32 thoughts on “Crosstalking WW2”

  1. was pleased about Mikhail’s helping hand.
    Interesting. Y

    es, one would wish to live in times were these issues could be discussed without the emotions on one or the other side.

    You obviously are aware, at least that was a news item too, that Trump called both Macron and Putin. Although what experts do we have on WWII death considered collectively, there is a new historical update fitting 30 millions that escapes me?

    Like

  2. The campaign to end fascism in the European Theater is a somber reminder of the price of freedom. More than 30 million lives were lost and tens of millions more were shattered in the war. Most of those who perished in Europe were civilians, including 6 million Jews and millions of others from Poland and the former Soviet Union. The United States also suffered incredible losses. Of the more than 2 million Americans who deployed to Europe and the Mediterranean or patrolled the Atlantic Ocean, more than 186,000 paid the ultimate sacrifice, and more than twice that number were wounded.

    Like

  3. Paul, firstly can I just say that I greatly love and admire your work. Your fantastic book on Russian Conservatism arrived the other day and I have absolutely loved reading it so far.
    I just wanted to make a couple of points concerning the issue of politicisation of historical memory. It is true that memory of the Second World War is politicised in Russia and is defiled by political propaganda. There is still some denial of the Katyn Massacre and some ignorance of the mass rape of German women, unsavoury episodes of the war with Finland etc. However, all of this exists against a legitimate and tangible legacy of suffering and heroism which understandably impairs objective analysis. Yet according to a poll recently published by the Times, less than twenty percent of British, American and French citizens believe that the war was won on the Eastern Front. Most view either Britain or America as the most important victor.
    Without wishing to resort to ‘whataboutism’, it does seem that contemporary Russia’s oft-criticised understanding of the period actually isn’t all that bad in comparative terms. I remember you once talked about undertaking research concerning Afghanistan and finding that Soviet sources, while marred by ideological overtones were factually more accurate than their Western counterparts. Could this be true of the legacy of the war?

    Like

    1. Grigory, Thanks for your kind words, and for buying the book!! I’m not sure what the answer to your final question would be. Something like WW2 is bound to get surrounded with a lot of mythology. Whether there’s more or less of that in Russia than elsewhere, I’m not able to say as it isn’t something I’ve studied. Beyond that, though, I basically agree with the thrust of what you’re saying. (It occurs to me also that we did tackle the Katyn massacre denials on this blog a while back, here: https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2015/10/24/nikolai-starikov-and-the-problem-of-history/)

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Thank you for all your work, Paul. You are a constant source of inspiration to me as an undergraduate history student and a most welcome source of sanity for a Russian-born British citizen like me.

        Like

    2. ‘mass rape of German women’

      The Anthony Beevor thesis that a depleted and swamped German medical establishment nevertheless managed to perform millions of abortions. He’d like to claim millions of slaughtered civilians but then he’d have to come up with some bodies, so rape it has to be.

      All Nazi women who got the chance willingly slept with foreign soldiers. Later on they might claim to have been raped (when their loser husbands returned from the POW camps), but that wasn’t true during the French occupation of the Ruhr, and it wasn’t true after the second war either.

      Like

    3. “There is still some denial of the Katyn Massacre”

      Please, share with us your version of the events.

      “some ignorance of the mass rape of German women”

      Russians are aware about the Goebbelsian myth about “millions of the raped German women”. The facts as presented in the official documents and the most modern research (for the foreign one I’d recommend “Als die Soldaten kamen” by Miriam Gebhardt).

      “unsavoury episodes of the war with Finland”

      Russians are aware that Finland was Nazi Germany’s faithful ally (up till it suited its needs…), who participated in the crimes against humanity on the occupied territory and was also responsible for the Blokade. Modern research helps uncover more and more facts of the Finnish crimes, yet this is met without understanding from the Finnish public (which did not experience a thorough de-Nazification after the War) nor their government.

      Now, a question to the userperson “Grigory Matyunin”, who, I think, might even be a Russia. Whose Crimea?

      Like

      1. I am indeed Russian although I live in the UK. And I always took great pride in my great-grandfather, Captain Mikhail Shelkov, who was decorated with the Order of Alexander Nevsky. He participated in Operation Bagration and led a battalion aged only 20. I proudly wear the Ribbon of St George.

        So I’d like to say that I despise Antony Beevor with a passion. His Orientalist view of Soviet history is disgusting and I hate the russophobic overtones of much of the discussion on Soviet behaviour towards German women in popular history books. Yet one doesn’t need to resort to the likes of him to accept that German civilians were not always treated with respect. Regarding Katyn, I think the matter is beyond dispute that the NKVD was responsible. Yet it is hardly patriotic to whitewash the historical rhetoric of your homeland.

        As for Crimea, I believe it is banal to define political views through the lens of who the peninsula belongs to. Suffice it to say, I do my best to tread a sophisticated path between Russian nationalist and Western liberal delusions.

        Like

      2. “I am indeed Russian although I live in the UK. “

        In the comment above you write, that you are “an undergraduate history student” and “a Russian-born British citizen”. You don’t just “live in the UK”. Your Her Majesty’s subject. A son of the sausage migrants, perchance?

        “And I always took great pride in my great-grandfather”

        Pride goeth before the fall.

        21 of my ancestors fought in the Great Patriotic War – only 2 survived. The mere fact of me, my siblings and my parents coming to this world is ultimately connected with the unprecedented adversity, loss, family members lost (both dead and literally – we still have none idea what happened to some of them), of the people evacuated from across the country and having to start a new. None of them was an officer. All of them had very simple, worker and peasant background. Does it make me your “lesser”, because your ancestor belonged to the “white bone” of the officerhood?

        I don’t “take pride”, as you put it, in what my ancestors did, for I’m not just me, my family and my ancestors. I’m but a part of the larger whole, and what they did way back 75 years ago was not for yet unborn me, but, likewise, for something larger and timeless. Mere base “pride” won’t do. Only total reverence.

        “Yet one doesn’t need to resort to the likes of him to accept that German civilians were not always treated with respect.”

        1) What the “German civilians” did to earn the respect of the Soviet Army? Nevertheless, in the oft cursed nowadays “spirit of the proletarian solidarity”, they were treated better, than they clearly deserved:

        2) As of 1945, the Army of the UK in Europe (you know – your army) had 3000 cases investigated by the Military Police pertaining to the discipline issues vis-a-vis localas. The Soviet Army had 40 000. The US army had none. Does it mean that the gallant Yanks raped no one and did not stole even a single silver spoon?

        “Regarding Katyn, I think the matter is beyond dispute that the NKVD was responsible”

        My question was: “Please, share with us your version of the events.”. You even use the term “Katyn Massacre”. Please, elaborate.

        “Yet it is hardly patriotic to whitewash the historical rhetoric of your homeland.”

        And I remind everyone, that the UK is your new homeland.

        “As for Crimea, I believe it is banal to define political views through the lens of who the peninsula belongs to.

        No, actually practise and statistics show it’s ideal. Normal people have no trouble giving short and concise answer.

        “Suffice it to say, I do my best to tread a sophisticated path between Russian nationalist and Western liberal delusions.”

        “Russian nationalist”? What’s so “Russian nationalist” in such simple question? Wait, you need me to rephrase it in the most “non-Russian nationalist” way possible? Okay!

        Пан Григорій! Дайте відповідь, будь ласка, на одне просте запитання – чий Крим?

        Like

      3. If you re-read my initial comment you will realise that I love my country of birth (from where my parents moved for the purpose of undertaking postgraduate study, not economic opportunity, and intend to return). My argument was that Russia’s understanding of the war, despite any politicisation and relatively minor inaccuracies, is remarkably better than that of the West. Those of my ancestors who fought in the war fought in all ranks and many perished. Their heroism and sacrifice is of equal value irrespective of status, as are those of your ancestors.

        I hold a nuanced view of the situation in Crimea, broadly in line with those expressed by Paul on this blog (you might like to know that I visited the peninsula a couple of years ago and have close friends there who participated in the events of 2014).

        I have no intention of responding in kind to the litany of banalities and ad hominem insults you levelled at me. All I would say, don’t treat people like this in the name of Russia or your heroic ancestors. They are all worth more than that and wouldn’t be proud of you. Stay safe amid the pandemic!

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Grigory: I am sorry, but there is no such thing as a “nuanced” position on Crimea. Crimea is an actual scientifically accurate litmus test of a Russian person’s political views. To be “nuanced” means, you basically support the Ukrainian claim to the peninsula and to Sebastopol. By implication, you would like to see NATO build its Black Sea Naval Base in Sebastopol (?)

        Okay, let’s forget about “Rah-Rah Russia” vs “Rah-Rah Kreakle” for a second, and let’s talk International Law.

        Russia very carefully followed international law here, and there were no violations. For starters, Sebastopol never belonged to the Ukraine in any sense of the word, and the rest of the peninsula always had the right to secede if the people wished it so. Which they did.

        I could go on… but I think we know who is who, at this point.

        Like

      5. and some ignorance of the mass rape of German women,

        you realized you put women at the center of two however in hindsight ill-guided but ultimately military decisions? Why? Why would one put civilian women right at the center of two basically foreign policy, alignment or military decision, which I doubt in Finland’s case did as neatly or as collectively align with the Nazi ideology, as Lytt seems to suggest.

        But in the article below I sense some deeper ideological perspective I may dislike as much as Lytt, in her own no doubt heavily inquisitorial, and ad hominem style. Ok, given the chance, I wouldn’t quite challenge the author/messenger as she does.

        But, there is still a familiar underlying theme. Look I am fine with it. Don’t worry. The well-meaning winners did their best to stop Germany from starting another the second world war. But then the Soviets secretly sabotaged it:

        http://archive.vn/03WRW#selection-2005.0-2231.511

        I would assume the author is proud he aligned his chronological evidence thus neatly to prove an old narrative needed in the present. Helpful is that both Russia and Germany are them not us.

        But strictly, I would have liked to comment on the rape issue. …

        Be well, and welcome, Grigory.

        Like

      6. Helpful is that both Russia and Germany are them not us.
        ammendation, Germany from the Kaiser via the Weimar Republic to the Nazis – straight line.

        Wasn’t Rathenau envolved in the Treaty of Rapallo, I seem to vaguely remember.

        Like

      7. “If you re-read my initial comment you will realise that I love my country of birth (from where my parents moved for the purpose of undertaking postgraduate study, not economic opportunity, and intend to return)”

        >Claims to “love Russia”
        >Repeats nearly all Perestroika era stereotypical talking points about “politicisation of historical memory”

        Your new Motherland, Grisha, has the expression – “Lady doth protest too much”.

        […]

        Because we are having this conversation via the wondrous thing called the Internet (aka “The Abode of Lies and Falsehoods”), the hypocritical politeness would require of me to pretend, that I actually believe you.

        […]

        If you, indeed, plan to return to Russia, userperson “Grigory Matyunin”, you should know that what *I* say and ask from you, is the opinion of the most moderate of Russians. I’m a fucking paragon of tolerance! Others – with whom you’d have to cross your paths either IRL or on-line – might not be so charitable.

        But, hey! You are still Her Majesty’ loyal subject! There are so many options before you. To paraphrase one yankee’s expression: “Russia – Love it, Or Leave it”.

        “I hold a nuanced view of the situation in Crimea, broadly in line with those expressed by Paul on this blog (you might like to know that I visited the peninsula a couple of years ago and have close friends there who participated in the events of 2014).”

        Yeah, but here’s a catch – Mr. Robinson is not a Russian. Neither is he a RF citizen.

        As for “holding a view of the situation in Crimea” – what a big nice arse-cover you have here, Grisha! Here, let me paraphrase it, for the benefit of the international auditory: “I hold a nuanced view of de-segregation in the South, broadly in line with those expressed by Joe Biden (you might like to know that I was at Kwanza a couple of years ago and I have POC friends)”

        With Crimea’s “situation” it’s the same as with the pregnancy – you can’t be pregnant “just a little bit”. If you, indeed, want to come back to Russia and live amongst our people, fully expect to be asked this question. And learn to live with the consequences.

        Thankfully – we are not “free and democratic Ukraine”. No one’s gonna bit your face to the pulp for the “wrong” answer. But the answer itself is important. It, truly, helps to separate the wheat from the chaff.

        Once again – чей Крым?

        “All I would say, don’t treat people like this in the name of Russia or your heroic ancestors. They are all worth more than that and wouldn’t be proud of you”.

        I see they did a good work on you, Gregory. Straight outta (neo)colonial book of Eternal Anglo – “101 ways how appear magnanimous and at the same time patronizing, while pretending that you stoop to the level of the primitive natives”. What, you think people of Russia have some kind of pagan ancestors-worship cult, and you are trying to “reason” with us using the logic, we, mere savages, can understand?

        Blimey! What a tragic cross-cultural mule you are!

        Like

      8. Lyttenburgh, would you deny the fact that Nikolai Starikov and co. politicise history and that their books are very popular at the moment? All these books titled ‘Myths about Stalin’ etc. which are so prevalent right now – do they contain high quality analysis? As I said, Russian academic textbooks and university curricula are quite reasonable in their analysis of the past. And Putin has been quite good at acknowledging past crimes committed by the state under Stalin while maintaining a high level of national self-esteem. Politicisation of history is a universal phenomenon and occurs in all societies. In many ways, it is worse in the West but Russia is no exception.

        It is, unfortunately, the great tragedy of the Russian people that all critics of foreign policy, however mild, are increasingly subject to the charge of ‘Russophobia’ and dismissed as traitors. It is a sign of deep societal malaise. And I’m not even all that critical, I simply acknowledge some of the strategic and legal problems with the takeover of Crimea – I absolutely do not advocate its return to Ukraine. It is also disturbing to see a fundamental lack of a middle ground between those who revere the Yeltsin years (which I most certainly don’t) and the “квасной патриотизм” which I can see from you.

        I appreciate your concern for my family’s well-being upon relocation to Russia and for my apparent new status as a cross-cultural mule. In the words of Yeshua from Master and Margarita, “я лично не вижу ничего дурного в этом звере, чтобы обижаться на это слово”. Furthermore, I wish to remind you, that ‘Grisha’ is a familiar term and, as I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting you in person, I would prefer ‘Grigory’ in the interim. Just reminding you of Russian social norms. Also, I don’t know where, as a ‘paragon of tolerance’, you find the energy to be so angry. It must be so exhausting.

        Like

      9. “Lyttenburgh, would you deny the fact that Nikolai Starikov and co. politicise history and that their books are very popular at the moment? All these books titled ‘Myths about Stalin’ etc. which are so prevalent right now – do they contain high quality analysis?”

        I see several questions here, all of which I will answer. In return, I expect you to answer my question I’ve already asked you in the comments above (I won’t re-post them). If you fail to do that – well, then, that’d just show your measure as a Man.

        1) Does Starikov and others “politicise history”? YES! If you really listened to this particular RT clip, then you ought to hear what dear Professor Andranik Movsesovich Migranyayn said about the very essence of history – “to be politics applied to the past”. Every kind of history gets “politicized” all the time. It’s is inevitable. The way how you are brought up, receive your first school- then Uni-/Institute-grade education, what kind of mentors/professors you had through this, what were your personal history and conditions – all of these dictate your political views and, therefore, affect how you approach history.

        Topic does not matter. Just recently, The New York Times got a well “deserving” prize for their “sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay for the ground-breaking 1619 Project” (c). See? The big librul world has no problem with politization!

        And here lies the rub – only teenagers (or autists) believe in absolute and crystal pure principles and ideal as applied to the material world. “Neutrality of science” is one such thing.

        2) Are Starikov’s books popular at the moment? Gee – probably, yes. They are popular enough to be printed and to sell across the country (with the print run often in tens of thousands). If the book «Ненависть. Хроники русофобии» sells our well in Russia it means there are factors at hand why it is so. The undeniable fact that Russophobia is a thing is one of these factors.

        3) I don’t know whether his books (none of which is titled “Myths about Stalin”) represent a high mark of the quality analysis. After all – I’m not his intended readership. Which is totally fine – either for me or his intended readership. What is undeniable though is that since Perestroika (actually – even since XX Party Congress) there were persistent myths about Stalin, passed on and reinforced by certain people. That was a textbook example of politization of history back then. Now, the pendulum is swinging in the their direction – and the opposing side has nothing really to argue against, besides appeal to emotions (or doubling down on discredited propaganda templates), in order to defend themselves.

        Given that politization of history is inevitable in one form or another, and that objective truth will find a way out, it’s better for said politization to take place for the betterment of Russian and its people, and woe betide its enemies.

        “And Putin has been quite good at acknowledging past crimes committed by the state under Stalin while maintaining a high level of national self-esteem”

        Playing Putin card won’t work on me. I’m Russian, real, living one – not Kremle-bot. I understand political-speak. Oh, and the term “crimes” is wrong – no court deemed them as such.

        “It is, unfortunately, the great tragedy of the Russian people that all critics of foreign policy, however mild, are increasingly subject to the charge of ‘Russophobia’ and dismissed as traitors…”

        «Гриня – ку-ку!» (с) Чей Крым?

        “Furthermore, I wish to remind you, that ‘Grisha’ is a familiar term and, as I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting you in person, I would prefer ‘Grigory’ in the interim.”

        Per your own words, you’re an undergraduate. Which makes you younger than me. So, yeah – I will keep calling like that, kid.

        “I appreciate your concern for my family’s well-being upon relocation to Russia and for my apparent new status as a cross-cultural mule. In the words of Yeshua from Master and Margarita, “я лично не вижу ничего дурного в этом звере, чтобы обижаться на это слово”.”

        […]

        Mules are sterile.

        And now I expect full, honest, concise answers, without trying to wiggle like an eel on a frying pan.

        Like

  4. Off-top, but skimming Russian press this morning I find still another ghastly borrowing from American into Russian: хаб.

    Can anyone guess what it is? It took me a few seconds, then the lightbulb went on: “Hub” !

    Like

  5. And as for that old chestnut about “Russian soldiers raping German women,” from what I have read, it was more the American soldiers who did that sort of thing. And continuing to do so in every war they wage, reference My Lai and every war since then. It’s sort of their specialty.

    Like

    1. PBS Independent Lens has a documentary that you may find relevant:
      “The Invisible War / Rape and Sexual Assault in[side] the Military”

      Like

  6. Also, since we are talking about war crimes and rapes in this thread, history students might be interested how the Czechs took out their fury by raping ethnic German women at the close of the war.
    What?! you cry. Czechs do something immoral, how is that possible? After all, they are allies of America and England…
    Compare the Czech behavior against women and children with the photos that Lyt posted above; the caption reads: “Russians do not displace their misfortune onto children.”

    And if you read this other war story that I posted, you will see that, as soon as they occupied the Austrian town of Schwertberg, the first thing the Soviet troops did, according to local resident Anna Hackel, was set up a field kitchen. And start cooking soup. Not rapings, but soup.
    The myth of “Soviet barbarians” and “Russian barbarians” is just that: a myth intended to whitewash the human failings of Washington’s “favorite children”.

    Like

    1. Lev Kopelev (1912-1997) wrote two books which I read decades ago. Kopelev spoke German without an accent and was there in Germany in 1945 as a Red Army officer/translator. German females, including children and the very old, were raped by some members of the Red Army with impunity for, if I recall, 2 or 3 weeks. During this period rape
      was common. Then Moscow ordered an end to this brutality. Thereafter
      rapists were summarily executed on the spot in public as a deterrence.
      Such brutalization of German women, Kopelev wrote, brutalized the character of all members of the Red Army. Similarly — I’ll add — the behavior of the Wehrmacht on the eastern front brutalized all of its
      members. Inhumanity was the norm.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “Lev Kopelev (1912-1997) wrote two books which I read decades ago…”

        Leiba Zalmanovich Kopelev? That member of demshiza?

        Like

      2. Nobody denies that some rapes happened. The issue is to the extent (Westies greatly exagerrate numbers, so as to demonize the Soviet soldier) and whether it was condoned or encouraged by the leadership. In Soviet case, was obviously not condoned, and was strictly punished.
        Compare with American soldiers who rape with impunity wherever they go. Even in beloved Western Europe: what were essentially rapes have been sublimated by images of nylon stockings and candy bars.

        This Kopelev should write a book about My Lai massacre. Hint: was very rapey massacre. Also, very fat books could be written about American rapes and other atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. And yet American mercenaries are never called to account for anything they do. People are too busy dragging up old claims about Russian barbarism.

        Like

  7. Here we go again – someone is using disputed history as a red rag.

    Anyone with a brain should realize that nothing but hatred and embitterment will follow – and those who push it, AIM for this result. Us Russians should know better: where is our famous bullshit detector? Why do we react, again and again, when those who bait us AIM to see us react?

    ONE detailed official publication, put together by professionals and ratified by the state, with appropriate references to relevant historical documents, should suffice. And all public statements in reaction to any accusations should be limited to referring to that publication (which can be updated with new material as needed).

    Foaming at the mouth every time any idiot comes up with another piece of nonsense is as debasing as denying relevant historical truths.

    The worst one can do in an argument is run out of arguments and start calling people names. The name caller is ALWAYS a loser (looking at you here Lyttenburgh; you can do better than that).

    Like

    1. “looking at you here Lyttenburgh; you can do better than that”

      Oh, so you are reading comments, after all! Including, I hope, the ones, when I call out your refined, fit for the Paris based Bureau International des Poids et Mesures outlook of the (stereo)typical Perestroika era shy and conscientious intilligent (with occasional bouts of emulating Akhedzhakova).

      Dolores, our chief difference is that I’m a realist, when you are, sadly, a (often – subjective) idealist. I roll with the world as it is, instead of wishing in vain for it to somehow change in the beautiful Elfland. The reality is the following, Dolores – the Bastion of Democracy in its National Strategy Doctrine defines my country (not sure about yours) – Russia – as the “adversary”. As the enemy, to dispense with the diplo-speak. Naturally, that this designation, brought by the “bipartisan consensus” of the people, who really run the US of A (and which gonna outlive both the current and many upcoming administrations) results in very material, real world implementation in America (and the whole West) struggle to maintain its “place under the sun”.

      You write:

      “Anyone with a brain should realize that nothing but hatred and embitterment will follow – and those who push it, AIM for this result”

      Hatred and embitterment are already here – just look at the Butthurt Belt of Europe and at their Diasporas in the country’s of the so-called “Free World”. If you suggest for Russians not to respond to their active hatred, which aims at one thing and one thing only – the complete elimination of Russia as a sovereign country – I can only pity any son of yours, upon whom you bestowed, no doubt, similar kind of advice while he grew up in the collective. You can have a Victory (as, for example, in the “Victory Day”) if you immediately surrender.

      First step is, of course, admitting that there is a fight going on, and that you are the target of those, who consider you (yes – you in general and particular) to be their enemies. No, they won’t surrender. The enemy is richly supplied and motivated, so any talk about mercy and magnanimity will have to wait till the Victory. Taking this crucial first step is often helped by getting angry after, say, realization, that, yes, there are people out there, who are worse than a pack of rabid dogs. Strong emotions are good for the mass-mobilization. The enemy *is* using propaganda. The aim, therefore, is not pretend to be better than him – you don’t have such luxury – but to beat him even at that game.

      Like

  8. Hey Lytt, I actually mostly agree with you IN PRINCIPAL, but not in the ways you act (or propose to act). As for idealism – in fact, I am an utterly practical hands-on “technar'”, and meticulously conducted lab experiments were my bread and butter for almost 20 years. True, in humanities I don’t qualify even as an amateur (but hey, in our “end of expertise” days many Ph.D.s in appropriate fields do even less 🙂

    Anyway, I never said we need to roll over and take it as it comes. But as long as we are in a verbal battle, rather than in a physical one, we need to keep our cool. And by keeping cool I don’t mean staying quiet. In fact, I am stating simple psychological facts: acting defensive (i.e. displaying certain kind of emotional agitation, hurt feelings etc.) makes one look weak and vulnerable. It’s a typical “Slon i Mos’ka” situation: if Slon reacts, he validates Mos’ka. And I am not stupid: USofA is no Mos’ka. But certain Ondřej Kolář, in this situation, is, and reacting the way our country reacts is, in my opinion, counterproductive.

    There are ways to continue to present our narrative without getting defensive – made easier by the fact that historical truth is, mostly, on our side. And when it isn’t – well, we are not GHW Bushes here. After all, it’s only USofA that is always right – and look how much respect this attitude won them.

    Like

  9. I think userperson “Grigory Matyunin” had enough time to gather with thoughts and produce an eloquent answer to my few questions. There is still no answer coming from him. SAD.

    To end this topic about “nuance” in history, I’ve been planning to enrich the commentariat of the Irrussionality with the translation of this Russian anekdot about Vasiliy Ivanovich Chapayev, Pet’ka and… “nuance”. I decided against it, because Irrussionality is a place of High(er) Culture and Propriety. Instead, a couple of words in conclusion of this off-hand remark by our young (and now – suddenly less eloquent) commenter:

    “unsavoury episodes of the war with Finland”

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYNoKcTXsAEb0eW?format=jpg&name=360×360

    ^This the photo of the Finnish war-time (1942) concentration camp in Petrozavodsk for the Soviet children on the occupied territory. Well, actually, to be more correct – that’s the Finnish concentration camp for Soviet children, who were the non-ethnic Finns and Karelians aka a clear and deliberate attempt at the ethnic cleansing in support of the deeply rooted nationalist, irredentist claims of their ruling regime, vestiges of which are alive to this day.

    The guards of such camps were front-line Finnish Army troopers, who ere thus “rotated” to get some R&R. They shot the children. Indiscriminately. They also raped Soviet prisioner underaged girls. Again – indiscriminately.

    “Unsavoury episodes” like that one, you mean?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s