Estonians making a clean break with Soviet past?

Fiction, movies, alternate history, humor, and other non-research topics related to WWII.

Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil

pzrmeyer2

Post by pzrmeyer2 » Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:57 am

DXTR wrote:
pzrmeyer2 wrote: And as far as Manstein, who fought primarily in the east goes, are you claiming The USSR, a state dedicated to slavery and oppresion much more so than the Confederacy, was on the right moral side?
Leaving aside that Germany invaded USSR and not the other way around,
Manstein had a hand in the invasion of Poland and France...
I understand that DXTR, and I also understand Germany's responsibilty in starting the war. However, I find it hard to call someone out as immoral in the case of Manstein (or Lee). Manstein was not a policymaker--As a soldier, he was given a set of tasks to perform, which he executed to the best of his ability. As far as "having a hand in" the invasions, are you suggesting the moral thing for a him as a General Officer to do was to bungle the operation or refuse to execute lawful orders?

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:19 am

Manstein voluntarily fought for a state that oppressed all of Europe it occupied, not just the USSR.
Lee voluntarily fought for a state that oppressed and held in slavery an entire race.

So, what's the difference?

Best,
~D, the EviL
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

User avatar
Rajin Cajun
Banned
Posts: 659
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:02 pm
Location: Utah, United States

Post by Rajin Cajun » Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:24 am

Really David? Explain the Confederate Emancipation plan then.

I would also like how you could explain General Lee and Stonewall Jackson fighting for the South when they themselves had released their slaves before the war....surely this couldn't mean the Civil War had nothing to do with Slaves? I mean how else could you explain my poor Sharecropper Family serving in the Confederacy? Surely it couldn't because they were defending slavery. :roll:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:48 am

Please Rajin, how you wrote that nonsense is beyond me. Individual Southerners had freed certain slaves since the beginning of slavery, that had nothing to do with the continuance of the Institution itself.

The Southern plan for emancipating the slaves???? No such thing, simple revisionist history designed to place the South in a better light. Read the plentiful material from the era. The South was so willing to free slaves that after losing the war it universally enacted official segregation, disinfranchisement and terrorisim against freed slaves.

Total nonsense in your post.

Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking » Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:09 pm

The South was so willing to free slaves that after losing the war it universally enacted official segregation, disinfranchisement and terrorisim against freed slaves.
Dave, I'm sure the view from inside is very different, but in Pol. Sci. at uni we were taught that that all was just as much a reaction to the North's occupation and promulgation of post-war electoral legislation in the South, after Lincoln turned it from a pure war over Secession to a parallel war against Slavery....as it ever was as pure prejudice and racism. It was each county/state's way of fighting back in various legal terms to the North's imposition of rights for "coloureds" on the South, which had by then become such an important plank in Lincoln's policies....but the war certainly didn't start out that way...
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds

User avatar
Rajin Cajun
Banned
Posts: 659
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:02 pm
Location: Utah, United States

Post by Rajin Cajun » Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:34 pm

*I'm currently experiencing a medically induced meltdown will return later....though Seriously David I suggest reading Confederate Emancipation its quite fascinating.*
Last edited by Rajin Cajun on Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

tenoriodj
Supporter
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:08 am
Location: madrid

Post by tenoriodj » Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:15 pm

Rajin, can you not put forth counter arguments without resorting to this type of language and personal attack ?

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:51 pm

Maybe instead of being such a Leftist and anti-White as well as anti-Southerner you could pick up a book instead?


Rajin and I unfortunately understand each other to a certain extent--we are, somewhat sadly, at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue and I hold no grudge towards his opinions. Equally unfortunate, I feel that he is either ill-informed on this subject or deliberately presenting false information.

I respectfully refer him to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic", a Union Marching Song:

"In the beauty of the lilies
Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom
That transfigures you and me;
As He died to make men holy
Let us die to make men free,

While God is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on."

This was the Civil War and what Union Troops fought for!

In any event, I do not want any member of Feldgrau to believe that this ideological difference will change my Respect for Rajin Cagin as a member of our community!

So, Ragin--BRING IT ON!!!!

Very Best,
David (P.S. Considering my time--a decade--and efforts spent on Feldgrau and AHF, both sites which are dedicated to the Heroism of the Heer, I find it hard to accept the label that I, personally, am "Anti-White"! What I am is "Anti-BS". History has proven that Good Soldiers often fight for Bad Causes! It is in the nature of Humanity that such contradictions occur. It is also in the nature of Mankind that that such contradictions are recognized!)
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

Peeter
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 9:16 am
Location: Estland

Post by Peeter » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:45 pm

sid guttridge wrote:Hi CDtheE,

.....not least because many Estonians died in Soviet uniform, willingly or otherwise.

However, if Estonia is a truly independent state, it must have the undisputed right to put up or tear down whatever public monuments it wants. Whether this is wise or not is another matter.

As a general rule, I think public monuments should remain. It is a sign of mature society that it can live with them. (If the English tore down all alien-founded edifices there wouldn't be a castle or Gothic cathedral left in the country!) Perhaps they should just relabel the monument as simply dedicated to Soviet soldiers who fell on Estonian soil and remove any reference to "liberation"?

Cheers,

Sid

Absolutely right. However, as from year to year there were mostly not russian vets putting flowers to the monument, but soviet-wanderers with red flags and slogans like USSR Forever , insulting estonians, attacking Estonian flags and estonians...in the centre of our capitol...it was not possible to tolerate any more. The monument however is not destroyed, but will be put on the cemetery near the buried russian soldiers.

User avatar
Tom Houlihan
Patron
Posts: 4301
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:05 pm
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Post by Tom Houlihan » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:59 pm

Peeter wrote:Absolutely right. However, as from year to year there were mostly not russian vets putting flowers to the monument, but soviet-wanderers with red flags and slogans like USSR Forever , insulting estonians, attacking Estonian flags and estonians...in the centre of our capitol...it was not possible to tolerate any more. The monument however is not destroyed, but will be put on the cemetery near the buried russian soldiers.
Thanks, Peeter! Naturally, those details are not what make the news. We don't hear those little tidbits.

Besides, putting it in the cemetery makes more sense anyway! That way, it will honor all the soldiers.
TLH3
www.mapsatwar.us
Feldgrau für alle und alle für Feldgrau!

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:00 pm

Hi Peeter, I am glad to hear that the monument will be put next to buried Soviet soldiers and not destroyed.

As others pointed out, Estonia is a Nation and entitled to deal with its past according to the will of it's people. It is sad to me that a war memorial would cause such difficulties, but I do understand and sympathize with the People of Estonia, the suffering and persecution inflicted upon them by Soviet occupation.

Very Best,
~D, the EviL
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

Paddy Keating

Post by Paddy Keating » Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:31 am

Commissar D, the Evil wrote:Manstein voluntarily fought for a state that oppressed all of Europe it occupied, not just the USSR.
Lee voluntarily fought for a state that oppressed and held in slavery an entire race.

So, what's the difference?

Best,
~D, the EviL
I thought Lee was a something of a closet abolitionist, one of those Southern gents who wanted to end slavery but who understood the economic and social connotations of so doing. Maybe I am wrong but wasn't he involved, during the war, in putting in place the incentive of freedom and rewards for black slaves who volunteered and served in the armed forces of the CSA?

Paddy

pzrmeyer2

Post by pzrmeyer2 » Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:58 am

Paddy Keating wrote:
Commissar D, the Evil wrote:Manstein voluntarily fought for a state that oppressed all of Europe it occupied, not just the USSR.
Lee voluntarily fought for a state that oppressed and held in slavery an entire race.

So, what's the difference?

Best,
~D, the EviL
I thought Lee was a something of a closet abolitionist, one of those Southern gents who wanted to end slavery but who understood the economic and social connotations of so doing. Maybe I am wrong but wasn't he involved, during the war, in putting in place the incentive of freedom and rewards for black slaves who volunteered and served in the armed forces of the CSA?

Paddy
Yup. Lee also was someone who abhorred involving civilian casualties in the conflict and tried to limit "collatoral damage" as much as possible, a favor not returned by the Federals.

Also, interesting to note is the fact that, while the vast majority of Southern men were off fighting, their houses and plantations were left in the hands of the women...and slaves. Can anyone point me to an instance where the slaves revolted, or had an insurrection? ....would have been easy to do....hmmmm...

Reb
Patron
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Post by Reb » Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:12 am

David, PzMeyer

ALL soldiers fight for bad causes. Show me a good cause? Our soldiers today are fighting for a hideous govt that willfully encourages the slaughter of unborn infants. A far worse crime than slavery. Does that make them criminals?

Southern soldiers fought for their homes - very few owned slaves but they all show a remarkable uniformity in the understanding of their own rights. An understanding sadly lacking in all classes of American today.

As a white man, I consider slavery but one of the elements of the War of Northern Aggression. Were I black, I suspect I'd view it differently.

I caution everyone though - consider for a moment slavery as I do abortion (whatever your feelings on that, to me its an abomination). Kids today were born into a world where abortion was not only legal but encouraged.

Kids in the Southern Confederacy were born into a world where blacks were slaves. To the kids who actually lived on plantations where there were slaves a curious symbiotic relationship exists. Neither the slaves (called servants by the whites) nor the whites usually thought to question the order of things.

When the war opened that up, presenting options to the slaves, most if not all opted for freedom under the yankee. Sadly, most of them never got to know what REAL freedom is since freedom under the yankee is only a shadow of what freedom is supposed to be. Yet for someone held as a slave - that probably seems like quite a lot of freedom indeed.

Whatever one's opinions on all this one thing is patently obvious - blacks and white anglo's better kiss and make up or we'll be leaving our kids a much uglier world than our parents left us.

Paddy

Lee was not the general suggesting enlistment of slaves. That was Patrick Cleburne. Jeff Davis finally began to listen to him when it was too late.
Some blacks had already taken up arms for the south - sort of a territorial thing I suppose. Included are Forrest's men and many from New Orleans which was itself a culture within a culture and would take a book to explain.

cheers
Reb

User avatar
DXTR
Contributor
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:37 pm

Post by DXTR » Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:46 pm

pzrmeyer2 wrote:
DXTR wrote:
pzrmeyer2 wrote: And as far as Manstein, who fought primarily in the east goes, are you claiming The USSR, a state dedicated to slavery and oppresion much more so than the Confederacy, was on the right moral side?
Leaving aside that Germany invaded USSR and not the other way around,
Manstein had a hand in the invasion of Poland and France...
I understand that DXTR, and I also understand Germany's responsibilty in starting the war. However, I find it hard to call someone out as immoral in the case of Manstein (or Lee). Manstein was not a policymaker--As a soldier, he was given a set of tasks to perform, which he executed to the best of his ability. As far as "having a hand in" the invasions, are you suggesting the moral thing for a him as a General Officer to do was to bungle the operation or refuse to execute lawful orders?
The problem facing every soldier on any level is if he should carry out an order that is illegal. On the strategic level. Manstein did, as a senior officer aid in the violation of international law (if we accept the kellog Briand agreement as international law). The german invasion of Poland was ruled by IMT to be illegal and a crime against peace. I understand that Manstein as a lot of other officers on his level was rooted in the traditional preussian military tradition of following their countrys leader - right or wrong, and that the polish issue (the estabishment of the polish corridor) was viewed by many germans as unjust - even manstein points out his frustration with Poland in the interwar years in his memoir Lost Victories. I as many other WWII buffs admire Manstein for his exploits, notably on the eastern front and like rommel he is seen as someone who escaped the NS regime rather untainted - BUT although he was not a policyMAKER, as you point out he was a policyIMPLEMENTOR, and as such he if not legal accountable, then morally accountable for aiding a regime that violated a number of laws and moral standards.

With the comfort of my own cozy armchait I believe that the moral right thing to do for Manstein would be to have resigned instead of drafting a set of plans to help the illegal invasion of Poland.

I have avoided the issue of Manstein and the voluntarily issuing of his own interpretation of the "Reichenau order", his scorched earth tactics, and him failing to protect the civilian population (of which he was to be convicted for at Nuremberg) since you seem to be of the belief that soviet crimes nulify german crimes.

But of course this debate is a tricky one, where do we draw the line between just doing your duty and serving ones country, and aiding an immoral regime?

It is a tough one, and Nuremberg, if not for avoiding having to prosecute a few million german POWs decided that from a legal standpoint ordinary soldiers and officers were not legally accountable for having fought in wars that was deemed illegal. But nuremberg did not trouble itself with moral convictions.

Post Reply
cron