PDA

View Full Version : Russia Moves to Ban Criticism of WWII Win



Tabiti
05-14-2009, 08:18 PM
For the past two weeks, posters celebrating the Soviet triumph in World War II have been taped to the windows of every store in Russia, proudly displaying the date "9 May" and the orange and black striped ribbon of victory. Red banners have been draped across the fronts of apartment buildings all along the central Moscow parade route. And in the lead-up to the country's annual Victory Day celebrations, the Kremlin has made a move that it touts as yet another display of Russia's patriotism and pride: the government has announced that it is considering passing a law to criminalize statements and acts that deny the Soviets won World War II, or claim it used poor tactics in battle or did not liberate Eastern Europe.

The proposed law is seen by Kremlin-watchers as further evidence of Moscow's continued suppression of dissent at a time when the domestic popularity of President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has slipped thanks to the economic crisis, and amid international fears of growing Russian militarism after its successful war against Georgia last summer. (See TIME's special package on the Russia-Georgia war. )

"I believe the Duma should enact a law that would criminalize the denial of the Soviet victory in World War II," said Sergei Shoigu, head of the powerful Ministry of Emergency Situations and co-chairman of the supreme council of Putin's United Russia party, during a speech to veterans in Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad) in February, according to reports by Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

Shoigu's call for the new law came after Russian television channel NTV broadcast a documentary about the Battles of Rzhev, a series of offensives launched by Soviet forces against the Germans between January 1942 and March 1943. The documentary raised popular anger, especially among WWII veterans, after it exposed the number of Soviet soldiers killed, which was much higher than most Russians believed — around a million compared to around 500,000 on the Nazi side — and presented a negative interpretation of Soviet tactics by, for example, showing how shocked German soldiers who had fought in the battles were at the way Soviet troops were thrown into the fight with little regard for their lives. (See pictures from World War II.)

Valery Ryazansky, a United Russia Duma MP and a chief supporter of the bill, said on Thursday he hoped the law would appear before the Duma before June 22 — Russia's Day of Remembrance and Mourning. "Those who attempt to interpret the outcome of World War II, to turn everything upside down, to represent those who liberated countries from the Nazi invaders as subjugators" will be punished, he said.

Violators of the new addition to the criminal code would face a fine of up to around $9,200 or up to three years in prison. If the perpetrator is a government official and uses his status to break the law, the fine is increased to more than $15,300, a five-year term in prison and the deprivation of the right to occupy certain government positions, said Ryazansky.

In an Orwellian twist, the drafters of the bill, which is being called the law "Against the Rehabilitation of Nazism," have said they modeled it on the various forms of Holocaust-denier legislation that exists in Austria, Germany, Belgium and France. But critics point out that the law banning denial of the Holocaust is designed to protect the memory of the Jews and other ethnic groups killed by Nazi forces and their supporters. Russia's new bill, however, would stop anyone reexamining a history fraught with half-truths and lies propagated by the Soviet government, then carried into the present on the backs of unrevised text books and a general aversion to looking too closely the country's past. (See pictures of Hitler's rise to power.)

Liberals in Russia fear the law may punish and silence new — and possibly more accurate — interpretations of the country's history and solidify the government's control of the past. But the real aim of the law may be to provide the Kremlin with another rhetorical tool with which to attack governments of former Soviet Republics and Eastern Bloc countries that have increasingly moved towards the West. The most recent example — which is still making waves in Russia — was the 2007 row in Estonia over the moving of the statue of a Red Army soldier from a central Tallinn square to a nearby war cemetery, a decision which triggered riots and caused an international incident. (Read: "Estonians Under Siege in Moscow.")

When Russia's law "Against the Rehabilitation of Nazism" is passed, "the presidents of some countries who denied [the Soviet victory] would not be able to travel with impunity in our country. And the mayors of some cities, before demolishing sites, would think before they act," said Shoigu, according to RIA Novosti.

According to a poll of 1,600 Russians released on Wednesday by the Center for the Study of Public Opinion, 60% of Russians say they agree that denying the Soviets won World War II should be criminalized, while 77% believe the Soviet Union liberated Eastern Europe. On Saturday, thousands of troops, with over 100 tanks, troop carriers and mobile ballistic missile batteries, will parade through Red Square and the center of Moscow as more than 70 aircraft and helicopters fly overhead. But as Russians celebrate their victory over the Nazis, they may also be celebrating the defeat of freedom of speech.

source:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1896927,00.html

Lenny
05-17-2009, 09:36 AM
[The Russian government] is considering passing a law to criminalize...[the claim that] it did not liberate Eastern Europe.

Umm... Hmm...:scratch: [No comment].


"I believe the Duma should enact a law that would criminalize the denial of the Soviet victory in World War II," said Sergei Shoigu, head of the powerful Ministry of Emergency Situations

:lmao! Beware countries that are so insecure as to outlaw "Denial of Our Victory in ".:rolleyes2:

What else does one expect, though, from countries that do stuff like this:
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3948/s03490u.jpg
caption: [I]"She Might Have Invaded Russia!" (published Sept. 3, 1968 following Soviet invasion of Czecheslovakia).



National-pride insecurities aside, we're far-enough removed from "that war" now that we should not view it as a singular event. It was simply one part of the grand(er) narrative of the 1918-1989 period of history. 1918-1989 was a massive three-way struggle for sociopolitical supremacy in the European and European-derived world. Beginning Nov.1918 after a curiously-pointless war killed the "old order", ending Nov.1989... The three contenders:
#1: Capitalist-liberal-Democracy;
#2: Soviet-model Socialism;
#3: "Blood-and-Honorism" (for want of a better term).
All three dreamed of a better world to replace the dead-as-of-Nov.1918 "old older". All three hated each other and were irreconcilable.

#1 was the winner. Understanding this allows one to understand the modern world, IMO.

SwordoftheVistula
05-17-2009, 09:38 AM
#1 was the winner. Understanding this allows one to understand the modern world, IMO.

#2 is making a comeback, but in the guise of #1

Lenny
05-17-2009, 09:50 AM
#2 is making a comeback, but in the guise of #1That's a very #3 sentiment.:p

It's fascinating that any two of them had common cause against the other. The European #3s always did believe #1 and #2 to be two sides of the same coin (for example), fundamentally not different from one another, both casting man as homo-economicus and so on.

Homo-Sovieticus as the twin of Homo-Americanus. (I lifted that phrase from the book by Dr.Sunic).

[The other interesting thing was the unexpected emergence of a #4 in 1979: Theocracy (almost totally confined to the Muslim world, granted). No one really knew how to deal with it at the time, since everyone had been engaged in the #1-vs-#2-vs-#3 civil war for the previous 60 years and had not given the seemingly-long-dead sociopolitical ideology of Theocracy any attention.]

EWtt
05-17-2009, 10:03 AM
the government has announced that it is considering passing a law to criminalize statements and acts that deny the Soviets won World War II, or claim it used poor tactics in battle or did not liberate Eastern Europe.

Liberation as in murder, rape, setting up puppet governments and forcefully holding half of Europe in its sphere for many decades.

We should criminalize praising and denying the Soviet occupation so that people that yell "we should have killed all Estonians during the war" (as there were when we relocated a Soviet monument) would get punished, but unlike Russia we have free speech.

Hors
05-17-2009, 01:21 PM
Liberation as in murder, rape, setting up puppet governments and forcefully holding half of Europe in its sphere for many decades.

I don't buy the liberation crap myself, they simply don't worth it. But this half of Europe has participated in the murderous aggression against Russia, so nothing is wrong with them being on the Russian leash. And nowdays we see that it was a mistake to let them loose...

EWtt
05-17-2009, 02:50 PM
But this half of Europe has participated in the murderous aggression against Russia, so nothing is wrong with them being on the Russian leash.

Actually, first it was murderous Soviet aggression against many of these countries (let's not forget the Moltov-Ribbentrop Pact). :rolleyes:

Hors
05-17-2009, 02:53 PM
What are you talking about? What countries which joined Nazi Germany were object of Soviet aggression?

The Lawspeaker
05-17-2009, 03:01 PM
What are you talking about? What countries which joined Nazi Germany were object of Soviet aggression?
Yes Finland did that in 1941 after the USSR attacked them in 1939-1940 and stole their land and murdered their people while trying to install a puppet regime. And so did in 1941 after they had been brutally annexed in 1940.

And both countries already had seen their fair share of Russian aggression over the past 300 or so years (if not more).

Hors
05-17-2009, 03:43 PM
Finland was not a country for 300 years. It got its independence from Judeo-Bolsheviks. It was illegal.

The Lawspeaker
05-17-2009, 03:44 PM
Finland was not a country for 300 years. It got its independence from Judeo-Bolsheviks. It was illegal.
LOL. Troll :D

Hors
05-17-2009, 04:08 PM
I see NOTHING legal about Judeo-Bolsheviks. Do you?

The Lawspeaker
05-17-2009, 04:09 PM
I see NOTHING legal about invading countries. Do you ?

Hors
05-17-2009, 04:12 PM
A country has to obtain independence LEGALLY to be considered a country, and not just a territory.

SwordoftheVistula
05-18-2009, 10:08 AM
It's fascinating that any two of them had common cause against the other.

There wasn't much popular support for going to war in 'the west'. It happened as a result of imperialist arrogance on the part of Britain and France, and the presence of many admirers of the Soviet system in the ranks of the 'elites' of the US at that time.



The European #3s always did believe #1 and #2 to be two sides of the same coin (for example), fundamentally not different from one another, both casting man as homo-economicus and so on.

That's a phenomenon common in all the ideologies-during the Cold War Iran and other Islamic radicals considered the US and USSR to be '2 sides of the same coin' since neither were religious, many in conservative and libertarian movements consider communism and national socialism to be essentially the same thing, and the liberals/communists consider Ayn Rand, Adolf Hitler, and George Bush to all be part of 'the right wing'.