Daring to question the past
#1
During WWII the city of Leningrad was surrounded by Nazi's who held the town in a death grip that lasted for 872 days, during which hundreds of thousands died. In Russia, as the 70th anniversary of this siege approached, a Russian TV station had the audacity to post an online poll on whether or not it might have been better for Leningrad to have simply surrendered instead, and maybe have somehow saved some of those hundreds of thousands and the misery they went through too. Well, this set off a firestorm of protest throughout Russia, where sentiments were completely offended at the merest idea such a thing could even be questioned 70 years later. I thought it sounded like a legitimate enough question myself (since I figure all subjects should be talked about and all decisions being questioned seems like fair game to me), so it makes for a bit of an interesting story about why this simple question has so offended so many Russians: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-25945781

Excerpt: "Is it ok to question how events unfolded during World War Two? That's a hot topic of discussion on social media in Russia right now.

This week is the 70th anniversary of the end of the siege of Leningrad during WW2, and on Sunday the independent Russian TV station Dozhd conducted what turned out to be a very controversial poll. They asked whether Leningrad - now St Petersburg - should have been handed over to the Nazis in order to save lives. Hundreds of thousands of Russians died in Leningrad during the blockade - which lasted more than two years - but was a key turning point in the war.

Asking this simple question led to a social media storm against Dozhd TV. Thousands were outraged - arguing that even posing this question was an insult to the dead. The Soviet Union's victory in World War Two remains a source of great national pride and by Monday, a hashtag which translates as "brown rain" (#???????????????) was trending - the "brown" referring to the colour of Nazi uniforms, and the "rain" to the name of the station (which translates as Rain TV).

Dozhd apologised and deleted the post, but the criticism was fierce. On Twitter, they were called "idiots" with no grasp of history, and less than human. Many politicians condemned the poll, including MP Irina Yarovaya from the ruling United Russia party, who called it an attempt to "rehabilitate Nazism". The city parliament in St Petersburg on Wednesday called for a ban on the station.

Staff at the Vesti news website were sacked for posting this image of Joseph Goebbels on Facebook - it has now been removed
But others defended Dozhd. "There's nothing more frightening than a ban on analysing the past," was one of the supportive tweets. Others questioned whether the furore online was orchestrated to give the authorities an excuse to crackdown on the station - Dozhd is seen as a liberal alternative to pro-Kremlin media.

But soon, angry users were targeting state media too. This happened after someone scanning the state-run Vesti news website's Facebook page found an image of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. It was part of a picture gallery of "great people" and their comments on Lenin. It's unclear who posted the picture or why, but Vesti promptly sacked its entire social media marketing team."
Reply
#2
Open debate can be a good thing, if both sides listen and evaluate what is being said. Slamming the door on this subject, albeit a very painful one, does nothing to advance anyone's knowledge of events which occurred back then.

My feeling is that more Russians people would have perished had the city surrendered. Hitler despised communism and particularly despised Russians. Russian POWS were treated with brutality and died by the thousands. Hitler's plan was to eliminate those he hated by starvation.

Bad management was part of the disaster. All the food was stored in one area, in various warehouses. The Germans bombed these as soon as they could, which left the city vulnerable to starvation. Had they moved food storage areas around the city, it might have helped.

The Germans would have stolen more art work, murdered more people and destroyed even more of the city. I believe the siege, tragic as it was, was the right thing to do at the time.
Reply
#3
I think I would have come to the same conclusion, perhaps most people would. It's only the idea that ideas sometimes can't be discussed that bothers me.

For the same reasons, I think it's good for us to occasionally ask ourselves if using nuclear arms in the worlds only instance of use in war furthered the cause of peace or not, too.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)