The myths of WWII (Eastern Europe)

In general not too much is known about "Slavs" prior to around 900AD. Genetics have shown that "Northern" Russians are very close to Belorussians and Ukranians. I have a problem with the Mongol assessment to a degree because the Mongols never went into the North. Novgorod and the surrounding regions were never touched. It was the same Novgorod which the Vikings AKA "Varangians" settled in in 862.

While very interesting gentlemen lets not move too far away from the subject at hand. We hit the Eastern Europe part, now lets go for WW2.

 

Ferguson :

 

One of the main of reason is the lack of strategic oversight of the OKW and Hitler.Both expected that the Soviet Union would fall like France.When Barbarossa was launched, the German Wehrmacht was sent without a strategic goal.Both the Hitler and the army didn't come to an agreement,how to defeat the Ruskis partner.One was to first capture Stalingrad and Leningrad,while the other option was to capture Moscow.

 

Stalingrad Germany's main target?

 

So sorry, if I (accidentally) hurt your feelings...

It is great to notice, that you read my posts carefully - but this time maybe a bit too carefully, because you see things which are not there. Since English is not my native language I do make mistakes, which I apologize. There is no specific reason for not capitalizing the word "Slavic". There are few words, which I intentionally do not capitalize, but "Slavic" is not one of them. I try to correct my spelling in the future...

"Another myth"? I have seen several of them here, but I am not the one posting them.

FinnoUgrians

"After 10,000 BC a new age started...Many FinnoUgrians however adopted to smaller game, fishing, and food plant gathering, requiring more intensive hunting and fishing to survive. The Finno Ugrians were a highly mobile boat nomads, which became differentiated in language by the major water systems that they inhabited in northern Europe, from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and spreading toward the Ural Mountains and beyond."

Baltic Finns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Baltic Finns[SUP][1][/SUP] are a historical linguistic group of peoples of northern Europe whose modern descendants include the Finns proper, Karelians (including Ludes and Olonets), Izhorians, Veps, Votes, Livonians and Estonians[SUP][2][/SUP] who speak Baltic-Finnic languages and have inhabited the Baltic Sea region for 3,000 years according to one theory, or up to ten thousand years according to another theory.Templaterof. Kalevi Wiik: Suomalaisten juuret, 2004"

Volga Finns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Google-kuvahaun tulos kohteessa http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Finn4.jpg

See e.g. the maps from the 9th century:

"Approximate ethno-linguistic map of European Russia in the 9th century: The five Volga Finnic groups of the Merya, Mari, Muromians, Meshchera and Mordvins are shown as surrounded by the Slavs to the west, the (Finnic) Veps to the northwest, the Permians to the northeast the (Turkic) Bulghars and Khazars to the southeast and south."

The Evolution of the Indo-European Languages
[h=3]"c. 1500 bc.[/h]The Balto-Slavics differentiate into Baltic and Slavic. Both begin to expand east- and northward, at the expense of the hunter-gatherer Finno-Ugric people."

See the first map. Do you REALLY need to ask me this kind of basic question...?!

Indo-European Migrations and Aryan Invasions of India (maps and PDF)

Not from "nothing". As we (should) know, the word "Rus" came with the Varyagians from Roslagen ("Sweden"), who came to rule the Slavic/Finnic tribes in nowadays Western Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.

 

Yes, Finns (as such) originate from Finland and Russians from Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine. Slavs however, as a language group, do not originate from Russia.

See my earlier post...

 

But of course he does...!

I really must have touched a nerve...

 

The Slavs (the language group) came from somewhere around Belorussia/Western Ukraine/Eastern Poland. Before that the Indo-Europeans came from further south. There is no genetical "Slavic race".

I was speaking of Russians today. Of course the Mongol influence was less in the North. Russians today, and their genes, have moved/have been moved all around the country.

So sorry for side tracking. I never intended to start any lengthy side discussion.

 

@karjala

I belong to even smaller nation than yours and my nation gained independence recently. We have “lost” many territories too; people were expulsed and either Germanized or Hungarized. The “Lost” countrymen now live as foreign citizens and majority of them have assimilated. That’s the way it is and I cannot do anything about it. Simply, some of my former countrymen live over the border and have different nationality.

Are the events from history good reasons to dislike or disrespect certain ethnicities? Are the conflicts from the past good reasons to hate certain ethnic groups? Is it worthy to use each and every opportunity to talk about the “injustices” from the past?

I am a positive person and have many friends over the border too: Austrians, Germans, Hungarians and Italians. I am related to a German family. I am happy that I can share positive emotions with that entire people.

The most of Karelia (Fin.: Karjala) is today a legitimate part of the Russian federation and you cannot do anything to change that.

Think about that and reconsider your persistent bit...ng about the Russians.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I think "language groups" may be missing the point. Romanians speak a version of Latin because they were under Roman rule for a long period and adopted the language. It doesn't change their genealogy or ethnic identity. The Roman "people" are still in Italy, speaking another language. The same could be said for Scots, Welsh and Irish who are still Celts even though they speak English. Of course, the English are also Celts who adopted a Germanic language because of invasion from Germanic peoples. Do we need to go into the Apaches and Lakota, also English speakers...?

When one nation takes over another (or one tribe takes the land of another), it doesn't mean the conquered people cease to exist, they just adopt the language of the new ruling class because it is essential for trade and general economic success. And the majority of the conquering people don't move into the new region, they stay at home in their ancestral land and until conquered by somebody else and adopting yet another language. Tracing the movement of a language doesn't trace the movement of a people.

 

Hmm in some parts a interesting explanation of some ethnic groups. But i think they aren´t really helpful to the topic if used in a way they were at some passges. I hope i haven´t hurt anyones feelings now, but this is my opinion.
And definately No, Stalingrad wasn´t a main target at the German plannings for Russia. It became a interesting point to Hitler as it comes in sight but not from the beginning of Barbarossa.

 

All very true and I agree fully - although I think the English have also quite a bit of Anglian, Saxon, Danish and Norwegian "blood" in them.

One needs to be aware, that linguistics and genetics are not the same thing. Usually people belonging to the same language group are also genetically relatively close - but not always. Similarily people speaking very different languages are often also genetically a bit further away - but not necessarily. It can sometimes be confusing, when terms are used, which actually mean something else.

E.g. the "Slavic people" actually only means people, who speak Slavic languages. There is no specific "Slavic race" - nor Germanic or Jewish races in genetical sense.

The traces of languages and people (genetics) can be similar - or not.

 

When it comes to Macedonians it is common fact that Macedonians have small percentage of Slavic blood compared to Serbs ,since the area was settled by tribes of different background.The Slavic tribes that settled into Macedonia were called by the Byzantines Sklavenoi,since it was a alliance of different Slavic tribes.Other tribes that settled into Macedonia were the Kumans, Antai,Pechengezi,Saxons commonly refered as Sasa`s,later came the Cherkezi,Moesi,Onoguhar Bulgars,Greeks,Serbian and Croat tribes,Avars,Roman tribes today known as Vlach. That is the ethnic mix that the current Macedonians have.The French apparently have a mixed fruit salad called Macedonie.

 

Maybe you are a bit oversensitive and (want to?) read (again) something in my post, which is not there.

Although I am first to admit, that I indeed dislike communism/militaristic imperialism and people, who support it - whether today or in the past - my dislike does not automatically reach to any nationality nor ethnic group. How could I, since e.g. in the WW2 there were also ethnic (White) Russians fighting in the Finnish army - and Finnish communists (and forced Finnic minorities) in the soviet army?

Of course one cannot deny the fact that often the communist/militaristic imperialism sympathizers are indeed Russians - but not always. They can be e.g. Finnish as well. Also many Russians are anti-communists/imperialists too.

No - events of history are no good reasons to dislike or disrespect anybody. Some views of history/present some individual people have and manifest on the other hand are. I hope you can see the difference - as I most definitely do.

Although there are certainly some similarities between the histories of your nation (I'm not absolutely sure which one it is...) and mine, there are also many differencies, which you don't seem to realise. If you are interested you could do some further reading.

I see this forum as a place to recieve and share different information. The events and point of views of bigger nations are well known and presented everywhere - including here. I see no harm or problem sharing some angles of thoughts - not to mention the pure facts - of one of the smaller nations. I am sorry (for you) if you don't like it.

You seem to have a different idea of "legitimacy" than I do. A crime is a crime, a murder is a murder, a robbery is a robbery and a criminal dictatorship is a criminal dictatorship. I cannot see any reason why I should call any of them by some different name.

My thinking is very different: everybody can and should do their bit, however small, to change the injusticies of the world. Miracles can happen - and do! Who could have thought in the 80's, that SU would collaps totally and Germany would unite in couple of years - at least not me!

I cannot recall when I had been "bit...ng about the Russians". Correcting some false beliefs is definitely not it.

Maybe you could do some thinking and reconsider something...?

 

The biggest fallacy of the article is that everybody is overemphasizing the vastness of Russia, and the climate when according to what I believe the biggest blunder is the fact that there was no strategic objective.You are right as Guderian would state in his memories the momentum of the campaign was lost when Army Group Center which reached Moscow,to divert and to be sent to the Ukraine.By doing that the Wehrmacht was forced to refight and lose time,soldiers on the trek back to Moscow.It is my belief that the Russian victory has been to overemphasized,when the both sides faced the same leadership problems, for example Stalin purged the army in the beginning before the war and Hitler followed suit with the creation of the SS units,and with the distrust towards the Wehrmacht.

 

The whole purpose was to get the resources. Despite the claims the Germans could not have reached Moscow before the mud came and the weather and German weakness would make an attack on Moscow very difficult. Also it was Marks and Paulus who planned the operation who foresaw the need for a turn south. So it was not Hitler who changed the objectives, becasue the German army did not have the means to cover the area that it had to.

 

Are we? I suspect if they could have just attacked Russia they might have won. Instead they spent a fair amount of effort elsewhere.

 

If Russia was not so vast they woul;d have been beaten. It was the vastness that was one of the critical factors

 

Or not. If the German army had started out on the Russian border Moscow would likely have fallen by the end of August. The "vastness" of easter Russia was of little import.

 

Germany was successfull with countries the size of France. Had Russia been of equal size she would have fallen. The size of Russia IMO is of extreme importance. It was the vastness of the Soviet Union which allowed the Red Army to withdraw to what in comparison to Western armies may be considered infinite borders (Von Leebs pursuit on the Leningrad front).

After the industry was moved to the Urals, "Eastern Russia" became far more valuable. Had Moscow been taken in August (not sure how) this would not have changed Russias industrial progress nor her reserves. The Germans on the other hand would had to deal with far longer supply lines and IMO larger caualties than she had historically suffered.


Had Germany attacked just Russia I fail to see how this would have changed the outcome.