To Miko and others:
After reading many Western sources that opened to us since "destroyka" (Many Western sources were published in USSR since 50s, and not only pro-Soviet ones, but tell me any Soviet history books published in, say, US of NA), I finaly got f#$king tired of brainwashing. 90% of "historians" are barely literate. All they do is follow the "party line", drawn in late-40s, and absolutely parallel to Goebbels's stream of roadkill. They only switched the "Jewish question" 180 degrees opposite: Goebbels said all bolsheviks are Jews or Jewish servants, while post-war Western propaganda exploits so-called "antisemitism" of Stalin's regime. Everything else is 99.99% the same.
After understanding this I finaly made a decision to protect my weak mind. If I see two opposite opinions on any historical event - I choose the Soviet one, wasting the works of dr. Goebbels's inheritors right into the toilet and flushing water.
The article posted by Hortlund is an obvious roadkill. No documents, no witnesses, nothing. Only a figment of an ill imagination, stimulated by money from the most democratic of all democracies. All my experience with GPW vets is against this hallucination. Everyone says they were frustrated and angry, but too afraid to risk their lives when the war was almost over.
Curval, please show me a direction where to look. All I see is "the grand-aunt of my my wife's cousin-in-law was raped by a crowd of yellow-faced, narrow-eyed Russians with their machine-guns, horses, tanks and longbows".
Yes, nazis were bringing culture and civilisation to endless steppes of Belorussia and moist Kazakh forests, to save poor Europe from that cruel Estonian cavalrymen on shaggy mounts and blonde Kalmyk fishermen with their carved harpoons. They almost saved Europeans from eating borsch every day (c) Grunherz.
Countess Grishka was drinking vodka from a samovar under a shady cranberry tree.
