AHC: better behaved Red Army

[Ryker of Terra]

This morning I saw a thread on the AskHistorians subreddit about soldiers refusing to engage in rape during war, which made me think about the Red Army. Historically, the Red Army during WW2 was awful with the civilian populations of regions they'd liberated or "liberated", with Germany receiving the worst of it, but other places, like Poland and Yugoslavia, suffering too. There are many reasons for this, like the Nazi's own vile conduct in the war of annihilation on the Eastern Front (even worse than the Soviets', by some estimates), and the resulting dehumanization on both sides. The way I understand it, looting and rape were widespread among the Red Army, but not systematic as with the Nazis. Soviet command was ambivalent about the matter, with some commanders trying to prevent it while others turned a blind eye, including Stalin himself when the Yugoslavs complained about it. This was horrible from a human suffering perspective and plain bad PR for the communists. I have always wondered if there was any way to avert this, and what would be the result?

How might one go about achieving this? One of the comments in the thread mentioned a book called The Commander’s Dilemma by Amelia Hoover Green, in which she argues that the way to restrain military groups from excessive violence (looting, rape, etc.) is political education. Explain comprehensively to the soldiers why they fight and why they should act a certain way; treat civilians with dignity if not kindness. Given the presence of political commissars in Soviet military units, this seems like the perfect avenue to do just that. Maybe also impress the need for stricter discipline among the commanders as well, so they'd be more willing to publicly dole out punishment for misconduct?

ZincOxide's Stalin self-insert Red Star Ascendant over at the ASB section sort of has what I'm going for - Soviet forces treat German POWs according to the Geneva Convention and show much restraint in Germany compared to how the Nazis behaved in the USSR, and are generally seen by the occupied populace as cold, but not cruel. Maybe it's possible that Stalin takes an uncharacteristically far-sighted and sensitive-to-PR approach and does more than shrug when even allied communists are complaining to him that his men are behaving like animals?

I don't know, what do you think? Is it a realistic idea? Is it even possible? If the Red Army is better behaved, would there be any real changes to history?

NOTE: Nazi conduct in the USSR must remain unchanged from OTL.

 

[LeX]

Tough. About the best you might manage is to get the Red Army to commit fewer atrocities against liberated areas, but once they get to German territory itself then it will be hard to restrain the revenge-seeking Soviet soldiers.

More atrocities are committed in desperate or existential conflicts, of which the Eastern Front was a good example. Both sides treated the enemy and their people mercilessly for reasons that stemmed from deep within their respective ideologies and political systems.

You'd have to lower the stakes of the conflict significantly but the whole point of the war from the German perspective was to destroy Russia and enslave/exterminate its people, while the Soviets were trying to prevent this from happening while also imposing a proletarian dictatorship in the opposite direction.

One way I can see the Soviets' behavior being slightly less bad is if they suffer fewer casualties and lose less territory in 1941 and 1942. The Germans are stopped at Smolensk and Donbass and the tide turns in 1943; the USSR loses c. 10 million fewer people than OTL and everyone is less stressed. The Soviet leadership, optimistic that they have a good chance at spreading the revolution across Europe, give directives to maintain the discipline of the Red Army as they "liberate our foreign comrades." However, I cannot see the Kremlin feasibly extending this generosity to the German people, whose leaders started the war and will invariably remain the object of hatred until after they are defeated. Nor can I see the Soviet leadership being able to maintain such high standards across the whole Red Army, which has not been above indulging in rape, torture, and looting since the Russian Civil War.

 

[Kaiser of Brazil]

You really just need something to happen in Stalin's life that makes him want to lessen the scale of the Soviet "revenge". If he ordered the Soviet Commanders to rein in the troops, they would have simply because the entire staff was very well aware that Stalin had no qualms in executing the whole ranks of the Red Army if he did not have his way.

 

[Declan]

If I recall correctly, most witnesses agree that actual front line troops were the most behaved.
The trouble really started when the rear troops came after.

My best guess is for Stalin to be persuaded by communists from areas in the Red Armies path to limit the movement of rear troops to maintain the Soviet image.

 

[Lalli]

One issue is that Red Army was pretty effectively brutalised so they just felt that they have to do such horrible things. Some education methods even in modern Russian army are pretty horrible and probably just increase plausibility and will to commit horrible acts. So remove that thing. This not ensure 100% well-behaving Red Army but perhaps there is lesser atrocities and at least commanders are more willingful to intervene horrible things. But fact that nazis were even worse hardly helps much either. So on whatever reason Stalin should give outright order not rape civilians. But not really sure what would be that reason. Due humanitary reason is just too much out of character for him so it should be some cold-blooded pragmatic reason unless you want change Stalin completely and that Stalin would be very different human.

 

[Ryker of Terra]

Thanks for the comments, all.

If I recall correctly, most witnesses agree that actual front line troops were the most behaved.
The trouble really started when the rear troops came after.

I've heard much the same. Does anybody have any idea why this is? I would think the frontline troops would be under more stress than rear echelons and therefore more 'feral' and likely to lash out. Higher standards for discipline among active combat troops?

My best guess is for Stalin to be persuaded by communists from areas in the Red Armies path to limit the movement of rear troops to maintain the Soviet image.

How would that work? Frontline troops will move on with the front, rear troops will be needed to keep the peace in the rear.

You really just need something to happen in Stalin's life that makes him want to lessen the scale of the Soviet "revenge".

But what could that possibly be? He was not a merciful man by any means.

One way I can see the Soviets' behavior being slightly less bad is if they suffer fewer casualties and lose less territory in 1941 and 1942. The Germans are stopped at Smolensk and Donbass and the tide turns in 1943; the USSR loses c. 10 million fewer people than OTL and everyone is less stressed. The Soviet leadership, optimistic that they have a good chance at spreading the revolution across Europe, give directives to maintain the discipline of the Red Army as they "liberate our foreign comrades."

Without systemic changes or getting Stalin's head checked, this seems most realistic to me.

One issue is that Red Army was pretty effectively brutalised so they just felt that they have to do such horrible things. Some education methods even in modern Russian army are pretty horrible and probably just increase plausibility and will to commit horrible acts. So remove that thing. This not ensure 100% well-behaving Red Army but perhaps there is lesser atrocities and at least commanders are more willingful to intervene horrible things. But fact that nazis were even worse hardly helps much either. So on whatever reason Stalin should give outright order not rape civilians. But not really sure what would be that reason. Due humanitary reason is just too much out of character for him so it should be some cold-blooded pragmatic reason unless you want change Stalin completely and that Stalin would be very different human.

Changing the culture of the Red Army and getting rid of dedovshchina, then. I don't think it's a tall order if Soviet leadership actually cared to try, but they didn't care and I have no idea why or how to realistically change that.

 

[RedSword12]

Changing the culture of the Red Army and getting rid of dedovshchina, then. I don't think it's a tall order if Soviet leadership actually cared to try, but they didn't care and I have no idea why or how to realistically change that.

Dedovshchina was a later feature in the late Soviet era, which became prevalent after change in conscription practices. The fundamental problem in WWII was that anti-German propaganda, and the very real German atrocities they witnessed firsthand, made it seem morally acceptable to commit atrocities in turn, and the permissive attitude of Stalin further enabled things to get out of hand.

We can look at the Wehrmacht to see how a military can quickly go off the deep end. After limited atrocities in Poland and France, it completely went off the rails during Operation Barbarossa. Why? Because of all the racial propaganda they had been fed, and especially because it had been made clear that atrocities would now going forward be accepted by their superiors. The latter was more important, I would argue.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

If I recall correctly, most witnesses agree that actual front line troops were the most behaved.
The trouble really started when the rear troops came after.

Not uncommon in most armies. The combat soldier have their problems, but are less interested in rape and looting. The service units tend to have the leasure to pillage.

 

[Ryker of Terra]

Dedovshchina was a later feature in the late Soviet era, which became prevalent after change in conscription practices. The fundamental problem in WWII was that anti-German propaganda, and the very real German atrocities they witnessed firsthand, made it seem morally acceptable to commit atrocities in turn, and the permissive attitude of Stalin further enabled things to get out of hand.

Then we go back to the the necessity of convincing Stalin to take a different approach. But how?

Not uncommon in most armies. The combat soldier have their problems, but are less interested in rape and looting. The service units tend to have the leasure to pillage.

That's interesting, do you know any sources, books or articles I could read about this phenomenon?

 

[Sekhmet_D]

I've heard much the same. Does anybody have any idea why this is? I would think the frontline troops would be under more stress than rear echelons and therefore more 'feral' and likely to lash out. Higher standards for discipline among active combat troops?

It doesn't require a big leap of logic. More stress = more focus on survival = less inclination to think about carnal desires. I know that if I were faced with life and death situations on an hourly basis, I might not even be capable of having an erection under such conditions.

 

[RedSword12]

I've heard much the same. Does anybody have any idea why this is? I would think the frontline troops would be under more stress than rear echelons and therefore more 'feral' and likely to lash out. Higher standards for discipline among active combat troops?

It's because frontline units faced greater consequences for breaches in discipline, so their commanding officers were well-motivated to keep them in line. Rear-echelon units tasked with noncombat functions could expose themselves without inviting their own destruction.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

That's interesting, do you know any sources, books or articles I could read about this phenomenon?

Not specifically. I'm depending on assorted magazine article, school studies = student papers from the US Army. Staff & Command College. There my personal observations in my military career.

 

[Sam R.]

I would think the frontline troops would be under more stress than rear echelons and therefore more 'feral' and likely to lash out. Higher standards for discipline among active combat troops?

And too fucking tired. Rear troops haven’t seen their blood and the blood of the men they have killed and thus have a guilt that seeks to be expunged.

it completely went off the rails during Operation Barbarossa. Why?

The book ordinary men is the standard reference.

That's interesting, do you know any sources, books or articles I could read about this phenomenon?

On killing and it’s bibliography.

For US pacific forces front line troops traded trophies in order to get drunk.

A 1944 where excessive Soviet advances doesn’t reduce troop quality is a good start.

 

[BeardedHoplite]

Very difficult since the fury that was unleashed on the German populace was a direct result of the German army and government's genocidal plans for the East. Horrible, of course, but it's a clear cause and effect.

To truly change it you would need to reduce the amount of brutality that the Germans unleashed upon Eastern Europe. And if you change that then you fundamentally don't have a Nazi regime and thus, no Eastern front.

 

[Crueldwarf]

You really just need something to happen in Stalin's life that makes him want to lessen the scale of the Soviet "revenge". If he ordered the Soviet Commanders to rein in the troops, they would have simply because the entire staff was very well aware that Stalin had no qualms in executing the whole ranks of the Red Army if he did not have his way.

Stalin did exactly that. There is no indication that Stalin ever wanted 'to exact revenge' or somehow encouraged such behaviors or gave orders to military leadership to not react. While the orders to do the exact opposite actually exist and documented to be enforced. There are military tribunal records of people being shot for violence towards civilians both in liberated countries and in Germany proper.

So the issue is really not about Stalin. It is just another example of Western historiography and popular media trying to reduce everything to decisions and character of few 'Great Men' instead of doing complicated societal analysis for the reasons behind behaviors of the masses.

Secondary issue there is that the whole topic is one giant mess of propaganda piled onto each other to a point that you cannot say anything actually reliable beyond 'Red Army committed rape and pillage at rates maybe higher than average for the armies on the Allied side'. At first it was Hitler's very regime attempts to drum up the civil resistance to the enemy and compliance towards the state via concentrated propaganda effort (and it is not like Nazis were trying to manufacture atrocities to blame on the other side for the first time in 1945, they were doing that from the very beginning of the war) and then was a double whammy of the Cold War need to rehabilitate parts of the former Nazi leadership and this leadership direct participation in that effort. It muddled the whole issue even further.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: it doesn't mean that the Red Army was at the best behavior in Germany and other areas. It definitely wasn't. It is just extent of that is very much unknown to this day and most of the scholarly or popular works on that topic aren't great.

My usual example of that is the figure that Beevor (and some other who get it from him) uses for the extent of rape in Berlin from April 1945 through the first summer of the occupation comes from a book that makes a very suspect calculation of using abortion statistics of one clinic in Berlin during 1945-46 with an assumption that every single aborted child with an unknown parent or if male parent was established as a Russian was a result of rape by a Soviet soldier (which is not a given because Nazi state spent a lot of time and effort to discourage abortions among proper Germans) and then extrapolated that figure on the entire city population. Beevor either didn't check the math or didn't care to check and popularized it as the result. Original German work was fairly obscure and probably mostly unknown beyond West Germany at that point in time.

As for the OP question: you need more disciplined troops more or less. The primary issue here - at least I think so - is rolling mobilization practices that the Red Army enforced during the advance to the West. As the result a lot of people were enlisted in the Red Army that had very limited military training to a point when a lot of them were learning the craft right on the job in the unit instead of training camp. Combination of basically forced conscription with non-existent training is exactly what encourages criminal practices inside a military unit the most.

If you centralize the mobilization on the liberated areas of the Soviet Union it would probably curtail the worst of the behaviors. But it would result in slower operational tempo as fronts and armies would be unable to 'recoup' their losses immediately on the ground. If you want to blame Stalin for something, he is definitely to blame for that.

 

[RedSword12]

Stalin did exactly that. There is no indication that Stalin ever wanted 'to exact revenge' or somehow encouraged such behaviors or gave orders to military leadership to not react. While the orders to do the exact opposite actually exist and documented to be enforced. There are military tribunal records of people being shot for violence towards civilians both in liberated countries and in Germany proper.

So the issue is really not about Stalin. It is just another example of Western historiography and popular media trying to reduce everything to decisions and character of few 'Great Men' instead of doing complicated societal analysis for the reasons behind behaviors of the masses.

When Yugoslav delegates complained about Red Army atrocities in Yugoslavia, he told them the soldiers needed their fun. Moreover, as head of the Soviet Union, and a micromanager at that, he bears considerable responsibility for the dehumanizing propaganda pumped out by Soviet media that helped prime Soviet soldiers to behave badly. While he reigned things, it was neither timely nor as extensive as it should have been.

 

[Crueldwarf]

When Yugoslav delegates complained about Red Army atrocities in Yugoslavia, he told them the soldiers needed their fun.

Does it come from Tito after Yugoslav-Soviet split? I very much doubt that Stalin would have said something like that. It is just stupid mustache twirling villain shit.

Moreover, as head of the Soviet Union, and a micromanager at that,

It is another fine example of memetic Stalin being quite different from the real one. Stalin was many things but definitely not a micromanager.

Moreover, as head of the Soviet Union, and a micromanager at that, he bears considerable responsibility for the dehumanizing propaganda pumped out by Soviet media that helped prime Soviet soldiers to behave badly.

But what if we look at what Stalin actually said and wrote on the subject?

"...It is sometimes said in the foreign press that the Red Army has as its aim to exterminate the German people and destroy the German state. This, of course, is foolish nonsense and an unintelligent slander against the Red Army. The Red Army does not and cannot have such idiotic goals. The Red Army has as its goal to expel the German invaders from our country and to liberate the Soviet land from the Nazi invaders. It is very likely that the war to liberate Soviet soil will lead to the expulsion or destruction of the Hitler clique. We would welcome such an outcome. But it would be ridiculous to identify the Hitler clique with the German people, with the German state. The experience of history tells us that hitlers come and go, but the German people and the German state remain."

and from a different speech:

"...We have no such task as to destroy Germany, because it is impossible to destroy Germany, just as it is impossible to destroy Russia. But it is possible and must be possible to destroy Hitler's state.
Our first task is to destroy Hitler's state and its inspirers...Our second task is to destroy Hitler's army and its leaders...Our third task is to destroy the hated “new order in Europe” and punish its builders. These are our tasks."

And as far as dehumanization of the Germans in the eyes of the Soviet peoples goes, it is ridiculous to ascribe it to Stalin's doing. Germans did that themselves. You shouldn't really over-estimate the degree of control Stalin had over the emotional state of the Soviet citizenry.

 

[RedSword12]

Does it come from Tito after Yugoslav-Soviet split? I very much doubt that Stalin would have said something like that. It is just stupid mustache twirling villain shit.

This was hardly an isolated case, and no, it was before the Tito-Stalin Schism. What we do know is that Stalin was slow to do anything about Red Army atrocities, and we shouldn't read those belated responses as proactive efforts.

It is another fine example of memetic Stalin being quite different from the real one. Stalin was many things but definitely not a micromanager.

The backlash against so-called "great man history" has swung too far. Some rulers genuinely wielded an absurd amount of oversight over proceedings in their states, and Stalin was one of them.

But what if we look at what Stalin actually said and wrote on the subject?

"...It is sometimes said in the foreign press that the Red Army has as its aim to exterminate the German people and destroy the German state. This, of course, is foolish nonsense and an unintelligent slander against the Red Army. The Red Army does not and cannot have such idiotic goals. The Red Army has as its goal to expel the German invaders from our country and to liberate the Soviet land from the Nazi invaders. It is very likely that the war to liberate Soviet soil will lead to the expulsion or destruction of the Hitler clique. We would welcome such an outcome. But it would be ridiculous to identify the Hitler clique with the German people, with the German state. The experience of history tells us that hitlers come and go, but the German people and the German state remain."

and from a different speech:

"...We have no such task as to destroy Germany, because it is impossible to destroy Germany, just as it is impossible to destroy Russia. But it is possible and must be possible to destroy Hitler's state.
Our first task is to destroy Hitler's state and its inspirers...Our second task is to destroy Hitler's army and its leaders...Our third task is to destroy the hated “new order in Europe” and punish its builders. These are our tasks."

Speeches are speeches, and he was stating a political platform, not giving a guideline for troop behavior. Whatever Stalin said at times, Soviet columnists in state publications wrote things like, "Kill the Germans, wherever you find them! Every German is our moral enemy! Have no mercy on the women, children, or the aged! Kill every German--wipe them out!"
And no, I'm not buying that Stalin had no idea this was occurring. He was highly involved in the day-to-day running of his empire, down to personally reviewing new works of literature to see if they were conformist enough to be permitted.

 

[Crueldwarf]

The backlash against so-called "great man history" has swung too far. Some rulers genuinely wielded an absurd amount of oversight over proceedings in their states, and Stalin was one of them.

Stalin indeed wielded an absurd amount of power personally. He just used this power not to control what other people do. He used that power to appoint people who did things for him. Stalin was almost a definition of macro-managing dictator.

Speeches are speeches. Whatever Stalin said at times, Soviet columnists in state publications wrote things like, "Kill the Germans, wherever you find them! Every German is our moral enemy! Have no mercy on the women, children, or the aged! Kill every German--wipe them out!"

Yeah, this particular piece belongs to Ilya Erenburg, not Stalin. And can you really blame a Jew for writing something like that during the war? Erenburg even got himself in a bit of a hot water late in the war after his tacit refusal to tone down the rhetoric to the acceptable level.

And no, I'm not buying that Stalin had no idea this was occurring.

He definitely knew about it. I just have no idea what you think he should have done about it. Do you think that he could tell people to shove it and stop feeling the righteous anger and stuff? You really overestimate the degree of control Stalin had. He wasn't Sauron. He was a man.

 

[Crueldwarf]

Also this Erenburg quote was looking weird to me, so I decided to look for the original article. It actually doesn't have anything like that. There is a direct translation of the piece:

We know everything. We remember everything. We realized: Germans are not human beings. From now on, the word “German” is our worst curse. From now on, the word “German” triggers the gun. We will not speak. We will not resent it. We will kill. If you haven't killed at least one German in a day, your day is lost. If you think your neighbor will kill a German for you, you don't understand the threat. If you don't kill a German, the German will kill you. He will take your loved ones and torture them in his bloody Germany. If you can't kill a German with a bullet, kill a German with a bayonet. If there is a lull in your area, if you are waiting for a battle, kill the German before the battle. If you let a German live, the German will hang a Russian man and dishonor a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another - nothing is more fun for us than German corpses. Don't count the days. Don't count the miles. Count one thing: the Germans you've killed. Kill a German! - That's the old woman's mother's plea. Kill the German! - That's the child's plea. Kill the German! - That's the cry of the native land. Don't miss. Don't hesitate. Kill him!”

The article lacks "Have no mercy on the women, children, or the aged! Kill every German--wipe them out!" slant altogether. I think this English quote that crops up everywhere also comes from good ole dr. Goebbels efforts. Can you find any that is attributed beyond 'it is something that Ilya Erenburg wrote somewhere'?