Why not the wikipedia article? It cites statistics and primary sources.
Their job was to gather troops from shattered divisions so they could be reformed, and arrest ones who were refusing to fight so they could be tried later.
Or the hundreds of history books it is written in, I don’t know what your recent iteration of Wikipedia says, But that has been the history, you are the first person I have ever heard challenging it. If that is something that you got off of a recent Wikipedia edit, I would not be surprised there is some new form of revisionism going on.
The Soviet blocking detachments were not as brutal as they are made to be in popular media. Rank and file soldiers were not shot themselves, it is the commanding officer of the retreating units who was punished instead. Massacring entire retreating units only occur rarely, if ever. I believe one such incident that happened during the Battle of Stalingrad was noted but exaggerated for propaganda effect.
I would not be surprised there is some new form of revisionism going on.
The term revisionism geta a bad rap for understandable reasons, but revising history is standard procedure in academia provided there is a strong evidence that changes previous beliefs. I think we should revise the term revisionism to remove the negative connotation, and instead refer to bad faith revisionism as distortionism.
I will take your revised history under consideration, I read about this in history books so that consideration means little to me given all of the other revisionist history I have seen like rehabilitating history’s worst monsters rehabilitating feudalism.
Often for wealthy benefactors with an ax to grind or paying academics to prove over and over that the New Deal made things worse are you okay? Intellectual looking front that lawmakers can wave around when making changes after they are paid to do so.
Reality is under assault from every angle and reality is losing.
Communism is dead and the right is winning the current cultural zeitgeist. There is hardly any rich people incentive to downplay communism lol (supporting communism is antithesis for the rich).
If you say you have read what you say in history books, the information is probably outdated. Like the other person mentioned, a lot of the accounts about the Soviets during WWII was from German generals, who were looking for any reasons to blame on why they lost instead of taking responsibility, like saying the Soviet horde fought without regard to the lives of their soldiers. But if you read about the Red Army deep battle doctrine, the Soviets were clearly militarily superior than the Germans. The Soviets knew they have the numbers and resource advantage, but to use it wisely to achieve quick and decisive victory is what they were trying to do. If the Soviets simply threw numbers against the Germans to win, they would have only repeated the experience in Winter War of sluggish advance, or what is happening to Russia in Ukraine right now.
It was when the Soviet archives were opened after the fall of communism, that outside historians finally gained access to first hand information. Many accounts about the Soviets were true, but exaggerated by outsiders who didn’t understand the perspective of the Soviets because they did not have access to information before. I suggest you read on Colonel David Glantz’ books on WWII Soviet histography as he is the leading expert on the topic, because he has access to the Soviet archives.
Why not the wikipedia article? It cites statistics and primary sources.
Their job was to gather troops from shattered divisions so they could be reformed, and arrest ones who were refusing to fight so they could be tried later.
Or the hundreds of history books it is written in, I don’t know what your recent iteration of Wikipedia says, But that has been the history, you are the first person I have ever heard challenging it. If that is something that you got off of a recent Wikipedia edit, I would not be surprised there is some new form of revisionism going on.
The Soviet blocking detachments were not as brutal as they are made to be in popular media. Rank and file soldiers were not shot themselves, it is the commanding officer of the retreating units who was punished instead. Massacring entire retreating units only occur rarely, if ever. I believe one such incident that happened during the Battle of Stalingrad was noted but exaggerated for propaganda effect.
The term revisionism geta a bad rap for understandable reasons, but revising history is standard procedure in academia provided there is a strong evidence that changes previous beliefs. I think we should revise the term revisionism to remove the negative connotation, and instead refer to bad faith revisionism as distortionism.
I will take your revised history under consideration, I read about this in history books so that consideration means little to me given all of the other revisionist history I have seen like rehabilitating history’s worst monsters rehabilitating feudalism.
Often for wealthy benefactors with an ax to grind or paying academics to prove over and over that the New Deal made things worse are you okay? Intellectual looking front that lawmakers can wave around when making changes after they are paid to do so.
Reality is under assault from every angle and reality is losing.
Communism is dead and the right is winning the current cultural zeitgeist. There is hardly any rich people incentive to downplay communism lol (supporting communism is antithesis for the rich).
If you say you have read what you say in history books, the information is probably outdated. Like the other person mentioned, a lot of the accounts about the Soviets during WWII was from German generals, who were looking for any reasons to blame on why they lost instead of taking responsibility, like saying the Soviet horde fought without regard to the lives of their soldiers. But if you read about the Red Army deep battle doctrine, the Soviets were clearly militarily superior than the Germans. The Soviets knew they have the numbers and resource advantage, but to use it wisely to achieve quick and decisive victory is what they were trying to do. If the Soviets simply threw numbers against the Germans to win, they would have only repeated the experience in Winter War of sluggish advance, or what is happening to Russia in Ukraine right now.
It was when the Soviet archives were opened after the fall of communism, that outside historians finally gained access to first hand information. Many accounts about the Soviets were true, but exaggerated by outsiders who didn’t understand the perspective of the Soviets because they did not have access to information before. I suggest you read on Colonel David Glantz’ books on WWII Soviet histography as he is the leading expert on the topic, because he has access to the Soviet archives.