jd-276
Is it insulting? Not to me. I get a little bit tired of the stuff about the commissars and shooting their own. Everyone knows it happened. That's why there were pro-Nazi Soviet citizens. Some even fought against their own countrymen (and women). I think they labour the point a bit though, which is counter productive.
"Everyone" is who? Did you ask every Soviet Veteran? I have the benefit of still having living Veterans in my family.
Now you tell me - what does the term "Commissar" mean when it applies to the Soviet Military of WW2? Because you obviously don't know.
You and many others have this absurd belief that besides those vaguely referred to as "Commissars" there is no other form of authority in the Soviet Military during WW2.
"Commissars" after 1940 were Officers in units from Battalion up to Field Army with ranks equal to Major up to Lieutenant General. They were Assistant Commanders, Staff Officers within the Command structure of a unit. Now what you are saying is that somebody with a rank of Major(in the lowest level) would have nothing better to do during the battle than to kill his own men!
Officers who held the position of Commissar within units were members of the Communist Party, they were expected to lead the way(always be in front), to inspire not terrorize.
As I have said many times before, that besides Commissars there were regular Officers. And their Ranks were identified with Insignia specific to their Rank(between 1940 and 1943 the insignia were different from those from 1943 until 1991).
During the Battle of Stalingrad the insignia(on the collar) were as follows:
Stripe(line) - Lance Corporal
Triangles for Sergeants.
Squares for Lieutenants.
1 Rectangle - Captain
2 Rectangles - Major
3 Rectangles - Lieutenant Colonel
4 Rectangles - Colonel
1 Diamond - Brigade Commissar(comparable to Brigadier General although the rank did not exist in the Soviet Military)
2 Stars - Major General
3 Stars - Lieutenant General
4 Stars - Colonel General
5 Stars - Army General
1 Large Star - Marshal
Examples:
Sergeant(2 Triangles - he was in the Mechanized Forces)
http://s48.radikal.ru/i120/0911/d3/92e42ecf3c11.jpgStarshina[Sergeant Major](4 Triangles - he was a Tank crew member)
http://s60.radikal.ru/i170/0911/de/16646ce3abc2.jpgSenior Lieutenant(3 Squares)
http://s49.radikal.ru/i123/0911/9e/ab3dc32a899d.jpgCaptain(1 Rectangle)
http://s53.radikal.ru/i140/0911/6f/99d08c71b005.jpgMajor(2 Rectangles)
http://i064.radikal.ru/0911/0b/b6f05d56ef0c.jpgColonel(4 Rectangles)
http://i070.radikal.ru/0911/c4/1fd345a16eca.jpgBrigade Commissar(1 Diamond)
http://s54.radikal.ru/i144/0911/18/3f5444bc6849.jpgLieutenant General(3 Stars - Vasily Chuikov Commander of the 62nd Army in Stalingrad)
http://i048.radikal.ru/0911/fe/4632736ad4e1.jpgBesides this there were ranks such as Military Technician 1st class, Military Doctor 3rd class, Technical Intendant 1st class, etc.
This is not the first time I have to explain this on this Forum.
Executions during WW2 on Soviet territory were carried out by the NKVD. The Internal Security Ministry of the Soviet Union that maintained enough Militarized formations to form an Army. It controlled units which would arrest suspicious persons as well as deserters. They only had the right to execute soldiers and officers suspected of treason or collaborating or sympathizing with the enemy.
During the time of the Battle of Stalingrad Security Units(Zagrad Otryadi) of the NKVD executed 278 persons in the region of the battle. They had detained 15 649 persons during the same period. During the War the NKVD Security Units held the role of Military Police on the Front-line and behind. In the area of Stalingrad these units were the 77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, and 81st NKVD Security Battalions(they fought against the Axis Forces when they entered the city).
As for "Pro-Nazi" citizens of the Soviet Union. The vast majority were in fact from the Baltics(where pro-German feelings had been high since WW1) or had fought against the Communist Government during the Russian Civil War. The "Russian Liberation Army" was formed by the Nazis using the principle "join or die", no doubt many "volunteers" were found this way. If you were taken prisoner by the Nazis I don't have the slightest doubt that choosing between life and death you would choose the 1st(Collaboration with the enemy).
Is it inaccurate? We don't know. We know who Zaitsev was and we know his rifle is still on display in a war museum. That's about it. There have been very few movies made for Western audiences which portray the Soviet soldier in this light. I think it's important for this reason alone and I welcome it.
Again who is "we". Just because YOU don't know does not mean the Veterans who fought in this battle don't know. They would not have written letters to the Russian Government to ban this film in Russia if they felt it was accurate. And Zaitsev died in 1991. He wrote a Book, and several Army Manuals for Snipers. He was educated(as an Accountant). He was a Non-Commissioned Officer in the Soviet Navy. His past as a Hunter was behind him by 1942 because he had not lived in the forests of central Russia for nearly a decade. Before joining the Navy he worked in the Industrial city of Magnitogorsk.
"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the Kalashnikov!"
reply
share
jd-276
15 years ago
GrafKalinoff:
I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clearer. I was not talking in absolute terms but in terms of what the film tells us. I would not profess to know what you have carefully explained. I am prepared to take responsibility for what errors I have made in a simple explanation of my point of view. However, in terms of what the film explains of the conflict in Stalingrad and also the detail of what you have provided, I frankly couldn't care less. I'm not interested in the accuracy of uniforms so you're wasting your time with that stuff. The bigger picture is more important.
You have also missed the point that I made about the conventional Western view of history that the commissars were shooting people. So that this statement:
"Now what you are saying is that somebody with a rank of Major(in the lowest level) would have nothing better to do during the battle than to kill his own men!"
is utterly pointless because it's most particularly what I'm
not saying. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to cast doubt on a lot of those preconceptions, in part because I'm sick to death of hearing them. Did you not get that bit? I may not have made a lot of things clear but I think I made that bit reasonably plain.
I know about the NKVD. They were active throughout the rear in WWII and, as I found out recently, in Spain.
"Again who is "we". Just because YOU don't know does not mean the Veterans who fought in this battle don't know. They would not have written letters to the Russian Government to ban this film in Russia if they felt it was accurate."
I was speaking rhetorically.
This was a Western movie made largely for Western audiences, a situation which invariably leads to me having problems with it. I have already read that Zaitsev was actually quite literate but the average person seeing this film cannot be reasonably expected to know and I think that is a flaw in the movie. We are not left with any conclusive evidence one way or the other as to Zaitsev's fate.
You're also making the mistake of viewing this as a history forum instead of a movie forum. I have already said that I view the bigger picture in a more favourable light than I do the minutiae of unit badges and gun calibres. The important part of this film for me was that it was a Western film which showed a Soviet soldier - however inaccurately - in a favourable light. On the other hand, I don't believe that movies should be inaccurate just because they're movies. I just think that an appropriate balance should be struck with the salient points and that the minutiae can for the most part look after itself.
If I want pure history with all the minutiae I'll read Glantz. He's good, albeit very dry.
reply
share