[WikiEN-l] Re: new user

Tue Feb 15 20:06:06 UTC 2005

Zoney wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:34:16 -0800, the Epopt of Boskone
><sean at 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