02-20-2008, 02:07 AM
Re-Tsarification (great phrase!) is a misinterpretation of the development of the Red Army during the war. Just as the creation of the Continental Army in 1775 was not a “re-Monarchization” of the colonies, the successful professionalising of the Red Army during the war was not a reintroduction of Tsarist beliefs.
Socialist theory and practice of war, as defined by the political heads of the Soviet Union, simply proved inadequate on the battlefield. After a year of war this was obvious, and Stalin was smart enough to see it. Falling back on hierarchy, unitary command, and regalia introduced accountability, initiative and recognition into the military. (Much more significant than the introduction of uniforms and medals was the removal of the political officers, the Commissars, from the chain of command in October, 1942.) Professional militaries usually have a great store of tradition, military – not political – tradition. (Look at the battle honors of an English Regiment, then try to tell who was in power/office during each of the battles/campaigns commemorated. You most often can’t, and it's irrelevant to the honor of the regiment in any case.) This was lacking in the Red Army, and reintroduced using the only traditions that would resonate – those of great military commanders of the past.
In short, starting in 1942/43 the state simply gave the military professionalism as a military. Part of this was to give it the trappings and structure of a professional military, rather than a “revolutionary army.” To a romantic this might appear as some sort harking back to Tsarism and “betrayal” of socialism. But it’s a betrayal only in so far as it acknowledged reality and by extension admitted the unreality of an effective yet non-hierarchical, egalitarian, truly “socialist” military in the modern age.
Socialist theory and practice of war, as defined by the political heads of the Soviet Union, simply proved inadequate on the battlefield. After a year of war this was obvious, and Stalin was smart enough to see it. Falling back on hierarchy, unitary command, and regalia introduced accountability, initiative and recognition into the military. (Much more significant than the introduction of uniforms and medals was the removal of the political officers, the Commissars, from the chain of command in October, 1942.) Professional militaries usually have a great store of tradition, military – not political – tradition. (Look at the battle honors of an English Regiment, then try to tell who was in power/office during each of the battles/campaigns commemorated. You most often can’t, and it's irrelevant to the honor of the regiment in any case.) This was lacking in the Red Army, and reintroduced using the only traditions that would resonate – those of great military commanders of the past.
In short, starting in 1942/43 the state simply gave the military professionalism as a military. Part of this was to give it the trappings and structure of a professional military, rather than a “revolutionary army.” To a romantic this might appear as some sort harking back to Tsarism and “betrayal” of socialism. But it’s a betrayal only in so far as it acknowledged reality and by extension admitted the unreality of an effective yet non-hierarchical, egalitarian, truly “socialist” military in the modern age.
Steiner: "Why do you want it so badly? It's just a worthless piece of metal. Look."
