Sergey indeed was not right to suggest that war time population of the city of Siofok (10000) was about the same as in 2011 (25000).
Personally I visited Hungary many times and have been in Siofok as well. It's resort city and despite stagnation of population in Hungary is appears to be fast growing.
Btw, the ability to make mistakes is a natural feature of any human being.
We in Russia have a saying - Only those who do nothing don't make mistakes.

Allegedly 300 women were raped in Siofok, while there isn't anything that remotely confirms the allegation.
Returning to the theme, I would like to note that groundless accusation in mass rapes are being used in attempts to equate the Soviet union and Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime ... _Wehrmacht

During World War II, the Germans' combined armed forces (Heer, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe) committed systematic war crimes, including massacres, mass rape, looting, the exploitation of forced labor, the murder of three million Soviet prisoners of war, and participated in the extermination of Jews.

German soldiers used to brand the bodies of captured partisan women – and other women as well – with the words "Whore for Hitler's troops" and rape them.[112] Following their capture some German soldiers vividly bragged about committing rape and rape-homicide.[113] Susan Brownmiller argues that rape played a pivotal role in the Nazis' aim to conquer and destroy people they considered inferior, such as Jews, Russians, and Poles.

Author Ursula Schele, estimated in the Journal "Zur Debatte um die Ausstellung Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941-1944" that one in ten women raped by German soldiers would have become pregnant, and therefore it is probable that up to ten million women in the Soviet Union could have been raped by the Wehrmacht.[121]:9
Other sources estimate that rapes of Soviet women by the Wehrmacht range up to 10,000,000 incidents, with between 750,000 and 1,000,000 children being born as a result.

[snpol]

The law is not good or bad. It just reflects existing unwritten rules in Russian society. I doubt that the law will be used frequently as the existing much softer law is being used seldom. The law is apparently politically motivated. Corrupted Putin's regime tries to present itself as a defender of traditional values and views that are supported by the vast majority in Russia.

That partly depends on how you consider the 'Law'. Personally, I subscribe to the view that all laws are inherently bad because they limit the freedom of the individual and of society. Therefore, lawmakers should be very careful that any laws they craft do more good than ill or prevent even greater ill - in effect are a necessary evil.

You say the law is neither good nor bad. I would have to disagree because - if I take on board your comments about it, it does little good except for (perhaps - that remains to be seen) the political career of the president and his team. The use of the law as a political gimmick brings the law itself into disrepute. The problems it causes to historical debate and any useful lessons that can be drawn from that, Sid has already outlined and I don't think there is need to repeat this. In addition, all laws are subsequently used for all manner of purposes that the lawmakers never envisaged, rarely good. On balance therefore this is bad law. The idea that it won't be used frequently simply points to it being an unnecessary law and therefore reinforces the view that it is a bad law rather than the opposite.

As an aside, the Russian federation is not just Russia so should what is an unwritten law in Russia automatically apply to non-Russians? And does the majority hold the view that it IS an unwritten law? What is the support for this position (opinion polls, for example)? And even if it were true, firstly, even if the majority in the Russian Federation believe in this, after all unwritten rule of polite society, it does not automatically mean that they also believe that those who transgress, should be prosecuted (or persecuted, depending on your point of view) by the law. Secondly just because the majority of society supports a certain view, that does not mean it is OK to legitimise it. I am sure Hitler may well have justified many of his most vicious and pernicious laws in this manner and history is littered with vicious laws supported by the majority (or some might say, pandering to the mob) aimed at persecuting those who were different or held different views or wished to do things differently from that majority.

You propose to restrict the discussion only be the 1st question that I dare say is not right.

Not at all - I was quite happy to discuss the similarities and differences to laws in other countries. Indeed you may recall that I brought my own examples to the table (the blasphemy laws). On the contrary, looking at how similar laws work - and even more usefully how they have worked in the past, is a valuable tool in determining whether such a law is a good law.

Again, the law is not worse of better that similar laws in other countries.

I would agree. Where we seem to differ is in the meaning of this. You appear to be suggesting that other people having such laws lends justification to the Russian Federation having them. It is with that, that I disagree.

On many points I agree with you. Personally I don't think that the Law will seriously restrict historians in their work.

[Peter89]

Banned forumist Sergey just suggested that size of population of Hungarian town of Siofok at war time was about the same as now. And he was banned.

Sorry for the interruption in the otherwise interesting topic, but could you please point to this comment?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1987&hilit=Siofok&start=420
It happened long ago - in 2011. Sergey indeed was not right to suggest that war time population of the city of Siofok (10000) was about the same as in 2011 (25000).
Personally I visited Hungary many times and have been in Siofok as well. It's resort city and despite stagnation of population in Hungary is appears to be fast growing.
Btw, the ability to make mistakes is a natural feature of any human being.
We in Russia have a saying - Only those who do nothing don't make mistakes.

Allegedly 300 women were raped in Siofok, while there isn't anything that remotely confirms the allegation.

Hello snpol,

since then, I have read through that thread, although I do not know the details of the ban. Although I don't like the idea of banning (I used to be a light-handed moderator on another forum), sometimes it is needed in order to preserve values declared prior the registration. If this forum's rules contain that Holocaust denial is forbidden, then saying that the population of a town (where a considerable Jewish community was present at the 1941 census), remained the same during the war, is bordering Holocaust denial (pls note that from the 500 resident Jews in Siófok only 72 returned alive). More on that can be read in József Matyikó's Zsidók Siófokon ( https://www.antikvarium.hu/konyv/matyik ... kon-894149 ), if you happen to know Hungarian by any chance. On the other hand, yes, it might have been just a benign, but serious mistake on Sergey's part.

Anyway; I visited St. Petersburg many times, as my mother studied there and it was the city where I could practice my Russian learned from my mother in an original language environment, and it was a place of which I hold many dear memories - I wouldn't say that the population of Leningrad was the same before the war and after the war. It would imply that the deliberate starvation of the besieged people didn't really happen, or at least not on the magnitude that we know it did.

Even though the forum rules state that first there ought to be a warning, and only then a ban, I don't wish to reopen this case. Just saying that a ban might have been an acceptable choice there.


However, I have a few points to make, quite related to the topic we are talking about now.


First of all, let's not forget that in the case of Central-Eastern Europe's occupation by the Axis (sic!) and Soviet forces, war crimes could actually be on the top of one another, for example, raping the Jewish women by Soviet troops in the Budapest ghetto is one of those sad instances. Mistreatment of Soviet POWs by the Axis and the Red Army is another.

Second, one party's crimes do not extinguish the others'. It is not really a competition who could have been the worst. Because of the nature of rape, looting, and of a generally unrestricted, brutal way of war that happened in this region, I believe most of the crimes will never be revealed, and direct evidence will exist for only a small percentage of the crimes actually committed.

And third, the real strength of the national affiliation or patriotic feelings of a person is not determined by the denial of any mistakes or crimes committed by one's nation or country. On the contrary, actually; we can only love something or someone, when we know and acknowledge its shortcomings and misdeeds, and we still feel love.

This law in question denies the equal footing re war crimes in WW2, and thus strengthen the view of the clean Red Army, which is, in my opinion, absolutely not helpful or patriotic, but in reality, quite delusional.

[snpol]

The law forbids namely publicly made statements of common character while details, facts can be freely discussed. Personally I have no any problem with the law. Inevitable self censorship is much more serious problem.
I indeed believe that it is not right to equate the Soviet union and Nazi Germany after 22 June 1941. A lot of my relatives died during that war. They died for the Motherland, for the very existence of Russian people. A lot of German soldier died as well but for what exactly? The causes were quite different.

There are a few problems with this view.

First, a totalitarian state can commit crimes against its own people, thus invading it might be seen as liberation.

OILiberation of Iraq springs in mind. Personally I don't see a big difference between bombings of Belgrade by Nazi Germany and by democratic countries about 20 years ago. 'Democratic' boms kill as efficiently as totalitarian ones.

Even when a totalitarian state attacks a totalitarian state, one might feel to be liberated. We know examples of this both during the German occupation of the western SU and during the Soviet occupation of Central Europe.

France was no doubt a democratic country but did it matter in Vietnam after the end of WW2? Were the Vietnamese liberated from Japanese occupation or just enslaved again? Did it matter that in Algeria that France was a democracy?

Second, the Red Army didn't stop at the 21 June 1941 border, thus, the Germans and others were fighting for their countries, too. The very existence of a people is very hard to deal with, as it is unlikely that the total population of the SU would be killed. In many sense, a German soldier might have felt the same in 1944-1945.

Germany had to surrender. It hadn't been done at time. So what the Germans could expect? The Hungarians invading the Soviet union had to understand that their country could be invaded, occupied with puppet regime. I reckon that the Germans understood that they were not just victims of Soviet invasion.

Third, the Soviet Union invaded and in some cases occupied territories even before Barbarossa, including non-totalitarian or even democratic nations. Thus, the Soviets did not behave as defenders of their own country, but as an aggressor. Barbarossa was about the fight between two aggressors.

That time a lot of territories were invaded, occupied, turned into colonies by totalitarian and democratic states. The historical context should be taken into account. And anyway the Soviet union before imminent war with Germany had to establish military control over buffer states.

Fourth, while volunteers and officiers of course felt a personal motivation for war, the average soldier had very different motivations. For example, my relatives just wanted to live through the conflict.

In January 1945 it was clear that Germany is doomed to lose the war. However, German soldiers didn't surrender in huge numbers just to survive.
Btw, quality of Soviet infantry fell in 1945 due to conscripts from Western Ukraine who frequently surrendered even in 1945 just to survive as POWs.

[Peter89]

The law forbids namely publicly made statements of common character while details, facts can be freely discussed. Personally I have no any problem with the law. Inevitable self censorship is much more serious problem.
I indeed believe that it is not right to equate the Soviet union and Nazi Germany after 22 June 1941. A lot of my relatives died during that war. They died for the Motherland, for the very existence of Russian people. A lot of German soldier died as well but for what exactly? The causes were quite different.

There are a few problems with this view.

First, a totalitarian state can commit crimes against its own people, thus invading it might be seen as liberation.

OILiberation of Iraq springs in mind. Personally I don't see a big difference between bombings of Belgrade by Nazi Germany and by democratic countries about 20 years ago. 'Democratic' boms kill as efficiently as totalitarian ones.

There was a real difference though; the German operation was called Operation Retribution. The NATO did not bomb Belgrade with the intention of causing more civilian casualties.

You know, personal accounts do never tell the whole story.

...it happened when I was a youngling, and I've heard the planes in the night flying towards Yugoslavia, and my late grandfather, who was a honorary citizen of a twin town there, also a WW2 veteran, said that "we are being killed by our >>>allies<<< again". Because the NATO planes acutally killed Hungarians in Yugoslavia. Also, I remember cheering for colonel Zoltán Dani, who downed the F-117. I met him when I was at the uni, he's the most humble soldier I've ever met. He works as a baker now.

Even when a totalitarian state attacks a totalitarian state, one might feel to be liberated. We know examples of this both during the German occupation of the western SU and during the Soviet occupation of Central Europe.

France was no doubt a democratic country but did it matter in Vietnam after the end of WW2? Were the Vietnamese liberated from Japanese occupation or just enslaved again? Did it matter that in Algeria that France was a democracy?

Colonial empires were hardly democracies; at least in not today's sense.

It does matter if you are attacked by a democracy or not, because in a democracy, a person ought to have the right to question the government's decision; to say no to armed military service; to say that the citizens ought to have human rights. It doesn't mean that all the wars waged by democracies are "just" or free of war crimes. The difference is that in a democracy, you can say that there were crimes, mistakes, and by popular support, these crimes can be corrected. See Germany.

Second, the Red Army didn't stop at the 21 June 1941 border, thus, the Germans and others were fighting for their countries, too. The very existence of a people is very hard to deal with, as it is unlikely that the total population of the SU would be killed. In many sense, a German soldier might have felt the same in 1944-1945.

Germany had to surrender. It hadn't been done at time. So what the Germans could expect? The Hungarians invading the Soviet union had to understand that their country could be invaded, occupied with puppet regime. I reckon that the Germans understood that they were not just victims of Soviet invasion.

The lack of a prudent politico-military decision could not be substituted with actual crimes committed deliberately.

If the SU would transform into a plural democracy that respected minority rights and human rights, millions of lives could have been spared. It is not the same as killing, looting and raping people.

Btw, again, I was growing up with an education spreading the fantasy tales of the angel-like Hungarian troops forced into servitude on the Eastern front, where both the German and Soviet forces were poised to kill them. Part of growing up is to leave behind such fantasies, and learn what crimes the occupying forces did commit; when and where. ( https://bookline.hu/product/home.action ... &id=282994 ) Facing uncomfortable facts is part of the curing process. Dignify crimes is moving backwards.

Third, the Soviet Union invaded and in some cases occupied territories even before Barbarossa, including non-totalitarian or even democratic nations. Thus, the Soviets did not behave as defenders of their own country, but as an aggressor. Barbarossa was about the fight between two aggressors.

That time a lot of territories were invaded, occupied, turned into colonies by totalitarian and democratic states. The historical context should be taken into account. And anyway the Soviet union before imminent war with Germany had to establish military control over buffer states.

The bolshevik Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were discussing a military alliance in November 1940. It's really hard to imagine that a defensive perimeter was on Molotov's mind when he agreed with Ribbentrop.

Fourth, while volunteers and officiers of course felt a personal motivation for war, the average soldier had very different motivations. For example, my relatives just wanted to live through the conflict.

In January 1945 it was clear that Germany is doomed to lose the war. However, German soldiers didn't surrender in huge numbers just to survive.
Btw, quality of Soviet infantry fell in 1945 due to conscripts from Western Ukraine who frequently surrendered even in 1945 just to survive as POWs.

Germany was in the state of madness in 1945. To surrender meant that the fleeing population had less chance to survive or live through the next weeks unharmed. In fact, the only time when a German soldier could find actual, palpable motivation to fight was in the last months of the war. By the way... they did surrender, just not to the Red Army.

Do you have any idea, why is that so?

[snpol]

...I have read through that thread, although I do not know the details of the ban.

I'm also unaware about details. The formal cause is incorrect statistics about war time population of Hungarian city of Siofok. Let's not discuss the ban further.

Although I don't like the idea of banning (I used to be a light-handed moderator on another forum), sometimes it is needed in order to preserve values declared prior the registration. If this forum's rules contain that Holocaust denial is forbidden, then saying that the population of a town (where a considerable Jewish community was present at the 1941 census), remained the same during the war, is bordering Holocaust denial (pls note that from the 500 resident Jews in Siófok only 72 returned alive).

Indeed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siófok

During World War II, nearly 500 Jews were deported in 1944, of whom only 72 returned.

However, according to this source
https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/pinkas ... un532.html
There were only 287 Jews in 1930.

After the war some Jews returned to Siofok, and renewed community life, a group of 97 people.

Note, that some Jews returned to Siofok and apparently some didn't return (went elsewhere).

More on that can be read in József Matyikó's Zsidók Siófokon ( https://www.antikvarium.hu/konyv/matyik ... kon-894149 ), if you happen to know Hungarian by any chance. On the other hand, yes, it might have been just a benign, but serious mistake on Sergey's part.

No, I know only a few words in Hungarian and being a big fan of Imre Kalman (btw, native of Siofok) I could sign - Szep varos Kolozsvar, en ott lakom a Szamosnal
Hungarian is a very difficult language - Igen.

Anyway; I visited St. Petersburg many times, as my mother studied there and it was the city where I could practice my Russian learned from my mother in an original language environment, and it was a place of which I hold many dear memories - I wouldn't say that the population of Leningrad was the same before the war and after the war. It would imply that the deliberate starvation of the besieged people didn't really happen, or at least not on the magnitude that we know it did.

Russian is also a very difficult language to learn. The 'before and after' method frequently is not correct. Leningrad attracted newcomers by rich opportunities.

... let's not forget that in the case of Central-Eastern Europe's occupation by the Axis (sic!) and Soviet forces, war crimes could actually be on the top of one another, for example, raping the Jewish women by Soviet troops in the Budapest ghetto is one of those sad instances. Mistreatment of Soviet POWs by the Axis and the Red Army is another.

While some unfortunate cases could happen, but I strongly doubt that there were cases of mass rape in the Budapest ghetto. Respective allegations could emerge decades after the WW2 for political reasons. Also in attempts to equate Nazi Germany and the Soviet union.

Second, one party's crimes do not extinguish the others'. It is not really a competition who could have been the worst. Because of the nature of rape, looting, and of a generally unrestricted, brutal way of war that happened in this region, I believe most of the crimes will never be revealed, and direct evidence will exist for only a small percentage of the crimes actually committed.

However this case of mass rape is well documented
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate
Those who claim that Soviet soldiers did the same things should just point to the proper source.

And third, the real strength of the national affiliation or patriotic feelings of a person is not determined by the denial of any mistakes or crimes committed by one's nation or country. On the contrary, actually; we can only love something or someone, when we know and acknowledge its shortcomings and misdeeds, and we still feel love.

Personally I don't accept unsourced claims and am not ready regard allegations as facts.

This law in question denies the equal footing re war crimes in WW2, and thus strengthen the view of the clean Red Army, which is, in my opinion, absolutely not helpful or patriotic, but in reality, quite delusional.

There is an easy solution - regard specific wrongdoings with all details, documents and that's all.

[snpol]

There was a real difference though; the German operation was called Operation Retribution. The NATO did not bomb Belgrade with the intention of causing more civilian casualties.

400 children were killed during the bombing. Maybe not intentionally but killed.

You know, personal accounts do never tell the whole story.
...it happened when I was a youngling, and I've heard the planes in the night flying towards Yugoslavia, and my late grandfather, who was a honorary citizen of a twin town there, also a WW2 veteran, said that "we are being killed by our >>>allies<<< again". Because the NATO planes acutally killed Hungarians in Yugoslavia. Also, I remember cheering for colonel Zoltán Dani, who downed the F-117. I met him when I was at the uni, he's the most humble soldier I've ever met. He works as a baker now.

I know about colonel Zoltan Dani. He was shown on Russian TV. Soviet made AA system S-125 developed 60 years ago was able to detect F-117 when it drop bombs and the missile flies faster.

Colonial empires were hardly democracies; at least in not today's sense.
It does matter if you are attacked by a democracy or not, because in a democracy, a person ought to have the right to question the government's decision; to say no to armed military service; to say that the citizens ought to have human rights. It doesn't mean that all the wars waged by democracies are "just" or free of war crimes. The difference is that in a democracy, you can say that there were crimes, mistakes, and by popular support, these crimes can be corrected. See Germany.

In theory yes but in real life the Iraqi war was unleashed despite all protests.

The bolshevik Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were discussing a military alliance in November 1940. It's really hard to imagine that a defensive perimeter was on Molotov's mind when he agreed with Ribbentrop.

For the first time I hear about it - that the Soviet union and Nazi Germany were discussing a military alliance in November 1940. What is your source? And anyway there was no any agreement about such an alliance.

Germany was in the state of madness in 1945. To surrender meant that the fleeing population had less chance to survive or live through the next weeks unharmed. In fact, the only time when a German soldier could find actual, palpable motivation to fight was in the last months of the war. By the way... they did surrender, just not to the Red Army.
Do you have any idea, why is that so?

Because German soldiers knew pretty well what the Germans did in the Soviet union and feared respective revenge.

[LineDoggie]

...I have read through that thread, although I do not know the details of the ban.

I'm also unaware about details. The formal cause is incorrect statistics about war time population of Hungarian city of Siofok. Let's not discuss the ban further.

Although I don't like the idea of banning (I used to be a light-handed moderator on another forum), sometimes it is needed in order to preserve values declared prior the registration. If this forum's rules contain that Holocaust denial is forbidden, then saying that the population of a town (where a considerable Jewish community was present at the 1941 census), remained the same during the war, is bordering Holocaust denial (pls note that from the 500 resident Jews in Siófok only 72 returned alive).

Indeed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siófok

During World War II, nearly 500 Jews were deported in 1944, of whom only 72 returned.

However, according to this source
https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/pinkas ... un532.html
There were only 287 Jews in 1930.

After the war some Jews returned to Siofok, and renewed community life, a group of 97 people.

Note, that some Jews returned to Siofok and apparently some didn't return (went elsewhere).

More on that can be read in József Matyikó's Zsidók Siófokon ( https://www.antikvarium.hu/konyv/matyik ... kon-894149 ), if you happen to know Hungarian by any chance. On the other hand, yes, it might have been just a benign, but serious mistake on Sergey's part.

No, I know only a few words in Hungarian and being a big fan of Imre Kalman (btw, native of Siofok) I could sign - Szep varos Kolozsvar, en ott lakom a Szamosnal
Hungarian is a very difficult language - Igen.

Anyway; I visited St. Petersburg many times, as my mother studied there and it was the city where I could practice my Russian learned from my mother in an original language environment, and it was a place of which I hold many dear memories - I wouldn't say that the population of Leningrad was the same before the war and after the war. It would imply that the deliberate starvation of the besieged people didn't really happen, or at least not on the magnitude that we know it did.

Russian is also a very difficult language to learn. The 'before and after' method frequently is not correct. Leningrad attracted newcomers by rich opportunities.

... let's not forget that in the case of Central-Eastern Europe's occupation by the Axis (sic!) and Soviet forces, war crimes could actually be on the top of one another, for example, raping the Jewish women by Soviet troops in the Budapest ghetto is one of those sad instances. Mistreatment of Soviet POWs by the Axis and the Red Army is another.

While some unfortunate cases could happen, but I strongly doubt that there were cases of mass rape in the Budapest ghetto. Respective allegations could emerge decades after the WW2 for political reasons. Also in attempts to equate Nazi Germany and the Soviet union.

Second, one party's crimes do not extinguish the others'. It is not really a competition who could have been the worst. Because of the nature of rape, looting, and of a generally unrestricted, brutal way of war that happened in this region, I believe most of the crimes will never be revealed, and direct evidence will exist for only a small percentage of the crimes actually committed.

However this case of mass rape is well documented
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate
Those who claim that Soviet soldier did the same things should just point to the proper source.

And third, the real strength of the national affiliation or patriotic feelings of a person is not determined by the denial of any mistakes or crimes committed by one's nation or country. On the contrary, actually; we can only love something or someone, when we know and acknowledge its shortcomings and misdeeds, and we still feel love.

Personally I don't accept unsourced claims and am no ready regard allegations as facts.

This law in question denies the equal footing re war crimes in WW2, and thus strengthen the view of the clean Red Army, which is, in my opinion, absolutely not helpful or patriotic, but in reality, quite delusional.

There is an easy solution - regard specific wrongdoings with all details, documents and that's all.

Whataboutism in full bloom......

[snpol]

Whataboutism in full bloom......

It would be very kind of you to present counter arguments with reference to reliable sources.
Anyway important historical events should be regarded in proper historical context, be compared with similar events happened that time.
You may to brand it as 'whataboutism' or use another term but only historical truth matters.

[Peter89]

...I have read through that thread, although I do not know the details of the ban.

I'm also unaware about details. The formal cause is incorrect statistics about war time population of Hungarian city of Siofok. Let's not discuss the ban further.

Although I don't like the idea of banning (I used to be a light-handed moderator on another forum), sometimes it is needed in order to preserve values declared prior the registration. If this forum's rules contain that Holocaust denial is forbidden, then saying that the population of a town (where a considerable Jewish community was present at the 1941 census), remained the same during the war, is bordering Holocaust denial (pls note that from the 500 resident Jews in Siófok only 72 returned alive).

Indeed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siófok

During World War II, nearly 500 Jews were deported in 1944, of whom only 72 returned.

However, according to this source
https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/pinkas ... un532.html
There were only 287 Jews in 1930.

The confusion comes from the fact that Siófok did not have its present-day boundaries, and administratively belonged to two counties (Veszprém and Somogy). Mr. Matyikó correctly used the number of the settlement as we know it today. However, you are free to correct him, is you feel the apetite:

https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/NEDA_1941_02/

After the war some Jews returned to Siofok, and renewed community life, a group of 97 people.

Note, that some Jews returned to Siofok and apparently some didn't return (went elsewhere).

Where exactly do you think they went? They were deported to concentration camps!

Anyway; I visited St. Petersburg many times, as my mother studied there and it was the city where I could practice my Russian learned from my mother in an original language environment, and it was a place of which I hold many dear memories - I wouldn't say that the population of Leningrad was the same before the war and after the war. It would imply that the deliberate starvation of the besieged people didn't really happen, or at least not on the magnitude that we know it did.

Russian is also a very difficult language to learn. The 'before and after' method frequently is not correct. Leningrad attracted newcomers by rich opportunities.

Well, for a Hungarian, every indoeuropean language is hard to learn.

I don't get it. You imply that citizens were not starving and dying in the Leningrad siege?

Am I completely off the tracks? In less than 24 hours two persons tell me that there was no famine in the SU during the war years.

... let's not forget that in the case of Central-Eastern Europe's occupation by the Axis (sic!) and Soviet forces, war crimes could actually be on the top of one another, for example, raping the Jewish women by Soviet troops in the Budapest ghetto is one of those sad instances. Mistreatment of Soviet POWs by the Axis and the Red Army is another.

While some unfortunate cases could happen, but I strongly doubt that there were cases of mass rape in the Budapest ghetto. Respective allegations could emerge decades after the WW2 for political reasons. Also in attempts to equate Nazi Germany and the Soviet union.

I guess quoting additional Hungarian sources will not help the issue. Besides, "unfortunate cases" were quite prevalent. The current number of raped women in Budapest is 50-200,000.

Second, one party's crimes do not extinguish the others'. It is not really a competition who could have been the worst. Because of the nature of rape, looting, and of a generally unrestricted, brutal way of war that happened in this region, I believe most of the crimes will never be revealed, and direct evidence will exist for only a small percentage of the crimes actually committed.

However this case of mass rape is well documented
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate
Those who claim that Soviet soldiers did the same things should just point to the proper source.

What kind of guilt-deflection mechanism is this? When a Soviet war crime is mentioned, you immediately try to name another war crime. Who cares? If you rape a woman, you can't say that XY raped two.

By the way it is not a competition. One's crimes does not get smaller if there is a bigger crime sometime, somewhere. So it is pointless to use numbers as excuses.

And third, the real strength of the national affiliation or patriotic feelings of a person is not determined by the denial of any mistakes or crimes committed by one's nation or country. On the contrary, actually; we can only love something or someone, when we know and acknowledge its shortcomings and misdeeds, and we still feel love.

Personally I don't accept unsourced claims and am not ready regard allegations as facts.

What kind of "unsourced claims" did you encounter?

This law in question denies the equal footing re war crimes in WW2, and thus strengthen the view of the clean Red Army, which is, in my opinion, absolutely not helpful or patriotic, but in reality, quite delusional.

There is an easy solution - regard specific wrongdoings with all details, documents and that's all.

In case of the Red Army's misconduct in Hungary, most of the sources I know are in Hungarian. As you don't speak the language, those might not help.

But here's a good piece to introduce the methods used to determine numbers: https://epa.oszk.hu/00600/00617/00003/t ... andrea.htm

There was a real difference though; the German operation was called Operation Retribution. The NATO did not bomb Belgrade with the intention of causing more civilian casualties.

400 children were killed during the bombing. Maybe not intentionally but killed.

But you see the difference between collateral casualties and deliberate terror bombing of civilians?

You know, personal accounts do never tell the whole story.
...it happened when I was a youngling, and I've heard the planes in the night flying towards Yugoslavia, and my late grandfather, who was a honorary citizen of a twin town there, also a WW2 veteran, said that "we are being killed by our >>>allies<<< again". Because the NATO planes acutally killed Hungarians in Yugoslavia. Also, I remember cheering for colonel Zoltán Dani, who downed the F-117. I met him when I was at the uni, he's the most humble soldier I've ever met. He works as a baker now.

I know about colonel Zoltan Dani. He was shown on Russian TV. Soviet made AA system S-125 developed 60 years ago was able to detect F-117 when it drop bombs and the missile flies faster.

In fact, the system didn't matter as much as his alterations made to it. Otherwise, that system could effectively counter F-117 by standard, which it can not.

Colonial empires were hardly democracies; at least in not today's sense.
It does matter if you are attacked by a democracy or not, because in a democracy, a person ought to have the right to question the government's decision; to say no to armed military service; to say that the citizens ought to have human rights. It doesn't mean that all the wars waged by democracies are "just" or free of war crimes. The difference is that in a democracy, you can say that there were crimes, mistakes, and by popular support, these crimes can be corrected. See Germany.

In theory yes but in real life the Iraqi war was unleashed despite all protests.

Where are those leaders, who started the Iraqi war?

People voted them out of power, and hammered them to political oblivion. Democracy contains the possibility of self-reflection, and the removal of politicians after unjust wars.

The bolshevik Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were discussing a military alliance in November 1940. It's really hard to imagine that a defensive perimeter was on Molotov's mind when he agreed with Ribbentrop.

For the first time I hear about it - that the Soviet union and Nazi Germany were discussing a military alliance in November 1940. What is your source? And anyway there was no any agreement about such an alliance.

There is a reference in almost every major book about this subject. Search for German-Soviet Axis alliance. You can also use wikipedia as starters, if you've really never heard of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks

Germany was in the state of madness in 1945. To surrender meant that the fleeing population had less chance to survive or live through the next weeks unharmed. In fact, the only time when a German soldier could find actual, palpable motivation to fight was in the last months of the war. By the way... they did surrender, just not to the Red Army.
Do you have any idea, why is that so?

Because German soldiers knew pretty well what the Germans did in the Soviet union and feared respective revenge.

Hardly. A considerable number of German soldiers in 1945 never fought on Soviet territory.

They knew what the Soviet soldiers did on German soil, and they wanted to prevent, mitigate and delay that, while they had less reasons to fear the much more civilized Wallies. In fact, facilitating their entry into Germany seemed to be the only prudent choice.

[gebhk]

Personally I don't think that the Law will seriously restrict historians in their work.

Let's hope so. However that is fgar from certain.

For one thing, why should historians be allowed an opinion and others not? For another, who decides what is a 'historian'? In communist-era Poland only 'historians' who could be relied upon to write 'politically correct' history were allowed access to the tools of their trade and therefore BE historians. Finally the effects of such a law can be quite pernicious depending how it is interpreted. When Peter says with regard to your banned colleague that questioning the reduction in population of a particular town is verging on Holocaust denial, he hits my nail squarely on the head. In much the same way - because the similarities are objectively striking - any mention of Soviet crimes could be prosecuted as 'tantamount to comparing them with Nazi ones'.

Ultimately the argument 'it is a law that does no good but will do little harm' is a very poor argument for making it.

[snpol]

The confusion comes from the fact that Siófok did not have its present-day boundaries, and administratively belonged to two counties (Veszprém and Somogy). Mr. Matyikó correctly used the number of the settlement as we know it today.

It's an interesting explanation. Btw, I visited Veszprem and found the town beautiful, especially the castle and view from it. Now with online translators language barrier is not that unpenetrable as previously. Btw, the banned forumist Sergey was shown a source in Hungarian where it was claimed that a lot of women were raped by Soviet soldiers on a Good Friday 1945 near the city of Gyor. Sergey, as I see, has found a source in English that proves that in fact nobody was raped. I suspect that it is a typical situation. Claims that mass rapes happened here and there and elsewhere meet a logical question - so where exactly and in many cases proposed examples could be easily refuted.
Btw, i visited Gyor and even walked near to the archbishop castle where the archbishop was killed by Soviet soldiers by accident. But nobody was raped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilmos_Apor

Where exactly do you think they went? They were deported to concentration camps!

Some could return to Budapest, went to the UK or France. Some could emigrate to Palestine. There is sound Hungarian community in Israel (I mean Jews from Hungary). The 'before and after' method is not always correct. The Holocaust survivors could not return all to their native towns or cities. For example a lot of Polish Jews appeared in the UK after WW2 or remained to live in the Soviet union.

I don't get it. You imply that citizens were not starving and dying in the Leningrad siege?
Am I completely off the tracks? In less than 24 hours two persons tell me that there was no famine in the SU during the war years.

Hundreds thousands died in Leningrad due to starvation during the blockade. But the population was restored after the war by newcomers who came to Leningrad from other places. So 'before and after' method is not correct in this case.
Yes there was famine in the SU during the war and my parents suffered from it in their native village because the army needed a lot of food.

I guess quoting additional Hungarian sources will not help the issue. Besides, "unfortunate cases" were quite prevalent. The current number of raped women in Budapest is 50-200,000.

Let's use common sense. Population of Budapest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Budapest
1941 - 1,165,963
1949 - 1,057,912
So there wer about 1,100,000 people in Budapest and about 550,000 were women. So if 50-200 thousands of them were raped then it is 9-36%.
Population of Gyor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Győr
1941 - 58,431
1949 - 58,431
So in 1945 there about 29,216 women in the city Gyor and it would be logical to suggest that 9-36% of them (2630 - 10520) were raped. It is a huge number for so relatively small town. Gyor is indeed not so big. But where are descriptions of these alleged rapes?
I come to conclusion that the number of raped is intentionally inflated for political reasons.

Second, one party's crimes do not extinguish the others'. It is not really a competition who could have been the worst. Because of the nature of rape, looting, and of a generally unrestricted, brutal way of war that happened in this region, I believe most of the crimes will never be revealed, and direct evidence will exist for only a small percentage of the crimes actually committed.

What kind of guilt-deflection mechanism is this? When a Soviet war crime is mentioned, you immediately try to name another war crime. Who cares? If you rape a woman, you can't say that XY raped two.

Mass rapes in Italy are well documented. There is a lot of details. As for Hungary then there are only numbers given from nowhere without reference to any reliable documents. The alleged rapes in Gyor with exact place and date were refuted. So try to find another cases with exact place and date to scrutinize them.

By the way it is not a competition. One's crimes does not get smaller if there is a bigger crime sometime, somewhere. So it is pointless to use numbers as excuses.

I request a very simple thing that is easy to understand. To accept any allegation about mass rape, proper reliable documents should be shown as it was done in the case with the mass rapes in Italy.
It is not a competition but application of the same standards to all cases of mass rape.

What kind of "unsourced claims" did you encounter?

The claim about so called mass rapes in Budapest Ghetto without proper documents of the same quality as in the case with the rapes in Italy I regard as unsourced claim.

In case of the Red Army's misconduct in Hungary, most of the sources I know are in Hungarian. As you don't speak the language, those might not help.

But what do these sources contain? What claims have been made? How many were raped in Székesfehérvár for example and when exactly it happened (if it ever happened). As for Gyor then as I understand there is no any reliable description of mass rape.

But here's a good piece to introduce the methods used to determine numbers: https://epa.oszk.hu/00600/00617/00003/t ... andrea.htm

Please quote your source (preferably in English) and we would be able to discuss it.

There was a real difference though; the German operation was called Operation Retribution. The NATO did not bomb Belgrade with the intention of causing more civilian casualties.
But you see the difference between collateral casualties and deliberate terror bombing of civilians?

For the killed and their relatives the intentions were unimportant. The result - death - matters.
Why it was not possible to begin with economic, diplomatic sanctions? Why it was neede just to bomb, to kill? And note, it was made by so called 'democracies'?
Russia is now under economic sanctions and they in NATO dare not to bomb Moscow just because they know how it would end. But Yugoslavia (that time Serbia and Montenegro) was unable to reply military while 'democratic' decision makers in Washington were voided any moral principles. Pres.Clinton just tried to shadow his amoral infamous affair with ms.Lewinsky.

Where are those leaders, who started the Iraqi war?
People voted them out of power, and hammered them to political oblivion. Democracy contains the possibility of self-reflection, and the removal of politicians after unjust wars.

Pres.Bush unleashed the Iraqi war in 2003 and was 'democratically' reelected in 2004. So democracy itself is not a barrier for leaders who are ready to wage unjust wars.

The bolshevik Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were discussing a military alliance in November 1940. It's really hard to imagine that a defensive perimeter was on Molotov's mind when he agreed with Ribbentrop.

For the first time I hear about it - that the Soviet union and Nazi Germany were discussing a military alliance in November 1940. What is your source? And anyway there was no any agreement about such an alliance.

There is a reference in almost every major book about this subject. Search for German-Soviet Axis alliance. You can also use wikipedia as starters, if you've really never heard of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks

I would like to quote your source

In August 1940, the Soviet Union briefly suspended its deliveries under their commercial agreement after relations were strained following a disagreement over policy in Romania, the Soviet-Finnish War, Germany's falling behind in its deliveries of goods under the pact, and Stalin's concern that Hitler's war with the West might end quickly after France had signed an armistice. The suspension created significant resource problems for Germany.

Hardly it looks as relation between 'allies'. No doubt that spheres of influence, withdrawal of German troops from Finland were discussed along with other economical and political issues. Anyway the sides were far from anything like military alliance.