Zoney wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:34:16 -0800, the Epopt of
Boskone
<sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:
I would
imagine there are few who would directly equate the Nazi
regime with Soviet Russia.
I have to agree with Zoney here: few would consider them equivalent.
Soviet Russia was directly responsible for an order of magnitude more
deaths than the Nazis, and indirectly responsible for two orders of
magnitude more.
I do not doubt that assertion, but it's more to do with the specific
circumstances involved. Eastern Europe was mentioned. Well, the USSR
sure wanted to control those countries, but the complete eradication
of their peoples was not attempted (even if less "total" activities
were going on). I don't doubt many in Eastern Europe would not like to
see a hammer and sickle, but I don't think it's remotely comparable to
what the Swastika stands for to Jews.
And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the
US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
To say that it was the "USSR" that wanted to control those countries
suggests that you have ignored all history prior to 1917. Russia had
visions of pan-slavism long before that. The Soviet system became a
means to an end; it permitted a level of industrialization that was
previously inconceivable in Russia. It almost succeeded, leaving
Yugoslavia as the only slavic country that was never under Russian
control. The problem there was that Tito chose his own independent form
of communism, and Russia could no longer take it over without putting
itself in a contradiction.
The other thing that reading a little history will reveal is that
anti-semitism in Russia did not suddenly spring up in 1917.
Transferring that attitude to a symbol, and pretending it is brand new
is a gross misrepresentation of history. Symbols can be a magnifying
glass that focuses pre-existing tendencies in a society.
It is not unusual for politicians (in the broadest sense) to manipulate
symbols for their own purposes. The symbols don't do anything by
themselves. The swastika like its Christian ancestor in the Crusades
promoted and still does promote militancy, and that is probably what
makes it more hateful than the hammer and sickle which after all are
more keen on promoting hard work in the factory and farm respectively.
The neo-nazis don't want to relegate themselves into obscurity by
promoting hard work. The hammer and sickle represented a movement (at
least in theory) that would improve the life of the workers. The
swastika primarily grew out of resentment for the onerous reparations
imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. Berlin was one of the
great sin cities of the 1920s; in that context the Nazi Party could
promote itself and its Christian swastika as the defender of wholesome
family values.
Many of the Soviet and US crimes during WW2 were absolved because they
were both on the same winning side. The Dresden and Hiroshima massacres
were no less odious than anything the Nazis did, but I wouldn't class
them as "indirect", unless "indirect" includes dropping bombs on
people
that you can't see. "Indirect" might more appropriately include deaths
of children from inadequate medical care occasioned by sanctions against
any medical equipment that might even remotely be converted to military
purposes.
The United States manipulates symbols when it requires schoolchildren to
recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In that, The Flag is foremost, and
"the republic for which it stands" is only an afterthought. The entire
US national anthem is about the flag in battle, and the single phrase
"land of the free" doesn't show up until the last line. When you
succeed in making people believe in a symbol it is very easy to transfer
that belief into whatever you want that symbol to stand for.
Ec