The silence concerning the role of the USSR in the WW2: ethical issues

[buritobr]

Sometimes, when the West tells the history of the WW2, it looks like that the USA and the UK had the most important role in defeating Nazi Germany. According to this "history", the normandy landings were the most decisive event in the WW2.
However, this is not the true history. Altough the french, italian, north african and atlantic fronts were very important, more than 70% of the human and material losses of the Wehrmacht took place in the Eastern European front. When the normandy landings happened, the Germans were already defeated in the Soviet territory and the front line was moving to lands that were controlled by Germany until June 1941.
Some people think that it is fair to hide the role of the USSR in the WW2 because it is necessary to celebrate the fight for democracy and liberty, and remembering the Eastern European front means celebrating the victory against a tyranny glorifying another tyranny. But I don't agree with this way of thinking. Rewriting the history according to political goals was a very usual habit in the ... USSR! In that country, the stalinist regime removed Trotsky from the pictures of the revolution, many years before the Photoshop. If you criticize a regime by imitating its practices, the criticism become less valid.

So, I don't think it is ethical to rewrite the history according to political goals. Not only the history of the WW2, but all the events in the history.

[angus]

Sure, why not?  I'd imagine that the average Pole in 1945 looked up and thought, "Uh, Oh!  It's a tank.  Luckily, it's not a German one.  It's a Russian one!  Yay!  Nothing makes me happier than seeing a Russian tank in my neighborhood!"

With friends like that, who needs enemies? 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Who actually does this? Hollywood films don't count.

[Cory]

Who actually does this? Hollywood films don't count.

Almost any public school history class in America.

[Green Line]

Their participation is not hidden or totally ignored in US schools, but naturally the focus is on the US participation, especially since most social studies classes only focus on American history.

[Blue3]

Their participation is not hidden or totally ignored in US schools, but naturally the focus is on the US participation, especially since most social studies classes only focus on American history.

[dead0man]

speaking of things that were forgotten during WWII...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Blair]

speaking of things that were forgotten during WWII...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And thus the 21 million soviet dead don't matter

[dead0man]

yeah, that's what I said



edit-and how many would have died without the free trucks, food, oil, weapons, etc?

[DavidB.]

Hmm, at least in the Netherlands I feel there is quite some attention for the role of the Russians during WWII, although the Canadians and the Polish, who liberated us, get the most attention.

However, one of the reasons that Russia's contribution to "winning" the war might be downplayed is actually legitimate: while the US, Canada etc. fought for freedom, the USSR would have imposed just another kind of totalitarianism upon Western Europe (and it actually managed to do so in Eastern Europe). I'm not even sure most of the Dutch would be better off under Soviet-style communism than under a nazi regime (myself and my community being the obvious exception, because, you know, I kinda like being alive). That doesn't have much to do with "rewriting history".

[ingemann]

Hmm, at least in the Netherlands I feel there is quite some attention for the role of the Russians during WWII, although the Canadians and the Polish, who liberated us, get the most attention.

However, one of the reasons that Russia's contribution to "winning" the war might be downplayed is actually legitimate: while the US, Canada etc. fought for freedom, the USSR would have imposed just another kind of totalitarianism upon Western Europe (and it actually managed to do so in Eastern Europe). I'm not even sure most of the Dutch would be better off under Soviet-style communism than under a nazi regime (myself and my community being the obvious exception, because, you know, I kinda like being alive). That doesn't have much to do with "rewriting history".

Yes that's a rather good point.

[buritobr]

Hollywood is not the problem. It is very normal that a film industry produces pictures about its own country. If the Russians are not competent to sell their pictures abroad (like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9tO7GF8pnY ), this is a problem of the Russians.

The problem is the media which in every year with a 4 in the end publish articles related to the X0 years of the normandy landing as the "most important event of the WWII". It is OK to show big articles about the normandy landing. It is OK to put more emphasis in the normandy landing than in the battles in the Eastern front because of the nationality of the newspaper/magazine. But it is not OK to say that it was "the most important event of the WWII" because it was not.

[DavidB.]

The problem is the media which in every year with a 4 in the end publish articles related to the X0 years of the normandy landing as the "most important event of the WWII". It is OK to show big articles about the normandy landing. It is OK to put more emphasis in the normandy landing than in the battles in the Eastern front because of the nationality of the newspaper/magazine. But it is not OK to say that it was "the most important event of the WWII" because it was not.

So could you show us some of these articles that state what you describe? Also, I assume you're talking about the issue as an American. It might well be possible that newspapers imply that something has been an important issue for the Americans in WWII, which could perfectly make sense.

[dead0man]

Indeed...anybody that says "the landings at Normandy were the most important event of WWII" doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.  The war was over at that point, and almost everybody involved knew it.  Everybody was fighting for how the war was going to end.

[Cory]

Indeed...anybody that says "the landings at Normandy were the most important event of WWII" doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.  The war was over at that point, and almost everybody involved knew it.  Everybody was fighting for how the war was going to end.

This.

A failed Operation Overlord just means the Soviets take more territory.

[Antonio the Sixth]

They must at least mention the Battle of Stalingrad in High School, don't they? Otherwise it's really no wonder US education statistics are so catastrophic...

[Green Line]

They must at least mention the Battle of Stalingrad in High School, don't they? Otherwise it's really no wonder US education statistics are so catastrophic...

Stalingrad was mentioned in my (catholic school) education.  That was the only specific battle of the eastern front I remember from class, along with general things about it.

[dead0man]

I really don't remember what they told us and didn't tell us about WWII (other than one teacher in High School who used nations as race cars analogy about the various powers since 1492), since I've learned SOOOO much more outside of the classroom on the subject.