Real USSR » WWII

The Wall: the Unaccounted Tragedies.

Eva Muryzhnikova — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:08:09 +0000

As previously stated by George Orwell, war is peace. So when Walter Ulbricht, the Leader of the German Socialist Unity Party, on June 15, 1961 said: “No one has the intention of building the wall!”, it took only about two months for the construction to begin. The rundown state of the Eastern part was forcing people to flee in the search of better lives in the West of Germany: in the first six months of the year 1961, about 150 000 people left their houses. However, more stayed — and so the Wall did not only separate the city — it cut families in halves.

On the morning of August 13, 1961 the Berlinians woke up to the first layer of bricks being erected.

Prior to the construction of the Wall, posters fake promises were all over the city

During the first months, this way grandparents got to see their grandkids.

One had to use props to wave to friends on the other side.

The first anniversary of the Wall, 1962: the woman on the roof waving to her mother.

The use of binoculars was helpful during the first few months after the erection.

The other side was watching, as well.

As the time went, the barb wire and bricks were introduced to keep people away. The bride under the windows of her grandparents. The bouquet was lowered on a string.

This bride only got to see her relatives via binoculars.

Many were prepared to leave their lives behind and just flee for the better.

The Eastern authorities trying to stop the Western photographers by sending light into the cameras by mirrors.

Those who got caught fleeing were shot on the spot.

Gunter Liftin was shot on August 24, 1961 — before the construction was even complete.

In February 1975 this brave fellow was caught by the patrol guards, trying to cross the mined field.

Another unsuccessful attempt: wounded in the field.

In 1975 John Runnings from Canada tried to destroy the Wall with a hammer but was severely wounded by the machine-gunned guards.

Within hours after the fall. The happiest of faces.

Images are courtesy livejournal user drugoi.

The Victory Aftermath. Russia in Second World War.

Eva Muryzhnikova — Sun, 16 May 2010 09:12:35 +0000

The V-Day. Copyright unknown

On May, 25th 1945 Joseph Stalin made a celebratory speech devoted to the end of the Russian Great Patriotic War. The Second World War was coming to an end, but the Soviet Union was done fighting. The Russian troops had exited Germany and ahead lied a long road of rebuilding and rehabilitation. So in Kremlin, at the V-day Meeting, Stalin had said the following:

Do not expect me to say anything extraordinary today. I have a very simple, very ordinary toast to make. I would like to raise a glass to health of those people who are low in rank and invisible in the hierarchy. Of those who we consider to be the “small screws” of our huge state mechanism — they might be small but without them us generals, marshals and other top army leaders wouldn’t have made it. They are plentiful, they are a legion, it is tens of millions of people who have not been heard of — yet they hold us together, as the base holds the top. To their health!

Today we have brought to your attention a fragment of the interview with Yelena Bonner, a human rights activist, a dissident, a writer, and a widow of the late Andrei Sakharov — during the war she was a teen and now, courtesy to the Internet-magazine Snob.ru, she tells us about her experience during the war.

So — We did not fight for Stalin or the Soviet Union. We fought because we had no other choice.

Elena Bonner, b.1923. Image couretsy of snob.ru

Do you remember the war motto: “To Stalin! To Soviet Union!”

I was 18 when I was summoned — at the beginning of war, and till very late 1945 I spent with the troops — yet I never heard that motto. Every time there was a fire on the frontline we never shouted “To Stalin””, it was more like “You sons of fucking bitches!”.

So at the beginning of the war we have been told that many — lots! — of young people volunteered to be sent to the front line..

That was another huge lie about that war. Only a tiny percent of people who ended up in the front line volunteered to be there. The rest were mobilised, hands down. Every single man of the appropriate age, be him a farmer or a factory worker — all of them were summoned and sent to the war.

I was also mobilised, as thousands of other girls. I was a student at Hertsen Institute, and they had a huge banner on the wall: “Girls of our country, get your second, military profession now”. So we had to take a compulsory course in military education. The choices we had were about becoming a nurse, a communications technician or a sniper. I chose to be a nurse, and by the end of it I was listed as “suitable for summon”.

So on June 22nd, 1941 you heard about the German invasion –you know you are listed as “suitable”, so did you know you’d be part of the war very shortly? Did you have a feeling of upcoming radical change?

You know, it was a very odd feeling. I am eighty seven years old now, and now I am trying to comprehend what was happening and I am failing at it, how my generation lived anticipating the war. Not just the people of Leningrad — at least we experienced the war with Finland of 1939 — 1940 (the so-called Winter War), and it was a real war, with food shortages and no heating. So starting from 1937 I just couldn’t help but anticipate a war coming — and it was a solid, gut feeling. My Moscow friends felt the same.

So in 1942 you were summoned as a nurse — what did it feel like?

I was a nurse on the train, which was travelling in the Leningrad district, picking up the wounded and delivering them to Vologda or other safe destinations. There they were dropped off, cared for, nurtured a bit and then either returned back to the front line, or sent somewhere else, I am unsure… The train was constantly bombed, or derailed, or lost in the snow. And then I was wounded myself — I had a broken clavicle, a damaged left shoulder, injured nerve and a blood eye — I was bad and I was sent by the same train to Vologda and later to the Urals.

I guess I was very lucky throughout the war. There was no reason for me to be on the train — I could have been right on the front line. It was 1942, the toughest year by some account — nobody summoned during that year came back.

Yelena Bonner in her Moscow apartment. Image courtesy of Snob magazine.

How long did you spend on that train?

Till 1945 — till the very end. We were sent to Germany to evacuate the wounded from their territories in 1945. So on May 8, the VE Day, we were somewhere around Innsbruck, Austria, and this was our last journey bound for Leningrad. We arrived home, the train crew was restructured, I was made the Head of some medical department to care for the wounded bomb disposal soldiers. The war was technically over, yet these guys — working with the explosives — kept coming our way.I was one of the last ones to be demobilised, too — in August 1945.

Can you tell us some more myths about the war?

As I have said, nobody volunteered. Another one was that the Jewish did not fight — it is not true, they did. And probably the biggest one is post war — the exploitation of that war. And all these military parades show offs — they are no longer carried out to remember those who did not come back — now they have a mission of public relations, and TV ratings, and flexing the military muscle — both on the domestic and international levels.

Did you feel that right after the war things would change to the better?

We did — we felt that our country had just survived the incredible! We felt powerful, we felt like we were able to change things around, we hoped for the better.

So why do these war veterans who came back from the war never argue these myths about the war?

Why do you think when we came back and thought ah, we are so powerful — why do you think we all shut up?

Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?

Eva Muryzhnikova — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:06:24 +0000

Image courtesy of Léonard Gianadda, a Swiss photograher who visited Moscow in 1957.

This is probably one of the lengthiest and most controversial topics to attempt, yet it is very important for our blog to answer — or at least to raise this question. If you have been following us for a little while, you would know that by mid 1980s the atmosphere in Russia was tense. The miracle of doing well in the WWII had been wearing out. The total deficit of everything and the black markets did not contribute to keeping the morale up. The Chernobyl disaster as well as war action in Afghanistan had drained the country both financially and psychologically. The public resentment was growing: the common joke was that you could find truth anywhere except in Pravda and the news anywhere except in Izvestia. (both are the Russian newspapers, the first one literally meaning truth and the latter one – news). For years the govermnent had been running in the red but it did not catch up with them till late 1980s – and it was too little too late for a change.

In 1991, when Boris Yeltsin seized the power and the Belavezha Accords were signed, the decision to disband the Soviet Union had been made and supported by the governments of Ukraine and Belarus. On December 12, 1991Russia’s secession from the Union was sealed, the Belavezha Accords were ratified and the 1922 treaty on the creation of the Soviet Union was denounced. It had been a long road, and arguably it was predictable, but the question – why then, of all times? — remains.

Guns or butter?

I would like to start this analysis by going back to the years of WWII, when the Soviet Union had one-third of the combined industrial potential of Nazi Germany, its allies and the Nazi-occupied countries, and, moreover, lost half its industry in the early months of the war. Nevertheless, in sum it produced more weapons of a better quality than Germany did, and won the great Victory. This, however unbelievably it may sound, could have been the prime reason for the decline of the USSR. They say the Soviet leaders were blinded by the miracle success – and had lost the sense of direction by entering the arms race.

Theoretically speaking, Karl Marx was the best to put it simply: in Capital, he labells war as the ultimate example of unproductive economic activity and called it “the direct equivalent of a nation throwing a part of its capital into the water”.

He also separates the productive labor of agricultural, textile, mining, industrial, and household workers from the unproductive labor of the ideological classes, such as government officials, priests, lawyers, soldiers, etc — all who have no occupation but to consume the labor of others in the form of rent, interests, etc. Thus the arms race – the country’s spendings on the military advancement and developments – has a counter productive nature and causes economic stagnation.

This in turn affected the scientific distribution: as all the best scientists, engineers, materials and machinery were, by strict orders from the highest command, delegated to the military sector.

No wonder it caused the technological lag behind the rest of the world. Ccomputers, hand calculators, audio and TV recorders, and machine tools made in the USSR could never compete with what was designed in the West. Despite the fact that every Soviet would rather own something overseas-made, the deficit of such prime goods was enormous. It also affected the services, like even though the health care was free and universal, often it struggled to deliver services due to deficits in medicine supplies.

Lloyd Dumas in his 1986 book, The Overburdened Economy, makes a convincing case hat the U.S. as well as the USSR has been economically devastated by the counter-productive effects of military spending. However, it wasn’t American economy which failed after the Cold War – it was the Russian one which fell first. Partly it was because the U.S. was integrated with the global capitalist market and flooded with imported goods, so their devastation did not show up directly in shortage of consumer and producer goods.

Dumas also notes that despite the fact that the US spent almost 7% of their GDP on the arms race, they did not come out as financially exhausted as the USSR:

The Soviet Union, in contrast, never received imperialist profits to offset the counter-productive cost of military production. Throughout the post-war period, Soviet trade with socialist partners has been structured to benefit the other socialist countries. Their purpose was reasonable: to build up the economies of the other socialist countries and create a thriving world socialist economic system as an alternative to that of the capitalists. This was most marked in Soviet trade with Cuba and Vietnam, but it could be seen as well in trade with Eastern Europe which received Soviet oil at below-market prices. The CIA was well aware of this drain on the Soviet economy, and argued that it would eventually drive them bankrupt.

And so it did

On top of that was corruption, bad policies and poor planning, the rigid, isolated system of Soviet power with restricted movement and incredible levels of bureaucracy, as well as widespread resentment towards such a state — a side effect of Gorbachev’s glasnost.

But maybe the Soviet Union had no choice but to engage into the arms race — right up to their eyeballs. Then the massive commitment of Soviet technology, production capital, and administrative-command methods were unavoidable in order to confront the invasions — after the Revolution, the invasion by Hitler’s armies, and the Cold War threats of the U.S. and its allies. In other words, it is said that war communism was forced upon them.

The Great Patriotic War: the Villainous Hitler’s Plan or the Provoсation?

Dmitry Yakimenko — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:18:19 +0000

Military Parade in Moscow

In accordance with the official history the Second World War (in Russia called ‘the Great Patriotic War’) was commenced on the Soviet territory by Germany: the treacherous attack on 22 June, 1941when they invaded into the USSR. This official version of the Soviet Government is written in every history book. At the same time there is numerous evidence of Stalin’s desire to start the war first with the intention similar to Hitler’s . And that is why there is the theory that Stalin provoked German aggression against the USSR.

In 1939 the USSR government signed a historical agreement with Germany (‘the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact”). This non-aggression pact guaranteed that both parties never make war with each other. Signing this document, the USSR implicitly permitted Germany to commence the war against the West. This would have allowed Stalin to start the emancipation movement of the countries which would have been invaded by Hitler. It was the right moment – Germany, exhausted with its Western campaign, would not have been able to fight in the East (East being the West of the USSR), should the USSR invade the German borders later. By winning the war with Hitler, the USSR would become the main World Saviour and, as per the Lenin’s precept, it may be the start of World Communism Revolution.

What would have happened if the USSR began that war? The war – is the Mother of revolution, and the world war – the mother of World revolution. According to the main revolution philosopher Friedrich Engels, the World War with the victory of Communists would result in the ‘total exhaustion and creation of conditions for the ultimate victory of the labour force’. Fortunately, this guy died before the Second World War and, unfortunately, Lenin — the follower of the idea of World Revolution gained an access to power in Russia and created the monster Stalin.

Joachim von Ribbentrop third from right watches his Soviet counterpart Vyacheslav Molotov seated sign the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact of non-aggression on Aug. 23 1939. Josef Stalin (AP Photo/File)

In 1939 a German colonel Heinz Guderian paid a visit to the Soviet Locomotive Factory which also produced tanks. The number of tanks produced daily was 22(!). That was a time when Soviets were not participated in any war. Just six years prior to that, Germany which was not at war, did not have any tanks at all. Also when Germany commenced the war they had only 3200 tanks – the same amount which could have been produced by the Soviet locomotive factory for less than half a year! And now a little bit about those tanks. Similar to the Soviet cars, copied from the American templates, that tank’s prototype was first created in the USA (where it was never put into mass production) and transferred to the USSR with the utterance of forged documents where it was listed as the agricultural tractor.

Later, this ‘tractor’ was copied and then assembled in tremendous numbers under the brand HST – High-Speed Tank. First HST could gather speed of 100 km/h. Even at present this speed for the tank is considered to be enormous. The shape of the tank’s body was simple and rational. None of the tanks in the World had such an armour shape. The best tank of the Second World War, T34, was the direct descendant of the HST. The principles used in this tank was later copied by the German ‘Panther’ and then spread in the world. In 1936 these tanks could move on the bottom of the deep creek — almost underwater. In 1938 these tanks were assembled with the diesel engines – unprecedented feature for that time. Finally, these tanks were equipped with the very powerful weapon. Those tanks had only one disadvantage – they were useless on the territory of the Soviet Union as they were not adapted for the impassability of roads rather than to good roads of Europe…

BT-7 — High Speed Tank

Another instance of Soviet pre-war weapon was the Soviet pursuit plane which was the first one in the world equipped with rockets. By that time the Soviet engineers already created the unique plane IL-2 with the armour body – the real “tank” able to fly, with the super power equipment including 8 rocket missiles. Did the Soviet aviation have the supremacy in the air then? No.

Mostly Russian pilots including the pilots of pursuit planes were not trained to conduct the fight in the air, rather they could strike the targets on the ground. According to the code of the military aviation they were directed to conduct one superior offensive war destroying the enemy planes on the airfields and then holding the supremacy in the air. In 1929 the magazine ‘War and Revolution’ in the article ‘The beginning of the War’ concluded: ‘It is very advantageous to seize the initiative and start the war first, making a surprise attack’. Later, this conclusion was cited in all the Soviet aviation codes.

IL-2 — Flying Tank

One more proof to the alternative version of the offensive war intentions were the howitzer artillery groups created in the USSR as a part of the Red Army military force. If the Sovet government prepared to the defensive actions then they would have produced cannons as they are initially designed for defence – as grazing fire forces the enemy to stop. In an opposite case, however, howitzer is better as it has a high-angle fire trajectory and proved to be the best to smoke out the defender from the trench. Should the Soviets predict the defensive actions they would definitely have built cannons rather than howitzers.

The debates over the different versions of the reasons of Germany attacking the USSR have started in early 90s. These debates are concentrated on Stalin’s obscure intentions when he maimed the entire country while creating the unique system of governance. What was his ultimate purpose?

There are only two possible outcomes – the first one is complimentary for the USSR while the second one is deteriorative. Unfortunately for the Soviet adherents there is no proof that Stalin prepared for the defensive war and this fact puts the Stalin’s regime on the same line with the Hitler Nazi one. Sometimes it seems to be better not to look back in history where the old myths let the Stalin’s supporters live in a fool’s paradise.

Cold Clone War

Stas Kulesh — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:54:31 +0000

Buran VS Shuttle

According to the Soviet propaganda, everything which wasn’t invented by the ancient Chinese, was invented by the Soviet engineers in the USSR. Ah, they were said to invent the best weaponry, the best tanks and the best cars.

In reality, of course, the path of inventions had a very moderate development but in order to keep the morale up, Soviet government had the engineers copying things off their American, Canadian or Japanese counterparts. Certainly, nothing is wrong with it per se– such strategies usually allow to save time and money by buying and recreating a licensed version. However, the root of all evils is the mentioned Soviet brainwash on the topic of Soviet superiority in all fields of engineering research and development.

Let’s have a closer look at who really invented what.

One of the most controversial inventions was the gunfire rifle AK-47 invented by a Soviet engineer Mikhail Kalashnikov in, well, 1947. The holy war over this rifle and its true origins has been going on for more than half a century. The story goes that after the second World War, Germany was not allowed to produce weapons, which the USSR authorities used to their advantage: the prominent weaponmaker Hugo Schmeisser was invited to visit the arms plants in the Ural mountains, where later on the Soviets allegedly stole some of his ideas. As per usual, the truth is hard to find, however, we won’t be surpised if his family would file a lawsuit over the intellectual property of this particual invention.

AK 47 vs Stturmgewehr 44 by Hugo Schmeisser

Another piece of weaponry story: it is hard to tell whether it was copied off the Finnish or the Soviets just happened to invent a similar-looking rifle just a year later. The resemblance is striking, and yet again, no mention of the rights reseved.

Shpagin Rifle, 1941 vs Suomi Rifle (Finland), 1931

Next, the popular Makarov pistol of 1951– another acclaimed example of Soviet weaponry, this pistol had been copied by many as a popular military side arm.The question is still raised whether it is a scaled up version of a German pistol (minus decorative elements), but the resemblance is quite uncanny.

Makarov 9mm Pistol, 1951 vs German Walther 9 mm Ultra, 1935

Next, heavy military machinery. Every kid knows that tanks were the USSR’s frst and foremost object of pride, yet there is an opinion that the famous T-34 and its later versions were just copycats of the American Christie line.

T-34, 1940 vs Tank Christie, USA, circa 1930

The next one is probably one of the fewer honest examples of Soviet cooperation. During the WWII, seventy of American electric locomotives were shipped to the USSR as part of the Allied Forces war effort. The USSR authories kept them after the war, adopting the design to form the basis of their own line of diesel locomotives.

Diesel-Electric Loco (DA), of 1946 vs American ALCO RSD-1, of 1941

As for the planes, here even the wikipedia supports the story of the Tupolev plane Tu-4 being shamelessly copied off the American Boeing B-29 Superfortress.In 1945 the Tupolev avia construction company had meticulously reengineered the American plane to the point of ashtray locations! Certainly the whole concept of reverse engineering (ie, discoverig the technological principles of something through analysing its workings in detail) is praiseworthy.

The Tupolev TU-4 (1947) vs Boeing B-29 of 1942

Even the rockets — the endless well of Soviet pride — are rumoured to be the copies of the German development. Needless to say, it is still a remarkable act of engineering. Academic Sergey Korolev — the same scientist who sent the first human Gagarin in the outer space — was in charge of this project, so it just as successful.

The rocket R1, 1948 vs the German V-2, 1942

The following projects do not look identical, however, both the hydro electrical power station on the river Dnipro and the American Hoover Dam, NV have something in common: their chief engineer, C J Thompson, who oversaw the development of both projects.

DneproGes (1927–1939) vs Hoover Dam (1922–1933)

Another finest example of dubious engineering success — when Khrushchev started his building binge, his architect team did not invent the hideous looking apartment blocks — they just borrowed the idea of the German civil engineers. Pity both parties, in this case.

Soviet vs German Plattenbau Apartment Blocks

The automobile industry was the one with the most copied items. In some cases, even parts are said to be compatible!

Moskvich-400 (1947) vs German Opel Cadette of 1936.

Gaz Mini Truck, 1932 vs Ford AA, 1929

Volga of 1970 vs Ford Falcon, 1966

Volga of 1970 vs Ford Mainline of 1954.

Also, remember our post about Vyatka mopeds, the exact and true copies of Vespa? That one is just classic.

The bottom line here is about honesty, really. Nobody is expected to invent things from scratch — you can borrow other people’s ideas as long as they are properly copyrighted. It is also more efficient to modify the original version to suit the domestic realities better. However, it is good manners to acknowledge the work of others. And it is certainly shameful to claim the intellectual rights to things which never belonged to you. And this is where the USSR had failed dramatically.

Based on: www.worldaffairsboard.com and muacre.livejournal.com