WHK: ww2 and other stuff

[Zinegata]

Indeed, if anything, any memorial to the USSR is vastly worse than those about the confederacy. The confederates desired to continue to enslave a portion of the human species and failed to do it. The soviets desired to rule with an iron fist over all of humanity and crush all those opposed, and succeeded on a large scale. Purely on a utilitarian results based criteria the USSR was much much much worse for humanity than the confederacy was.

That line of reasoning may hold water in Eastern Europe - as they were certainly conquered by the USSR - but I would suggest that Russians would have a very, very different view of the USSR and that the "iron fist over humanity" narrative is one that is to a large extent a Cold War propaganda creation.

Indeed, it kinda goes right against the whole "Communism in one country" route that Stalin took as opposed to the international communist movement many communist ideologues desired; and conveniently ignores that it was Winston Churchill (without consultation with the United States) who agreed that the Soviets could take over Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WW2 and then turned right around and demonized them for it.

History, again, is awfully complicated in reality. One nation's hero is another's villain.

The problem is when people try to pretend that exploring these complications is the equivalent of justifying bad actions. In reality most leaders and nations do both good and bad; and that attempting to portray only the good and bad of one side is often little more than self-serving propaganda. Churchill certainly was a master at this, and to a large extent the English-language historical establishment unfortunately has a tendency to follow his lead especially when it comes to the questions of power politics and empire. This is why the Ukrainian famine became a popular cited incident on the Internet whenever Soviet imperialism is brought up, whereas the Bengal famine (or the earlier Irish famine) is almost never brought up when British imperialism is discussed.

This is why I proposed that a good memorial - particularly one tackling a difficult topic like a civil war - should not be designed to invoke pride or comfort. It should reflect the actual complexities of what it is memorializing.

And note that this not mean adding an overly long thesis to war memorials exploring its many sides.

There are for instance few memorials more simple and honest than the French war memorials for the dead of the First World War - found in cathedrals which simply lists the men in the town who died during the conflict (with multiple same surnames indicating multiple deaths in a single family) under the words Mort pour la France. Nationalists for instance may point to such memorials to justify present policy in defense of the nation, just as pacifists can point to it to demonstrate the horror and pointlessness of war. It is not meant to invoke just positive emotions and make people feel bigger.

By contrast Confederate memorials are consistently one-sided depictions to glorify the Confederacy. That so many of them feature Robert E. Lee - riding a horse as a general - is particularly galling given that Lee himself was against being memorialized, presciently noting that such monuments would only to continue to engender the feelings that caused the terrible war in the first place. One is almost tempted to see how the pro-Confederate "heritage" arguers would react if someone would raise a monument of Lee - not as a soldier - but as a postwar private citizen who said words like these:

"It should be the object of all to avoid controversy, to allay passion, give full scope to reason and to every kindly feeling. By doing this and encouraging our citizens to engage in the duties of life with all their heart and mind, with a determination not to be turned aside by thoughts of the past and fears of the future, our country will not only be restored in material prosperity, but will be advanced in science, in virtue and in religion".

Compared to the military triumphalism intended for his (now-removed) "monument" in New Orleans:

"In Tivoli Circle, New Orleans, from the centre and apex of its green flowery mound, an immense column of pure white marble rises in the ... majesty of Grecian proportions high up above the city's house-tops into the dazzling sunshine ... On its dizzy top stands the bronze figure of one of the world's greatest captains. He is alone. Not one of his mighty lieutenants stand behind, beside or below him. His arms are folded on that breast that never knew fear, and his calm, dauntless gaze meets the morning sun as it rises, like the new prosperity of the land he loved and served so masterly, above the far distant battle fields where so many thousands of his gray veterans lie in the sleep of fallen heroes. (Silent South, 1885, The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine)"

 

[bz249]

If there are any statues that were put up by people celebrating the starvation or abduction of people in Eastern Europe, I want those statues taken down ASAP.

Since collectivization of private property by violent means is an inherent part of communism, well guess what... Communism is nice ideology just as the Confederacy was a paradise (if you happened to be a plantation owner, but other do not count, especially if they are slaves).

 

[DoomBunny]

The suggestion of a special park is probably the best idea, yes.

It's sad that you lash out at me for telling you that the people who described themselves as white supremacists were white supremacists.

Ok. Now explain what makes White Supremacy a greater evil than Communism? As ideologies go, they're both well towards the negative.

My argument does not disagree with these realities, but rather simply proposes that just because fire can be used to commit arson does not mean it should be used in that manner in the first place.

That applies to not only Confederate memorials, but pretty much the majority of historical representations focused on idolization. History can be little more than propaganda, but the point is that propaganda - especially one that seeks to disenfranchise other people - is not something that people should do in the first place.

Sure, but it will never be so, and to achieve such a world, one will have to resort to the same things the Communists do; rewriting history into one's own form, replacing one narrative with another, and smashing the past in the process. And at the end of the day, I don't see what the point is; seeing what people pursued as propaganda is actually very useful to a historian wishing to establish people's views.

Since collectivization of private property by violent means is an inherent part of communism, well guess what... Communism is nice ideology just as the Confederacy was a paradise (if you happened to be a plantation owner, but other do not count, especially if they are slaves).

That's before we count the violent political repression, mass starvation, economic collapse, aggressive foreign policy, etc...

 

[olm]

The statues of Lenin weren't put up because people were fans of the holodomor.

They were put up as state propaganda effort to glorify USSR. Holodomor, red terror, deportations etc. are quite important parts of USSR's legacy.

Remember, those statues were put up by women and men who were avowed white supremacists and the men were celebrated because they enabled white supremacy both before and after the war. When people celebrate Robert Lee they are celebrating the man who was happy to let his students leave campus to be with the KKK but punished them for being late coming back from the holidays.

When people celebrate Lenin they are celebrating dictator of regime that liberally massacred everyone considered as political opponents.

 

[Arilou]

They were put up as[ state propaganda effort to glorify USSR. Holodomor, red terror, deportations etc. are quite important parts of USSR's legacy.

Oh yes, but notably things the USSR was ashamed of and even tried to hide.

 

[olm]

Oh yes, but notably things the USSR was ashamed of and even tried to hide.

While USSR indeed tried to play down the most nasty parts of their "struggle against kulaks, counter-revolutionaries, and bandits", I don't see a fundamental difference from southern fanboys who love to focus on more "benevolent" parts of slavery, and US civil war was about "state's rights" anyway, right?!?

 

[bz249]

That's before we count the violent political repression, mass starvation, economic collapse, aggressive foreign policy, etc...

Yes, but the Dictatorship of the Proletariat/Revolutionary Terror was a key principle of communist ideology... now after that point one can argue how violent they should be in the collectivization effort, but it is like arguing whether whipping of the slaves is a good or bad practice. Such a discussion already assumes that slavery is ok and we are analyzing which way it should be implemented. Something like the Holodomor was indeed planned from the beginning, probably not on ethnic basis, probably on lesser scale, etc but again those are nuances of the execution and not the ideology.

 

[Arilou]

Yes, but the Dictatorship of the Proletariat/Revolutionary Terror was a key principle of communist ideology... now after that point one can argue how violent they should be in the collectivization effort, but it is like arguing whether whipping of the slaves is a good or bad practice. Such a discussion already assumes that slavery is ok and we are analyzing which way it should be implemented. Something like the Holodomor was indeed planned from the beginning, probably not on ethnic basis, probably on lesser scale, etc but again those are nuances of the execution and not the ideology.

No, it wasnt planned. Thats idiotic. The famine was the result of ideological blindness and callousness, not planning. (the soviet authorities clearly did not expect a famine to result from their idiotic agricultural policies)

 

[bz249]

No, it wasnt planned. Thats idiotic. The famine was the result of ideological blindness and callousness, not planning. (the soviet authorities clearly did not expect a famine to result from their idiotic agricultural policies)

The famine in itself was not planned, but they planned to liquidate the "kulak" class (now by which means and up to which property you belong to it is a questionable... but the goal was clear from day one: none should have private property and violent means are allowed).

 

[DoomBunny]

Oh yes, but notably things the USSR was ashamed of and even tried to hide.

Not that hiding makes things better, but a good many of the Lost Causers attempted to hide/distort history as well. Hence a few pro-Confederacy Blacks gets turned into "Slaves loved being slaves" and the nuances of the North's cause get turned into "They just wanted to oppress us for their own ends".

While USSR indeed tried to play down the most nasty parts of their "struggle against kulaks, counter-revolutionaries, and bandits", I don't see a fundamental difference from southern fanboys who love to focus on more "benevolent" parts of slavery, and US civil war was about "state's rights" anyway, right?!?

I mean, it was about state's rights... to defend slavery.

 

[bz249]

My thesis is simple and you are not understanding it. I know that you are not understanding it because you are stating my thesis is something I have explicitly stated my thesis is not. If you do this, any conversation between us will be useless so I have no interest in conversing with you.

Yes your thesis was simple: the Lenin statue was not commemorating the murdering, but the ideology.
- Murdering of the "landowner class" (including landowning free farmers) was explicitly part of the said ideology. So the statues are commemorating the murdering of the landowning farmers, because that's the ideology about
- Those statues are ordered by politicians personally persecuting and murdering their political opponents.
- When those statues are erected members of the political opposition were improsined and/or murdered.

Why is it any different than the white supremacist in the South?

 

[gagenater]

My thesis is simple and you are not understanding it. I know that you are not understanding it because you are stating my thesis is something I have explicitly stated my thesis is not. If you do this, any conversation between us will be useless so I have no interest in conversing with you.



My thesis is simple and you are not understanding it. I know that you are not understanding it because you are stating my thesis is something I have explicitly stated my thesis is not. If you do this, any conversation between us will be useless so I have no interest in conversing with you.



At the time those statues went up, it was to crowd cheering promises to lynch black people and make sure they never voted. Sure the people in 1860 explicitly said over and over that their cause was about slavery. However I think it's much more important what the people who built the statues said about themselves: namely they called themselves white supremacists.

I am going to quote myself, and bold the key passages since you are hung up on the idea that 'confederate statues celebrate slavery, and soviet statues celebrate an ideology' I have bolded the important parts for you, so we can all move past this point, and discuss the real issues.

So all statues of all persons associated with the USSR. I expect you to get onboard with the process of their removal pronto. I am not a supporter of the confederacy or any of the things it stood for, but to proclaim from some high soapbox that confederate statues and statues commemorating the USSR are somehow different is silly. Indeed, if anything, any memorial to the USSR is vastly worse than those about the confederacy. The confederates desired to continue to enslave a portion of the human species and failed to do it. The soviets desired to rule with an iron fist over all of humanity and crush all those opposed, and succeeded on a large scale. Purely on a utilitarian results based criteria the USSR was much much much worse for humanity than the confederacy was.

Naturally though, I disagree with such a position. I think that in both cases, that statues and other things of that nature are best kept around as reminders of what once was. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

I really don't care WHY any of the monuments to the confederacy or the USSR were installed - it's simply irrelevant. The people who did it were all awful people - claiming that one group was awful for promoting slavery, and another group was awful for promoting an ideology that created slave like servitude is irrelevant. They were merely awful in slightly different ways. What matters is what they mean to people now, and what they are reminders of, now. For the people that live in these places now, and were impacted by those horrible people, it's important to remember what horrible things happened, and why so that they don't get repeated in any way shape or form. If the existence of a few statues leads a few extra people to learn about the horrible things done in their region's past, it might reduce the likelihood of such things taking place again.

 

[gagenater]

That line of reasoning may hold water in Eastern Europe - as they were certainly conquered by the USSR - but I would suggest that Russians would have a very, very different view of the USSR and that the "iron fist over humanity" narrative is one that is to a large extent a Cold War propaganda creation.

Indeed, it kinda goes right against the whole "Communism in one country" route that Stalin took as opposed to the international communist movement many communist ideologues desired; and conveniently ignores that it was Winston Churchill (without consultation with the United States) who agreed that the Soviets could take over Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WW2 and then turned right around and demonized them for it.

History, again, is awfully complicated in reality. One nation's hero is another's villain.

The problem is when people try to pretend that exploring these complications is the equivalent of justifying bad actions. In reality most leaders and nations do both good and bad; and that attempting to portray only the good and bad of one side is often little more than self-serving propaganda. Churchill certainly was a master at this, and to a large extent the English-language historical establishment unfortunately has a tendency to follow his lead especially when it comes to the questions of power politics and empire. This is why the Ukrainian famine became a popular cited incident on the Internet whenever Soviet imperialism is brought up, whereas the Bengal famine (or the earlier Irish famine) is almost never brought up when British imperialism is discussed.

This is why I proposed that a good memorial - particularly one tackling a difficult topic like a civil war - should not be designed to invoke pride or comfort. It should reflect the actual complexities of what it is memorializing.

And note that this not mean adding an overly long thesis to war memorials exploring its many sides.

There are for instance few memorials more simple and honest than the French war memorials for the dead of the First World War - found in cathedrals which simply lists the men in the town who died during the conflict (with multiple same surnames indicating multiple deaths in a single family) under the words Mort pour la France. Nationalists for instance may point to such memorials to justify present policy in defense of the nation, just as pacifists can point to it to demonstrate the horror and pointlessness of war. It is not meant to invoke just positive emotions and make people feel bigger.

By contrast Confederate memorials are consistently one-sided depictions to glorify the Confederacy. That so many of them feature Robert E. Lee - riding a horse as a general - is particularly galling given that Lee himself was against being memorialized, presciently noting that such monuments would only to continue to engender the feelings that caused the terrible war in the first place. One is almost tempted to see how the pro-Confederate "heritage" arguers would react if someone would raise a monument of Lee - not as a soldier - but as a postwar private citizen who said words like these:

"It should be the object of all to avoid controversy, to allay passion, give full scope to reason and to every kindly feeling. By doing this and encouraging our citizens to engage in the duties of life with all their heart and mind, with a determination not to be turned aside by thoughts of the past and fears of the future, our country will not only be restored in material prosperity, but will be advanced in science, in virtue and in religion".

Compared to the military triumphalism intended for his (now-removed) "monument" in New Orleans:

"In Tivoli Circle, New Orleans, from the centre and apex of its green flowery mound, an immense column of pure white marble rises in the ... majesty of Grecian proportions high up above the city's house-tops into the dazzling sunshine ... On its dizzy top stands the bronze figure of one of the world's greatest captains. He is alone. Not one of his mighty lieutenants stand behind, beside or below him. His arms are folded on that breast that never knew fear, and his calm, dauntless gaze meets the morning sun as it rises, like the new prosperity of the land he loved and served so masterly, above the far distant battle fields where so many thousands of his gray veterans lie in the sleep of fallen heroes. (Silent South, 1885, The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine)"

I get what you are saying, but the stated motives of people matter less than the results. The communists killed milliions of their own people, then killed millions more and conquered others, and started/sparked copycats in numerous other places that followed their lead (Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, China, etc.) If their stated objective was peaceful 'communism in one country' then they were either enormously evil hypocritical lairs, or the least capable people on the face of the earth given their actual track record.

I like your discussion about the nature of war memorials, but it's one that needs to be made before the memorial is put up. Once it has been in place for a 100 years or so (a tremendously long time in a young country like the USA) it's been around for too long to change it later on just because it's fashionable to do so. The past is the past, and deciding to selectively edit it based on modern day opinions is always a bad idea.

 

[olm]

I really don't care WHY any of the monuments to the confederacy or the USSR were installed - it's simply irrelevant. The people who did it were all awful people - claiming that one group was awful for promoting slavery, and another group was awful for promoting an ideology that created slave like servitude is irrelevant. They were merely awful in slightly different ways. What matters is what they mean to people now, and what they are reminders of, now. For the people that live in these places now, and were impacted by those horrible people, it's important to remember what horrible things happened, and why so that they don't get repeated in any way shape or form. If the existence of a few statues leads a few extra people to learn about the horrible things done in their region's past, it might reduce the likelihood of such things taking place again.

It is not a good way to educate people about crimes by displaying gloryfied statues of perpetrators of those crimes in highly visible places. For remembering horrible things you should just have memorials for victims.

 

[gagenater]

Eh, I think the Hungary solution is a pretty decent one: IE: Cart them off to a special park for disgraced statues outside of town. Still availible for viewing to those interested, but don't have to ruin the day for those who don't have an academic/art appreciation.

Though it should be noted that 99% of the confederate statues aren't just odious representations of white supremacy, but also tatty, mass-produced things. Even compared to Soviet-era scuplture they are pretty excreable (as usual, there are exceptions)

And this is a private, so it doesen't quite count, but...:

That is just horrific - it wouldn't look out of place in Dr Evil's Lair.

I kind of like the 'bad statue park' idea.

I also agree on the 'tatty, mass produced drek' statement. There's no reason that ALL monuments/statues to the USSR and Confederacy ought to stay just because. A lot of the crap that Saddam Hussein put up springs to mind as well. However there are a fair # of them that are significant, either artistically, historically, culturally, or geographically

 

[Kovax]

Eh, I think the Hungary solution is a pretty decent one: IE: Cart them off to a special park for disgraced statues outside of town. Still availible for viewing to those interested, but don't have to ruin the day for those who don't have an academic/art appreciation.

Been there, saw a few partly dismantled statues and other artifacts from the Soviet era in the back yard of one museum, and other items behind another public building. They seem to have a pretty decent sense of preserving history, even if it's currently unpopular with good reason. One should remember the past, and try to understand what actually happened, and why. If you erase the evidence, you rob future generations of material which they may find important to understand the political or social situation at the time the statue was erected, and meanwhile you've learned nothing from it.

Statues of Lenin are celebrations of Communism, Soviet War Memorials are celebrations of atrocities, Ireland's monuments to the Easter Rising are celebrations of terrorists, the Colosseum is a monument to slavery and suffering, we can go on in this style for hours.

I'd have to differ with you on the Colosseum, since it was apparently used for a wide variety of public entertainments, including "professional wrestling" (called the "Troy Game"), not just gladiator fights between slaves as its schedule was eventually dominated by. The tastes of the Roman public became steadily more gruesome and bloody, and the efforts to outdo the last performance gradually pushed out the less violent forms of entertainment.

While the Confederate statues probably strike a raw nerve at the moment, and they're not "informative" for American Civil War history because they date to a later period, removing them might make less sense than putting them in context or providing a contrasting image. Put up a second statue of some Union general, or else a prominent black hero, inventor, or artist. That presents two opposing images, and one is then free to decide which is the better answer, or whether some reasonable compromise and eventual solution by both parties (rather than radical activism by the extreme fringes of both) might not have avoided a million people dying over the issue in the mean time, until slavery was finally outlawed completely.

 

[Zinegata]

I get what you are saying, but the stated motives of people matter less than the results. The communists killed milliions of their own people, then killed millions more and conquered others, and started/sparked copycats in numerous other places that followed their lead (Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, China, etc.) If their stated objective was peaceful 'communism in one country' then they were either enormously evil hypocritical lairs, or the least capable people on the face of the earth given their actual track record.

The history of the Soviet Union is far more complex than a very simplistic "they were evil" narrative would indicate. For one thing, the fact that Lenin was big on exporting communism while Stalin wasn't should point as to how making broad generalizations of hypocrisy doesn't really work when you have leaders of different times having very different policies.

I like your discussion about the nature of war memorials, but it's one that needs to be made before the memorial is put up. Once it has been in place for a 100 years or so (a tremendously long time in a young country like the USA) it's been around for too long to change it later on just because it's fashionable to do so. The past is the past, and deciding to selectively edit it based on modern day opinions is always a bad idea.

And yet by that measure we should also pretend that communism can no longer be discussed because "past is past"?

History is not set in stone. It is always fashionable to requestion it, otherwise you may as well forget all of it.

 

[Zinegata]

The famine in itself was not planned, but they planned to liquidate the "kulak" class (now by which means and up to which property you belong to it is a questionable... but the goal was clear from day one: none should have private property and violent means are allowed).

Well, that kind of action unfortunately also characterizes British actions in Ireland for centuries - with the liquidation of local Irish nobles allowing the land to be taken over by British nobles. No private property for the Irish allowed, whereas violence for the British is allowed.

And yet why aren't people decrying the British imperial system with the same passion as communism?

Again, people need to realize that much of "history" is simply the Western-centric viewpoint that very often borders on self-serving propaganda. How the Soviets viewed the whole thing themselves was far more complicated; and indeed ignores a whole period in Soviet history called "de-Stalinization" where these actions were specifically denounced for their barbarity. That so many supposedly learned men in the West - even those who are supposedly historians - do not take into account these inconvenient facts that ruin their cherished anti-communist narratives is probably a big reason why Russia as a whole is pretty much disdainful of the idea of a Western-style "free" press to begin with.

Communism was not some evil bogeyman in history. It was a very complicated thing that was viewed very differently from different perspectives; and much of it was an outgrowth of imperial policy that would not have been out of place in "good guy" Empires like in Britain or America. People just don't like versions of history that show the simple fact that they, in fact, can be the bad guy.

 

[keynes2.0]

And yet why aren't people decrying the British imperial system with the same passion as communism?

I believe the British do talk about to what degree it is appropriate to have statues of British imperialists. The Russians dont but that's because they are not exactly big on the whole freedom thing. I think the US should maybe strive to be better then Russia.

 

[bz249]

Well, that kind of action unfortunately also characterizes British actions in Ireland for centuries - with the liquidation of local Irish nobles allowing the land to be taken over by British nobles. No private property for the Irish allowed, whereas violence for the British is allowed.

And yet why aren't people decrying the British imperial system with the same passion as communism?

Again, people need to realize that much of "history" is simply the Western-centric viewpoint that very often borders on self-serving propaganda. How the Soviets viewed the whole thing themselves was far more complicated; and indeed ignores a whole period in Soviet history called "de-Stalinization" where these actions were specifically denounced for their barbarity. That so many supposedly learned men in the West - even those who are supposedly historians - do not take into account these inconvenient facts that ruin their cherished anti-communist narratives is probably a big reason why Russia as a whole is pretty much disdainful of the idea of a Western-style "free" press to begin with.

Communism was not some evil bogeyman in history. It was a very complicated thing that was viewed very differently from different perspectives; and much of it was an outgrowth of imperial policy that would not have been out of place in "good guy" Empires like in Britain or America. People just don't like versions of history that show the simple fact that they, in fact, can be the bad guy.

If someone plans to erect a statue of Cromwell or Cornwallis in Belfast it is quite clear what is the purpose. Or even the traditional march of the Oranian Order is clearly done to anger the Irish and to celebrate exactly the said goals.
BTW my personal stuff would be Eastern European nationalism, which is one of the most silly things as genetic and cultural heritage is such a mish-mash there that it makes no sense at all to choose a narrative.