Soviet War Crimes? [Archive]

JAR

12th October 2003, 08:20 PM

Stalin committed war crimes against his own people during World War II.

According to page 449 of the book "Mao: A Life" by Philip Short, Krushchev said on February 25, 1956 that Stalin's "military genius" brought Russia to the verge of defeat by Germany. The Germans had a failed attempt to capture Moscow in 1941. I think that's what Krushchev was talking about.

According to page 475 of Edvard Radzinsky's book "Stalin", during WWII, Stalin made a decree that "all service personnel taken prisoner are declared outside the law and their families are subject to punishment" and further decreed that "men who find themselves surrounded must fight to the last, try to break out and join their own side, while those who choose to surrender are to be destroyed by any means possible, and the families of Red army men who surrender are to be deprived of state grants and assistance."

According to page 403 of "Enemy at the Gates: The Battle of Stalingrad" by William Craig, after the war was over, many Russians who were tooken prisoner by the Axis Powers chose not to go home to Russia because they feared reprisals from suspicious Kremlin leaders and thousands who did choose to go back were executed or served prison terms for various misdeeds, real or imagined: collaboration, dereliction of duty in the field, or simply contamination by Western Ideas.

What was particularly ridiculous was Stalin's "scorched earth" policy which included evacuating people from areas that the enemy was going to occupy and destroying anything that could not be taken that could be used by the enemy. While this guaranteed that the enemy wouldn't gain anything from territories gained, it also guaranteed that the Soviet Union wouldn't gain anything from territories regained.

According to page 91 of the book "Russia in Revolution" by E.M. Halliday, during WWI, Russia's "scorched earth" policy resulted in many people dying of hunger, exposure, and disease, and also led to a shortage of foodstuffs in Russia, and an increase in the cost of living. When it caused such misery during WWI, the fact that Stalin decided to use it during WWII shows how little he worried about lessening misery.

Malachi151

12th October 2003, 08:57 PM

Umm.. as far as the Soviet tactics go, they were successful, point made.

The Soviets were at an initial large disadvantage, they played the weather and land to ther advantage and eventualy were able to come back.

They mad emistakes along teh way, sure, everyone did, but the Soviets had no where near the initial capability that the Germans had, yet by the end of the war they had produced more tanks than anyone else and huge numbers of guns and aircraft as well.

Early on, and mid war, they had crap though.

The Soviets had a policy of killing anyone who di not fight to the end and of promising not to help anyone that was taken prisoner. Obviously the intent was to make sure that people had no choice but to fight.

Was it right, was it wrong? I dunno. In America was being seriously invaded by a country that had a policy of genocide and mass erradication of Americans then the military saying that people had to fight to the death to prevent takeover does not really sound very unreasonable to me.

The Germans started it and new good and well that there would be hell to pay for what they had done. There is a lot written about the fact that the Germans knew that losing to Russia was a horrible though, they feared it terribly because they knew that they had commited such horrors against the Russians initially that if they failed to conquer Rusia and liqudate the population then the Russiasn would have no remorse for them. The Gemrans dug theor own grave.

Consequently the Gemrans adopted teh same fight to the last man policy when falling back against the Russians. Any German that retreated or tried to desert was put to death by the Germans, and they also had a policy of no help for captured Germans, and expected all Germans to fight to the end against Russians. However they all wanted to surrender to Americans and had a policy of it being acceptable to surrender to Americans.

America was really kind of allies with Germany, just mainly against the high command. We were forming German alliances before the war was even over in preparation to fight against the Communsits as soon at the German high command was toppled.

WWII was a big screwup. It was supposed to be the World vs Russia, but then Churchill got in and started going off on opposing the Germans and supporting the Jews so it screwed everything up (according to the plans of those in power at the time)

WWII was to be the war against Communism, led by the fascists, Great Britain botched the entire operation, and of course Stalin had a lot to do with this because he knew it was coming so he did everything he could to manipulate the situation to save Russia, and he was successful. In terms of the overall defense of Russia Stalin was masterful. I think that if just about anyone other than Stalin had been in power then Russia would have falled to Germany because Stalin was the one smart enough to sign the treaty with Hitler in the first place. That was when everyone got confused.

Everyone was in on the whole deal, Germany taking the fight to Russia to destroy Communism. It was like, okay, okay, okay, they are going to kill teh commies, its all good, WTF? He has a treaty with Stalin? Then everyone freaked out it rolled down hill from there.

See, if Stalin had not done that, then Britan would not have declared war and held out against Germany, the Germans would have rolled into Russia as a one front war, and perhaps the US and Great Britain would have backed Germany then or at least sat by and watched as the Germans took over Russia.

This was why Churchill was suprized when FDR wanted to come in on the side of Britain initially (prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor when FDR let Churchill know that he would do whatever it took to get America into the war, which then led to the FDR instigation of Pearl Harbor). FDR, and everyone else, was pissed that the war hadn't gone according to plan.

Oh well, side tracked there....

Ziggurat

12th October 2003, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

The Soviets were at an initial large disadvantage, they played the weather and land to ther advantage and eventualy were able to come back.

Reminds me of a joke I heard: during the seven-day war with Israel, the arabs were just following the tactics of their Russian advisors: lure the enemy deep into your territory and wait for the frost ;)

Jon_in_london

13th October 2003, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by JAR
Stalin committed war crimes against his own people during World War II.

I have seen doccies in which a female russian POW was repeatedly gang-raped by her 'liberators'... I think there was a lot of russian bad behaviour going on in Germany in 1945, but as far as I know, the russians didnt massacre vast numbers of germans, they did what they could to clothe and feed them, which is a bit remarkable.

Many of the outstanding heroes of the siege of Leningrad were 'liqudated' by Stalin. In fact being a war-hero was not a very safe thing to be in post-war Russia..... Look what happened to Zhukov!!

Underemployed

13th October 2003, 03:53 AM

Please read these two books:

"Stalingrad" and "Berlin - The Downfall 1945", both by Anthony Beevor.

Neither the Germans nor the Russian leaders had the slightest regard for suffering or loss of life. The rape of German women (and indeed women of every nationality) by the Russian infantry was systemic due to the lack of discipline in the Army and the propaganda at the time (from both sides) making the enemy into something less than human.

The German invasion and occupation of the Western Soviet territories was overseen by Hitler's most dedicated sadists and there are numerous accounts of atrocities committed against the populace. As the war turned the Russians felt it was quite alright to revisit the same treatment upon them.

In short, acts on both sides were committed that would rightly be condemned today as war crimes.

After the War, according to back-room deals between US, UK and Soviet leaders, Germany was carved up into East and West. The biggest tragedy, forseen by precious few people at the time, was that the Allies conceded almost everything Stalin wanted, precipitating the Cold War. Read documentation of the meetings Stalin had with the President - the Americans believed all the lies Uncle Joe was happy to feed them about how he didn't want Poland.

While in extreme left-wing US circles it may be plausible to believe Malachai151's views, the middle-of-the-road European education will lead you to believe, as I do, that WWII started because Hitler invaded Poland and did not leave when Poland's allies asked him to. This doesn't make either view the be-all and end-all, but without some fairly convincing arguments it will take a lot to convince me that the rest of the world wanted Germany to go it alone against the Russians.

13th October 2003, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
I remember reading that the survival rate for German soldiers captured after Stalingrad was around 5%.

No. The survival rate of POWs captured at Stalingrad in the mass surrender at the end of battle was around 5%.

The overall survival rate was close to 2/3,. The corresponding survival rate of Soviet POWs in German hands was around 1/3.

The huge difference between survival rates of Stalingrad and other POWs was mainly because those who were captured at Stalingrad were in extremely poor condition to start with and they were also the first mass surrender and Soviets didn't have experience on how to handle large masses of prisoners, yet.

But anyway, in the final phases of WWII Soviet soldiers did commit a large number of atrocities. There were orders against raping and looting but whether they were enforced or not depended on the local commanders. For example, Marshal Rokossovski had a rather large number of looters and rapists court-martialled in his army. I can't remember the exact figure, but I think it was in tens of thousands. However, most commanders didn't care and crimes went unpunished.

Hypocolius

13th October 2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151
WWII was a big screwup. It was supposed to be the World vs Russia, but then Churchill got in and started going off on opposing the Germans and supporting the Jews so it screwed everything up (according to the plans of those in power at the time)

WWII was to be the war against Communism, led by the fascists, Great Britain botched the entire operation, and of course Stalin had a lot to do with this because he knew it was coming so he did everything he could to manipulate the situation to save Russia, and he was successful. In terms of the overall defense of Russia Stalin was masterful. ....

snip

Everyone was in on the whole deal, Germany taking the fight to Russia to destroy Communism. It was like, okay, okay, okay, they are going to kill teh commies, its all good, WTF? He has a treaty with Stalin? Then everyone freaked out it rolled down hill from there.

See, if Stalin had not done that, then Britan would not have declared war and held out against Germany,...

snip
...
This was why Churchill was suprized when FDR wanted to come in on the side of Britain initially (prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor when FDR let Churchill know that he would do whatever it took to get America into the war, which then led to the FDR instigation of Pearl Harbor). FDR, and everyone else, was pissed that the war hadn't gone according to plan.

:confused:

Malachi, you really cannot be serious about any of these? I could refute them, but I'm sure you don't really believe them.

Jon_in_london

13th October 2003, 06:03 AM

P.S.A.

13th October 2003, 06:12 AM

I can't find it at the moment, but I saw a Guardian review of a book once, which gave a figure for 2 million German women raped by the Red Army in 1945. Take that figure with a pinch of salt of course, but there's no doubt atrocities were committed, and on a huge scale.

Malachi151

13th October 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Reminds me of a joke I heard: during the seven-day war with Israel, the arabs were just following the tactics of their Russian advisors: lure the enemy deep into your territory and wait for the frost ;)

Yeah and: Russia's two best generals were Ice and Snow...

Malachi151

13th October 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Malachi, this is almost as good as your "NEPAD is an invention by the evil capitalists to screw the poor noble African savages" thread

Churchill didnt declare war on the Germans.

Arent you forgetting about some other people who "started going off on opposing the Germans"?? Ill give you a hint: They eat frogs and snails and garlic and onions and they drink lots of wine...... And they speak French....any ideas Malachi....mmmmm....

I never said he did, but he was the one that decided to hold out against them. There was also a lot of other stuff going on behind the scenes duing all this as well, I just did get into all that, it takes many volumes fo books to explain and document correctly.

Essentially though there were conflicts of interest within the French and British ranks about the matter and there was confusion about what was going on. Hitler origional war plans had nothing to do with going West, his original plans were to just invade Russia after Poland, but then things got all crazy and one thing kept leading to another. The invasion of Britain was supposed to go like the invasion of France. France rolled over and half the French were really on the Germany side. Most of the laster defenders of Germany were actually Frenchmen, the French SS was huge.

Many views teh Nazis as the defenders of Europe against Communism.

Malachi151

13th October 2003, 06:45 AM

double post

Hypocolius

13th October 2003, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

I never said he did, but he was the one that decided to hold out against them.

Despite the fact that it was Neville Chamberlain who was Prime Minister at the time?

aerocontrols

13th October 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Hypocolius

Malachi, you really cannot be serious about any of these? I could refute them, but I'm sure you don't really believe them.

Are you still sure he doesn't believe those things he said, Hypocolius?

The important thing is that we're no longer talking about Soviet war crimes, but about secret Nazis in the West instead.

MattJ (ecretsay azinay)

Jon_in_london

13th October 2003, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

I never said he did, but he was the one that decided to hold out against them. There was also a lot of other stuff going on behind the scenes duing all this as well, I just did get into all that, it takes many volumes fo books to explain and document correctly.

sure.....:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Malachi151
Essentially though there were conflicts of interest within the French and British ranks about the matter and there was confusion about what was going on. Hitler origional war plans had nothing to do with going West, his original plans were to just invade Russia after Poland, but then things got all crazy and one thing kept leading to another. The invasion of Britain was supposed to go like the invasion of France. France rolled over and half the French were really on the Germany side. Most of the laster defenders of Germany were actually Frenchmen, the French SS was huge.

Also, DeGaul was an alien lizard man and you are fooking nuts Malachi!!!

Originally posted by Malachi151
Many views teh Nazis as the defenders of Europe against Communism.

Many= Malachi & Hitler.

Malachi151

13th October 2003, 11:36 AM

Malachi151

13th October 2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

sure.....:rolleyes:

Also, DeGaul was an alien lizard man and you are fooking nuts Malachi!!!

Many= Malachi & Hitler.

Well, unfortuantly the majority of "popular" sources on WWII history are just a bunch of crap, but when you start reading some "real history" you see the facts. Unfortunately the best info I have found so far on teh net comes from a white supremacy site, but the facts are accurate nonetheless.

I've seen several programs on the History Channel about the SS and the French involvement as well. Read inteviews with former French Nazis. Jacque Cousteau's brother was a Nazi and in fact a war criminal, but Cousteau was able to pleade for him and got him off, Jacque also made movies for the Nazis during their occupation of France and helped them clear mines and such.

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr64iii.htm

60 PERCENT OF THE WAFFEN SS WERE NON GERMANS

The Waffen-SS was also the foremost indicator of the popularity of Nazism beyond the borders of Germany: it is a little known fact that of the one million men who served in the Waffen-SS during the course of the war, 60 per cent - 600,000 men - were volunteers from countries outside of Germany. Ethnic Germans were in fact a minority of the Waffen-SS, a fact often forgotten.

Non-German volunteers came from the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, France, Denmark, Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Ukraine, Byelorussia, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Yugoslavia and even a very small group of British volunteers, known as the Legion of St. George.

The foreign Waffen-SS units were all deployed on the Eastern Front for two reasons: firstly they had specifically volunteered to fight Communism; and secondly so that they would never be asked to fight fellow countrymen in their native countries. All but a few thousand of the 20,000 French Waffen-SS volunteers, organized into a division called Legion Charlemagne, were killed in the Battle of Berlin in 1945.

renata

13th October 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Well, unfortuantly the majority of "popular" sources on WWII history are just a bunch of crap, but when you start reading some "real history" you see the facts. Unfortunately the best info I have found so far on teh net comes from a white supremacy site, but the facts are accurate nonetheless.

Did he just say what I think he said?

Is there a smilie shaking its head in stunned silence?

c0rbin

13th October 2003, 12:23 PM

but then things got all crazy and one thing kept leading to another.

I guess so...

Malachi151

13th October 2003, 12:39 PM

Other various tidbits:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,844908,00.html

Holland comes second among the recorded righteous, and yet Belgium provided a far safer haven for Jews, since the Dutch population included many Nazi sympathisers. As a result, very few Jews resident in Holland survived. The Frank family was not the only one betrayed.

Interestingly, France comes third in this league of honour. The collaboration of the Vichy government with the Germans, and their voluntary rounding-up of thousands of Jews for deportation, must forever be a stain on French national honour, but many ordinary French men and women did not follow the example of their disgraceful leaders. Countless Jewish children were taken in by French families, hidden in convents, or given false papers. Many Jews were helped across the Swiss or Spanish border. Village neighbours kept their mouths shut about the strangers in their midst. Of the 300,000 Jews resident in France at the outbreak of war, more than two-third survived.

http://www.imusa.org/campaigns/murdoch/murdoch21.shtml

Only about 1 in 20 of the villagers actually refused to fight from the beginning, and they were the kind of extremist collaborators who'd made no secret of looking forward to such a takeover. What the villagers didn't know then was that their Government was riddled with German sympathisers, would-be collaborators and capitalist tycoons who saw profitable opportunities in submitting to powerful foreign domination.

There were many French Nazi supporters. Many French SS men. WWII was a pro-Capitlaist/anti-Communist war from the start. The Nazis were a right-wing, "conservative" organization that took full control of Germany in order to prevent an Communist takeover, and the Nazi movement gained large support worldwide, but especialy in Europe as an anti-Communist movement. Many people from all over Europe joined the Nazis, teh Waffen SS was kind of like the French Foreign Legion, and the Waffen SS were the main defenders in the Battle of Berlin. The main defnders of Gemrnay in the final days were not Germans, but mainly Frenchmen, and men from all over the world and Gemrnay, including a few Americans.

When my grandfather got back from the war he said that we were on the wrong side, we should have joined the Germans and fought the Russians, that was actually a popular sentament among WWII vets. It wasn't until later on with continued anti-Nazi propaganda and the full details of the concentration camps, which were pained as JEWISH concentration camps, instead of Communist Concentration camps, which is what they REALLY were, that people decided that yes the Nazis really were THAT BAD.

The truth is though that we did side with the Gemrans and go against the Russians, that's what the Cold War was, we just took the Japanese and German leaders out of power and then allied with them and continued the fight on the side of the fascists against the Communists.

Nikk

13th October 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151
Everyone was in on the whole deal, Germany taking the fight to Russia to destroy Communism. It was like, okay, okay, okay, they are going to kill teh commies, its all good, WTF? He has a treaty with Stalin? Then everyone freaked out it rolled down hill from there.

See, if Stalin had not done that, then Britan would not have declared war and held out against Germany, the Germans would have rolled into Russia as a one front war, and perhaps the US and Great Britain would have backed Germany then or at least sat by and watched as the Germans took over Russia.

A few points Malachi.

1) Ever since tudor times it was England's/Britain's policy to do what it could to avoid having the continent of Europe dominated by one power. So for Britain to view a Russo/German war as desirable is absurd as the most likely outcome would be a Soviet victory.

2) British arms production and R&D efforts were greatly expanded after Munich as war was seen as inevitable.

3) The British tried to arrange a defensive pact with the Soviets. Stalin thought cooperation with Hitler was more advantagous hence the Nazi-Soviet pact and the division of Poland. Does the Katyn massacre ring any bells?

Mike B.

13th October 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Nikk

Does the Katyn massacre ring any bells?

I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

Malachi151

13th October 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Nikk

A few points Malachi.

1) Ever since tudor times it was England's/Britain's policy to do what it could to avoid having the continent of Europe dominated by one power. So for Britain to view a Russo/German war as desirable is absurd as the most likely outcome would be a Soviet victory.

2) British arms production and R&D efforts were greatly expanded after Munich as war was seen as inevitable.

3) The British tried to arrange a defensive pact with the Soviets. Stalin thought cooperation with Hitler was more advantagous hence the Nazi-Soviet pact and the division of Poland. Does the Katyn massacre ring any bells?

Yeah, and the Maginot Line was built to guard against the Germans too, so what?

Governments and counites are not monolithic entities. They are made up of millions of people. Some fo those people, in so case key and powerful people, were Nazi sympathisers. In addition, many citizens were Nazi sympathisers.

Many people had many different views and feelings about the issues at the time. There was also the fact that no one was, nor still is, fully infomred about what was really going on. Many people supported the Nazis becuase they viewed them as anti-Communsits who had successfully brought Germany out of a depression and improved teh country.

The Germans had many people helping them all over the world, America, Australia, South Africa, all over Europe, and even inside Russia, and of course Japan. The Nazis and Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang were also in collaberation. In fact the Kuomintang was backed by the Nazis, the US, and Russia! What a combination, but that's the way it was. The top Kuomintang General, Tai Li, acknowledged during the war that Heinrich Himmler was his role model.

The German's weren't "evil", they were anti-Communsits that went to extremes. The whole "Jewish" Holocost was not really a "Jewish" Holocost, it was a Communist Holocost. The fact of the matter was that a large number of Jews were Communsits. The first target of the concentration camps were Communsits, not Jews. Jews as a group didn't become targets of the concentration camps until later, but essentially the Nazis viewed the Jews as either Communists or corrupt capitalists, two different groups within the same group, neither of which they liked. They felt that the Jews were a threat to capitalism from both sides, either as Communsits or corrupt capitalists, THAT is why the focused on the Jews.

That's also why there was some level of support for the Nazis all over the world, many people agreed wiht that view.

The fact of the matter is that many French cooperated with the Nazis, and the Nazis expected the British to do the same, but then Churchill came to power and the war turned in a way that the Nazis had not expected.

The Nazis never had the intention of "taking over the world", building an "evil empire" or any of that crap. The Nazi goal from teh very start was the destruction of Communism and the expansion of Germany eastward.

The British and French declared war on Germany, not the other way around. The Germans didn't intent to go west, they intended to invade Russia, but once the French and Brits declared war on them then they attacked them because they had initiated aggression against the Germans.

The whoel thing was a big mess because American, British, French, Dutch, Swiss, South Africa, Australian capitalsits had helped to build and create the German Reich. Germany was the international capitalist stronghold of the world at that point, that's how it became so powerful.

Ford, GM, Dow Chemical, Du Pont, Standard Oil, IBM, etc, etc, etc, had all pumped funds and material into Germany in preparation for the war against Russia to destroy Communism, but then Stalin signed the non-aggression treaty. At that point Hitler had backstabbed many of his backers. He betrayed the international capitalists. But see, many of the international capitalists were not dealing directly with Hitler, they were dealing with other Nazis who were making promises that they could not keep. Hitler got pissed at his guys for going behind his back and making deals with America, etc, its a big convoluted mess, not too much different then what is going on in Iraq right now, except on a scale about 100 times bigger.

Hitler was over confident, and he didn't like the pressure being applied to him from the foriegn investors and such, so he tried to do things "his way", which resulted in disaster for everyone, both the Germans, and all of the foregin backers of the 3rd Reich. So much of this had to do with money moving, and investments, and trying to secure business contracts etc, it was a big international money grab with people "investing" in the Nazis in the hopes of profits after they had successfully taken Russia.

Like I said, IBM, Ford, GM, Du Pont, etc, they were all pro-Nazi initially and helped to built the Nazi empire.

Once they got screwed by Hitler, that's when they turned on him, partly for revenge, partly to get their money back, and partly because they had a concience, although Henry Ford never renounced his Nazism or gave back his medal that he had been given by Hitler for his support of the Nazis.

The European "liberal" regimes were the ones that declared war on the Nazis, not the conservatives, the conservatives were pro-Nazi. Churchill was not a liberal, but he was damed sure against being invaded by anyone for any reason.

Nikk

13th October 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Please save a humble man from using Goggle. Well, actually, I would like to hear the views of those who are interested in WWII-and-post history.

My brother had read a book recently which prompted him to tell me, "Don't worry, the Russians (sic) got their own back (after the fall of Berlin in WWII)". He didn't have time to give me the details, but the implication was that the Soviets committed some atrocities on the Germans.

Does anyone know what, exactly, the Soviets did after Berlin was taken and (presumably) divided?

The following brief summary of eye-witness information on the Soviet Invasion of Hungary might be of interest. It comes from the Hungarian (German Allies) side of my family who lived in a town in Western Hungary.

The troops heading the Soviet Army seemed to be mostly highly professional and skilled European soldiers. They attacked military targets and when they occupied a town caused no particular problems. They usually moved on quickly and were followed by an occupation force of poor quality uneducated guys from the east. Mongolians, Kazachs, etc, etc. These people were responsible for the mass looting and raping which undoubtedly occured, although there were of course exceptions. It was perfectly normal for them to steal someone's watch at gunpoint and to give in return a vastly superior watch that was not working because it had not been wound up.

That said, in Hungary at least, I have never heard of claims that there was the mass murder of civilians that occurred under Nazi rule in the Soviet Union.
An astonishing thing about the Soviet Army was the brutality with which it treated its own men. On occasion groups of chained Soviet Soldiers passed through the town in such a bad state that they were begging for bread from the locals. Anyone who attempted to give them anything was chased off by the armed escort.

Needless to say the Soviets gradually imposed a Communist Party state on the country and eradicated any democratic opposition but that's another story.

ZeeGerman

13th October 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Well, unfortuantly the majority of "popular" sources on WWII history are just a bunch of crap, but when you start reading some "real history" you see the facts. Unfortunately the best info I have found so far on teh net comes from a white supremacy site, but the facts are accurate nonetheless.

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr64iii.htm

Just one question:
How exactly do you determine which sources describe accurate facts and which ones don't? Have you lived through that time? I guess not. Nor did I - or any other member of this board, I think.

Zee

Nikk

13th October 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Yeah, and the Maginot Line was built to guard against the Germans too, so what?

/snip/

Well you either type fast or cut and paste fast;) .

Many people in the 30's saw totalitarianism as the new trend in human society and that the liberal democracies would inevitably be swallowed up with the possible exceptions of the US and the British Empire, for a while. Some saw Fascism as the least worst alternative to Soviet Communism. You can see this illustrated in Arthur Koestler's book "Arrival and Departure". He was an ex communist, fought Fascism in Spain and left the party in1938.

But as regards a capitalist conspiracy - I don't think I have ever really seen any evidence of that. Business is business you sell where you can, invest where you can and cooperate with the authorities of your business partners to further your interests. The Germans sold alloys to the British which went into fighter planes and Stalin was delivering war materials to Hitler right until the tank columns crossed the border.

Sure big business saw Hitler as someone who would offer stability and pursue pro capitalist policies but he soon started to remove the autonomy of business as well as labour. It was pretty obvious by the late 30's that Germany wasn't going to create a capitalist paradise. It would also be a very stupid business leader who thought a war with the Soviet Union was a sound investment oportunity.

I think Hitler genuinely believed pre war that the British would see the light and support him in his policies. I recently read some extracts from an unpublished book he wrote after Mein Kampf in which he theorises about an Aryan coalition involving Britain and possibly the U.S.

Jon_in_london

14th October 2003, 02:15 AM

14th October 2003, 03:02 AM

There's one interesting book that I recommend to anybody who can read Finnish (yes, I know, this limits the audience quite much but it hasn't been translated to any other language), namely Yrjö Kilpeläinen's Suomi Neuvostoliiton radiossa ("Finland in Soviet Radio Broadcasts", written under pseudonym Jahvetti).

It is a study of Soviet radio propaganda and most of its material came from the Finnish language broadcasts of Petrodazavosk [with some luck I got spelling right] and Moscow radios. The interesting thing is that it was published in 1942, during war. This shows how little Finnish government worried about Soviet propaganda.

But anyway, the extracts of the book show quite clearly how Soviet propaganda changed after June 1941.

Before and during Winter War (1939-40) the Soviet radio emphasized that the motivation behind Soviet demands was security of Leningrad from the British and the French. Not a word is said against Germans.

The minutes of Stalin's Red Army crisis meeting in April 1940 have also been published (Finnish translation is Puna-armeija Stalinin tentissä and it is complete, an abridged (I think) version has also been translated to English but I don't know its name). There, in his concluding speech Stalin says that (this is paraphrased from memory): "... the victory from Finland was at the same time victory from England and France [because they allegedly gave massive military support to Finns]". So Stalin himself, in a speech to the top brass of the Red Army identified England and France as the main Western enemies.

After the German attack the Soviet propaganda changed and the propagandists quickly rewrote the history. As early as in July radio propaganda mentioned how the Winter War had been fought because of the German threat. The airfields that had been year ago constructed with British money suddenly changed to being German-made, and so on.

Not surprisingly, the latter version became the official version in all post-war history books.

Crossbow

14th October 2003, 04:48 AM

I can think of several examples of Soviet War Crimes committed by individual Soviet soldiers that I have read about or have seen interviews with.

However, as for USSR state sponsored War Crimes done during WW II, I would submit the fact that hundreds of thousands of German POWs were not released until 1955 (after Kruschev took power). By then, most of them had died due to the very harsh conditions they were kept under so only 20% of them actually survived their captivity.

14th October 2003, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow
By then, most of them had died due to the very harsh conditions they were kept under so only 20% of them actually survived their captivity.

The official Soviet total for German POWs is somewhere around 3.36 million men. Most estimates that I've seen put the number of deaths among them to ~1 million. (I can't remember the Soviet official totals and they are
surprisingly hard to google).

This means that the death rate was around 1/3. Bad, certainly, but far from 80%.

Actually, thinking again, that 20% might be close to the official death rate, since 20% of 3.36 million is 660000 and I have vague recollections of seeing figures of roughly that size in that context.

Crossbow

14th October 2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by LW

The official Soviet total for German POWs is somewhere around 3.36 million men. Most estimates that I've seen put the number of deaths among them to ~1 million. (I can't remember the Soviet official totals and they are
surprisingly hard to google).

This means that the death rate was around 1/3. Bad, certainly, but far from 80%.

Actually, thinking again, that 20% might be close to the official death rate, since 20% of 3.36 million is 660000 and I have vague recollections of seeing figures of roughly that size in that context.

Not to disagree with your numbers, but I was referring to the German POWs that were not repatriated until 1955 (which I think included everyone they captured during the Battle of Stalingrad for example).

I think that keeping POWs ten years after the war has been won would be considered a 'War Crime' if anybody bothered to seriously persue it.

Jon_in_london

14th October 2003, 06:28 AM

Actually, I remeber another doccie in the same series. They had this Russian woman who was (A COMMIE FEMINAZI!!!! ARRRGGHH[/JK]) an intell officer or something. She was saying it was pretty much de regeur to execute German prisoners from Stalingard after they had " 'fessed up"

This was while the battle was on.

Also interesting from the series (on UK History channel) was when the interviewed an SS chappie. He said one day they came accross some Germans who had been captured, killed and their bodies mutilated (not neccesarily in that order), so they simply shot every Russian civillian in the area.

The interviewer asked him if he didnt think that was maybe a war-crime and his attitude was "Pfff... some poeple may say so. Maybe it was. But they werent there"

Bit difficult to argue with that............

Jon_in_london

14th October 2003, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

Not to disagree with your numbers, but I was referring to the German POWs that were not repatriated until 1955 (which I think included everyone they captured during the Battle of Stalingrad for example).

I think that keeping POWs ten years after the war has been won would be considered a 'War Crime' if anybody bothered to seriously persue it.

Britian actually kept a lot of german prisoners for several years after the end of the war... not as much as ten years though........they were put to work as labourers while they were 'de-nazified' One guy had been in the Hitler Youth and was captured at Monte Cassino.......... its a bit strange though, he married an English girl and speaks flawless English with a thick Geordie accent. Bizarre really..............

Its actually much better sometimes to keep prisoners a while and let them back in dribs and drabs. Better than letting them all march home like they did at the end of WWI................. we know what that led to..............

Malachi151

14th October 2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Nikk

Well you either type fast or cut and paste fast;) .

Many people in the 30's saw totalitarianism as the new trend in human society and that the liberal democracies would inevitably be swallowed up with the possible exceptions of the US and the British Empire, for a while. Some saw Fascism as the least worst alternative to Soviet Communism. You can see this illustrated in Arthur Koestler's book "Arrival and Departure". He was an ex communist, fought Fascism in Spain and left the party in1938.

But as regards a capitalist conspiracy - I don't think I have ever really seen any evidence of that. Business is business you sell where you can, invest where you can and cooperate with the authorities of your business partners to further your interests. The Germans sold alloys to the British which went into fighter planes and Stalin was delivering war materials to Hitler right until the tank columns crossed the border.

Sure big business saw Hitler as someone who would offer stability and pursue pro capitalist policies but he soon started to remove the autonomy of business as well as labour. It was pretty obvious by the late 30's that Germany wasn't going to create a capitalist paradise. It would also be a very stupid business leader who thought a war with the Soviet Union was a sound investment oportunity.

I think Hitler genuinely believed pre war that the British would see the light and support him in his policies. I recently read some extracts from an unpublished book he wrote after Mein Kampf in which he theorises about an Aryan coalition involving Britain and possibly the U.S.

Yes, I agree with this, and this:

It is a study of Soviet radio propaganda and most of its material came from the Finnish language broadcasts of Petrodazavosk [with some luck I got spelling right] and Moscow radios. The interesting thing is that it was published in 1942, during war. This shows how little Finnish government worried about Soviet propaganda.

But anyway, the extracts of the book show quite clearly how Soviet propaganda changed after June 1941.

Before and during Winter War (1939-40) the Soviet radio emphasized that the motivation behind Soviet demands was security of Leningrad from the British and the French. Not a word is said against Germans.

The minutes of Stalin's Red Army crisis meeting in April 1940 have also been published (Finnish translation is Puna-armeija Stalinin tentissä and it is complete, an abridged (I think) version has also been translated to English but I don't know its name). There, in his concluding speech Stalin says that (this is paraphrased from memory): "... the victory from Finland was at the same time victory from England and France [because they allegedly gave massive military support to Finns]". So Stalin himself, in a speech to the top brass of the Red Army identified England and France as the main Western enemies.

After the German attack the Soviet propaganda changed and the propagandists quickly rewrote the history. As early as in July radio propaganda mentioned how the Winter War had been fought because of the German threat. The airfields that had been year ago constructed with British money suddenly changed to being German-made, and so on.

Not surprisingly, the latter version became the official version in all post-war history books.

All establishments were anti-Communist. Its obvious beyond any doubt, all you have to do is read origional material from the time, that Communism was the major fear in Europe and America from the time of the Bolshevik Revolution up through the mid to late 1930s.

The world was conspiring against the USSR, and honestly they had every reason to do so.

Stalin knew this, everyone knew this.

The Communist movement was large, international, and generally unchecked during the 1920s and 1930s.

That's what fascism was, it was the development of anti-Communist regimes designed around checking and defeating Communism.

The reason that this history has been someoene rewritten or at least downplated, especially in America is that immediately following WWII America began its attack on Communism.

It would look kind of suspicious and be confusing to people to say: The Nazis came to power as an anti-Communist group and WWII was about the German effor to defeat Communism, we fought against the Germans, and then immediately in 1946 began our "Cold War" against the Communists.

There is a real effort to make sure that its clear that America and the Nazis are not related in any way ideologically, but the fact really is that America and the Nazis ARE related ideologically.

By continuing to make WWII and the Nazis about "racism" and "evil" and an attempt and "world domination", which is actually NOT what the Nazis or WWII were about, it creates more distance between Western Powers and the Germans.

The more you study it though the more you see that the Germans and the Western powers had a lot in common and ultimately were on the same side on many major ideological issues.

#1 the Germans were not as bad as they are made out to be, and #2 America is worse than it has been made out to be.

The reality is that of all the groups involved America was defineantly the "best" meaning it was good that America won WWII, but all America really was essentially was a less extreme version of Germany with all the same basic goals and agendas just without the use of as extrme of measures to seek those goals.

The split between Britain and America and Germany was not along ideological lines, it was one of competition for resources and control. Both groups were seeking the same basic thing and moving towards the same basic methods, its just that the Germans were taking over resources and areas that were of vital interest to the British and America, obviusly Britain itself, as well as the Middle East, and of course the Japanese and threat of taking over China, which the US wanted control of.

American resources were at stake and Britain was at stake and it was seen that Hitler had just gone too far in his methods, therefor it became more important to stop the Nazis then it was to stop the Communsits, for the moment. Prior to the outbreak of WWII and after WWII though there was significant American cooperation with the Nazis in their efforts against Communism.

It was exactly another case of the same old thing of helping to create your own enemy. Its no different then Ossama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, just on a much, much, much larger scale, a scale so large that all those that helped the Nazis to power have tried to cover their tracks since the war and the exposure of the war crimes.

Just one question:
How exactly do you determine which sources describe accurate facts and which ones don't? Have you lived through that time? I guess not. Nor did I - or any other member of this board, I think.

Easy, use primary sources.

Reading materials written by a variety of people at the time of the events, such as stuff from the Nazis, from American newspapers, from the British, from American government agents, from the Soviets, etc.

Probably about 50% of what I have read /watched about WWII and the events surrounding it comes from primary sources.

I wish I could just interview a bunch of Germans who were teenagers or adults during WWII, that would be good, but I don't have the means to do that.

I'd like to know what the view was in Gemran about why they were attacking Britain, and I'd like to settle once and for all what the social climate towards religion was.

14th October 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Actually, I remeber another doccie in the same series. They had this Russian woman who was (A COMMIE FEMINAZI!!!! ARRRGGHH[/JK]) an intell officer or something. She was saying it was pretty much de regeur to execute German prisoners from Stalingard after they had " 'fessed up"

This was while the battle was on.

I'm not surprised by this. The Soviet communication lines at Stalingrad were very thin, vulnerable, and overworked. The ferries didn't have enough capacity to evacuate even all Soviet wounded, so it is not surprising that they decided against using valuable resources for the enemy. In the same way, the few thousand unfortunate Soviet POWs that were held within Stalingrad encirclement didn't receive any food at all for the last month of the battle as Germans saved all for themselves. [Only few of them survived by cannibalism].

In the ordinary case, the most dangerous moment for a POW was surrendering. There is some evidence suggesting that perhaps as many as 10% of Finns who surrendered to Soviets were executed before any paper trail was generated for their capture. [It is possible that one of my great uncles is among those as he vanished during a failed counter attack on February 13, 1940. However, it is more probable that he got a direct hit from Soviet artillery.]

This immediate shooting of prisoners happened in all armies to some degree and it is not easy to estimate which country was the worst in this respect. However, my guess is that the early-war (1941-2) Waffen-SS was probably the worst. For example, a Finnish SS officer (captain Kaila) wrote a secret report about his experiences after he returned to Finland in early 1942 (I think) where he mentions witnessing several large-scale prisoner executions.

After being officially recorded a prisoner was likely to survive the trip to the POW camp (barring exceptional situations, like at Stalingrad). Some of the POWs were beaten or otherwise tortured, but the majority was treated well.

The main reason for high death rate in Soviet POW camps was insufficient rations. The POWs got just enough food to survive and heavy physical work left them in a constant state of exhaustion. This combined with poor general level of hygiene led to epidemics of dysantery, typhoid fever, and occasionally also typhus.

The general opinion of surviving Finnish POWs was that the guards treated prisoners reasonably well and tried to help them when possible, but the camps simply didn't receive enough supplies.

Some POWs simply vanished, even from Soviet records. Surviving Finnish POWs have reported seeing ~200 Finns alive in POW camps who are not listed in POW records. Some of them may be misidentifications but the fate of the correctly identified POWs is a complete mystery.

Malachi151

14th October 2003, 07:17 AM

On a semi-related note:

http://www.charleslindbergh.com/ny/106.asp

Lindbergh Says U.S. 'Lost ' World War II

August 30, 1970 By ALDEN WHITMAN

Charles A. Lindbergh, who was one of America's leading opponents of entry into World War II, still believes that he was right in urging the country to stay out of the conflict. Indeed, he contends that the United States, in the perspective of the last 30 years, lost the war.

This conviction is disclosed in "The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh" to be published Sept 30 by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

The 1,000-page book, which tells for the first time the flier's innermost thoughts about the war, also reveals in diary form his intensive public and behind-the-scenes activities aimed at keeping the nation out of the war. These include his assessment of the Nazi military-aviation potential as communicated to senior American military men and his controversial association with the America First Committee.

The 400,000-word journal also recounts Mr. Lindbergh's role in the early years of the war in the Ford Motor Company's reproduction of B-24 bombers and his subsequent 50 combat missions as a civilian flier in the Pacific.

The book also describes his postwar inspection tour of Germany. Recounting his prewar activities, the book repeatedly makes clear his belief that the Roosevelt Administration, pro-British elements and the Jews were trying to push the United States into the war. And it provides intimate glimpses of Mr. Lindbergh's private life.

Meditating on the war in a letter to William Jovanovich, his publisher, which is printed in the introduction to the book, Mr. Lindbergh writes.

"Your ask what my conclusions are, rereading my journals and looking back on World War II from the vantage point of quarter century in time? We won the war in a military sense; but in a broader sense it seems to me we lost it, for our Western civilization is less respected and secure than it was before.

"In order to defeat Germany and Japan we supported the still greater menaces of Russia and China - which now confront us in a nuclear weapon era. The British empire has broken down with great suffering, bloodshed and confusion. France has had to give up her major colonies and turn to a mild dictatorship herself."

"Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through eons of many million lives. Meanwhile, the Soviets have dropped their Iron Curtain to screen off Eastern Europe, and an antagonistic Chinese Government threatens us in Asia.

"More than a generation after the war's end, our occupying armies still must occupy, and the world has not been made safe for democracy and freedom. On the contrary, our own system democratic government is being challenged by that greatest of dangers to any government - internal coordinating and unrest.

"It is alarmingly possible that World War II marks the beginning of our Western civilization's breakdown..."

Mr Lindbergh kept his journal for eight years - from 1937 to mid-1945 - as a private record "in (the) realization that I was taking part in one of the great crises in world history."

The magic of Mr. Lindbergh's name, deriving from his epic New York-to-Paris solo flight in 1927, opened to him many otherwise closely guarded doors in Europe, where he moved in 1935 to escape "excessive newspaper publicity in America."

His self-exile followed the kidnapping and murder of his first son, Charles Jr, and the conviction and execution of Bruno Richard Hauptmann for the crime.

In the four years that Mr. Lindbergh and his family lived abroad - first in Britain and then in France - he was able to confer with (and meet socially) high officials in Germany, France and Britain. He also talked with officers of the Soviet Government on a tour of Russia.

The flier, according to journal entries, reported to American officials (and gave detailed impressions to British and French officials) on German air power.

He estimated in 1938, for example that "the German air fleet is stronger than that of all other European countries together." And he urged both senior British and French officials to find a way of getting along with the Nazis while increasing their own warplane production.

At the invitation of the Nazis, according to the book. Mr. Lindbergh mad several trips to Germany, the principal two being in t 1936 and 1938. Both were undertaken, he maintains, with the knowledge of American diplomats.

On both occasions he met the highest German air officials and visited aircraft factories and research establishments. It is clear that the Germans had a good regard for him, and he for them.

etc, etc, go to the link...

14th October 2003, 07:31 AM

I forgot to add to the above one further example of Soviet war crimes.

In the Karelian front Soviet partisan activity was very different from the partisans of Ukraine or Byelorussia. Karelian partisans spent most of their time in camps behind their own lines and made patrols to Finnish rear areas from there. These troops were under the authority of Byelomorsk Partisan HQ but I don't know who ordered the HQ around.

Typical Karelian partisan operations lasted from several days (in Winter) to a few weeks (typical Summer operation) to few months (extended Summer operation, very rare).

But anyway, in 1943 the partisan units were between a rock and a hard place. The counter-partisan measures taken by Finns and Germans made successful raids more and more difficult while at the same time the Byelomorsk HQ increased their demand for results.

So, several of the partisan units took the easy way out: they started attacking civilian targets and faking the reports.

For example, partisan commander Alexandr Smirnov attacked the tiny Yliluiro village, took most of the civilian inhabitants as prisoners, and then executed them (I can't remember exactly how many persons died, around 10).

However, in his report Smirnov claimed to have destroyed a German supply depot, killing more than 30 soldiers. In the report he also claimed to have demolished a bridge over a river blowing up an ammo truck at the same time as a part of the attack. The Yliluiro village was more than 20 km away from the nearest road.

I don't know if Smirnov is still alive. In the late 90s he was still a celebrated hero.

headscratcher4

14th October 2003, 07:36 AM

real history

Beware of people who understand the "real history" as opposed to popular junk history. Clearly, the rest of us, no matter how well read, will ever be able to understand the "real history" because we are unenlightened and dupes. Only the enlightened, like M. find the truth, though it is purposefully hidden by the powers of evil.

Fortunately, there are those like M. who do and are willing to condescend to attempt to enlighten the rest of us.

Methinks of Eco and his wonderful novel: Foucault's Pendulum.

The problem with your method is that it is so auto-didactic. What you want to believe is "real history" is, and anything that challenges that view is somehow intellectually, factually, politically or ideologically tainted.

All history, is tainted. It is the nature of the beast...of course, Dear M., your history isn't tainted, it is real. No preconceived notions, no erroneous facts, no over-political shoe-horning of facts to fit an ideological purpose. Your history recommendations are just right....

And so, you walk off the cliff with a big smile on your face and confident self-rightousness in your heart.

You make me sad.
:(

Malachi151

14th October 2003, 07:46 AM

The Soviets also used "prisoners" as "cannon fodder".

At the time you could be sentanced to prison for being late to work or petty vandalism or whatever.

You could get out fo prison by volenterring for the prisoners corps. They sent the prisoners coprs into known enemy positions with no weapons so that they could estimate the strength of the opposition. Essentially all of the prisoners were killed, they were just basically made to march into enemy fire with no hope of survival.

Beware of people who understand the "real history" as opposed to popular junk history

As I said, real history is primary sources, junk history is textbook crap. I don't think you will find any "real" historians that would disagree with that. :p

Just one more bit from Lindbergh's diaries:

He feared that "if England and Germany enter another major war on opposite sides, Western civilization may fall as a result." he believed, however, that Germany's expansion eastward toward the Soviet Union would not present so great a peril.

His view was matched by millions of people around the world. This was also the view OF THE NAZIS themselves.

Hypocolius

14th October 2003, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151
The Soviets also used "prisoners" as "cannon fodder".

At the time you could be sentanced to prison for being late to work or petty vandalism or whatever.

You could get out fo prison by volenterring for the prisoners corps. They sent the prisoners coprs into known enemy positions with no weapons so that they could estimate the strength of the opposition. Essentially all of the prisoners were killed, they were just basically made to march into enemy fire with no hope of survival.

As I said, real history is primary sources, junk history is textbook crap. I don't think you will find any "real" historians that would disagree with that.

However Real History is not the novels of Sven Hassel which is what this sounds like.

Malachi151

14th October 2003, 07:58 AM

Well, more highlights from Lindbergh, I just can't help it:

As Mr. Lindbergh saw it in his journal, the bulk of the American people were against entering the war; but they were being pushed toward it by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his Administration.

In addition to the Roosevelt Administration, Mr Lindbergh wrote, the chief prowar forces were pro-British elements and the Jews. As early as June 1939, he voiced his concern in a conversation in Washington with Vice-President John Garner.

"We are both anxcious to avoid this country being pushed into a European war by British and Jewish propaganda," he wrote. "I can understand the feeling of both the British and the Jews, but there is far too much at stake for us to rush into a European war without the most careful cool consideration."

Several other diary entries underline Mr. Lindbergh's belief that the Jews were behind a great deal of the pro-war propaganda in the United States.

"I am shocked at the attitude of our American troops. They have no respect for death, the courage of an enemy soldier or many of the ordinary decencies of life. They think nothing whatever of robbing the body of a dead Jap and call him a "son of a bitch" while they do so.

"I said during a discussion with American officers that regardless of what the japs did I did not see how we could gain anything or claim that we represented a civilized state if we killed them by torture."

This was a theme to which Mr.Lindbergh returned several times, as he recorded instances of shooting of Japanese taken as war prisoners or the torture of them.

And when he traveled in Germany shortly after the Nazi surrender in May 1945, he wrote in his journal. "What the German has done to the Jew in Europe, we are doing to the Jap in the Pacific."

Maybe he missed what the Japanese did to the Chinese and Americans?

14th October 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Hypocolius

However Real History is not the novels of Sven Hassel which is what this sounds like.

There's a grain of truth in there. Soviets did have penal units (though you usually ended in them by committing crimes in normal units) and the survival rate among them was not good.

Sometimes Soviets sent men on dangerous assignments as a punishment instead of arranging a formal court martial. One such example is a signals sergeant (can't remember his name) who was assigned into a "tongue-patrol" (= to get a prisoner, "tongue" in Soviet slang) at Valkeasaari (Byelo-Ostrov) in early June 1944 after he crashed a truck while drunk-driving. What made his case interesting was that he knew a lot of details of Soviet major offensive (since he served in the signals center of the front) that was scheduled to start on 10 June and no-one in the Soviet higher command saw the dangers of sending such a man near enemy. In short, he was mortally wounded in the attempt and captured by Finns. Before his death he revealed most of what he knew to his interrogators. Unfortunately for the Finns, the commander of the IV Army Corps didn't take the information seriously and dismissed the report.

But on the subject of Hassel's books, they are just as reliable and authentic as the memoirs of the Baron Hieronymus von Münchausen.

Jon_in_london

14th October 2003, 08:29 AM

Malachi, supposing you could ask a few questions to a British 'champagne socialist' who only thougt the war worth fighting once Russia was invaded..........

What would you ask?

Graham

14th October 2003, 08:41 AM

Malachi,

According to the link (http://www.charleslindbergh.com/ny/106.asp) you posted, Linbergh:

(a) Was a European imperialist

The British empire has broken down with great suffering, bloodshed and confusion. France has had to give up her major colonies and turn to a mild dictatorship herself.

(b) Was, shall we say, a racial purist

Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through eons of many million lives.

(c) Got a medal from the Nazi party (which he refused to give back)

Marshal Goering, of coarse, was the last to arrive (at the dinner). I was standing in the back of the room. He shook hands with everyone. I noticed he had a red box and some papers. When he came to me he shook hands, handed me the box and papers and spoke a few sentences in German. I found he had presented me with the German Eagle, one of the highest German decorations, "by order of Der Fuhrer"

Which of these three factors, in your opinion, qualifies him as an independent and reliable commentator on the situation?

Why do you assume he is unbiased when he clearly is not, whilst discounting generations of historians against whom you have, apparently, no evidence of bias other than your very own biases?

Graham

Malachi151

14th October 2003, 09:38 AM

Which of these three factors, in your opinion, qualifies him as an independent and reliable commentator on the situation?

I never said he was an independant and reliable observer.

I said that here is documentation of an American who's views matched those of what i ws basically saying, that many Americans and people of all Western civilizations held the view that the Germans were defnders against teh "evils of Communism".

This was a common view, and it was the view held and promoted by the Nazism themselves.

I have relatives that have said all the same basic stuff that Lindbergh said, I've read the same stuff from a variety of different sources from people like Henry Ford to American soldiers that came back after the war, to even people like Joseph Kennedy.

The fact that the major "fear" at thetime leading up to WWII was a fear of Communism and not Nazism and that in fact many people viewed the Nazis as a productive force against Communism is easy to document, the only problem is, its not the way American history is taught.

There was an American Nazi movement prior to WWII, and in fact some Americans went to Germany to fight for the Germans, and much of the "peace camp" were really just Nazi sympathisers, and there was a large peace camp, in fact it was the majority of people.

About 69% of Americans that went to WWII were drafted. Its not like people were rallying to go fight Nazism.

Many, many people felt like getting rid of the Communsits was more important than fighting to Germans.

Many of those people were in positions of power, both public office and privately, like heads of companies, etc. Especially PRIOR TO the breakout of war people were even more supportive of the Germans. Once war broke out their support fell away, but a lot of that support is what HELPED the Nazis into power in the first place.

Once the war broke out some of that support turned from Nazi support to seeking to protect against Nazi takeover, but prior to the British holdout against the Nazis there was a large hope among many people in Western society that we would all unite behind the Nazis. A lot of serious anti-Communists were very pissed at the British for what they did at the time. They just wanted the west to unite against Russia ws the main thing.

When that didn't happen many reluctantly accepted the position of having to help the British. Churchill himself was dubious about having to ally with the Russians, who he had previously expressed much disdaine for and in fact was against. Churchill didn't like either the Nazis or the Russians, but prior to the outbreak of war he had pinned the Communsits as the greater of the two evils.

Pretty much everyone, except for the radical left, had pinned the Communsits as the greater of the two evils up UNITIL Germany invaded Poland, and even then a lot of people were still on the side of the Nazis. But it was that sentament of being more anti-Communist that ENABLED the Nazis to build up. People KNEW they were breaking the rules, but they didn't want to stop them because the Germans were between Russia and Western Europe and people though that the Nazis, with their anti-Communist rhetoric, would serve as a at least a defense against Communism, if not an offensive force to destroy it.

The Spanish Civil War reinforced this. The Fascists supported Franco and defeated the Marxis-Socialist Spanish Republic there, which the British and French viewed as a threat. When Hitler helped to defeat the Communsits here people viewed him as beneficial overall.

Malachi, supposing you could ask a few questions to a British 'champagne socialist' who only thougt the war worth fighting once Russia was invaded..........

What would you ask?

Probably not much. Most were paws on the Stalinist International most likely. When Stalin took power in Russia he took over The International and in all countries, America included Communsits and Socialists followed the Stalinist party line. During the time of the treaty between Stalin and Hitler virtually all Communsits/Socilaists were anti-war because that's what Stalin said to do. Then when Russia was invaded it changed immediately. The same thing happened in America. In both cases these people represented a small minority.

Jon_in_london

14th October 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151
Probably not much. Most were paws on the Stalinist International most likely. When Stalin took power in Russia he took over The International and in all countries, America included Communsits and Socialists followed the Stalinist party line. During the time of the treaty between Stalin and Hitler virtually all Communsits/Socilaists were anti-war because that's what Stalin said to do. Then when Russia was invaded it changed immediately. The same thing happened in America. In both cases these people represented a small minority.

What a 'paw' of the 'Stalinist International'?

How about a member of the CPGB?

Hypocolius

14th October 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by LW

There's a grain of truth in there. Soviets did have penal units (though you usually ended in them by committing crimes in normal units) and the survival rate among them was not good.

Granted, and I'm sure they were given some unpleasant tasks (clearing minrfields and the like), but the suggsetion that they were regularly let loose to charge the German guns so the officers could estimate enemy strength is not very credible.

Underemployed

15th October 2003, 12:21 AM

Granted, and I'm sure they were given some unpleasant tasks (clearing minrfields and the like), but the suggsetion that they were regularly let loose to charge the German guns so the officers could estimate enemy strength is not very credible.

Go read the above-mentioned books and eye-witness accounts. It is sadly all too believable. Have you seen the film "Enemy At The Gates" (based on the book of the same name)? The opening scene of the river crossing and subsequent unarmed charge into German territory was no exaggeration.

Hypocolius

15th October 2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Underemployed

Go read the above-mentioned books and eye-witness accounts. It is sadly all too believable. Have you seen the film "Enemy At The Gates" (based on the book of the same name)? The opening scene of the river crossing and subsequent unarmed charge into German territory was no exaggeration.

I have, but it isn't what Malachi was talking about. In Enemy the opening sequence showed an under-supplied (not unarmed) unit being thrown into the action, and then shot by there own side when they retreated. Quite believable, and I'm sure events like it happened occasionally, however Malachi was talking about prisoners being able to volunteer for Punishment Battalions whose primary purpose was to go on suicide missions.

You could get out fo prison by volenterring for the prisoners corps. They sent the prisoners coprs into known enemy positions with no weapons so that they could estimate the strength of the opposition. Essentially all of the prisoners were killed, they were just basically made to march into enemy fire with no hope of survival
My contention is that, while it is not impossible for this to have happened, it is unlikely to have happened very often, thus the implication that this was some kind of regular policy on the part of the Soviets is wrong. Only in the realms of fiction do such policies occur. I have read fairly widely on the subject, and while most accounts agree on the apparent disdain the USSR had for its soldiers, there is less agreement on these stories of suicide missions. Would you entrust a prisoner with a suicide mission?

edited to add
I just checked back to see which books you mentioned. I have read both of Beevor's books, and excellent they are. I really don't think he mentions Punishment Battalions being sent on suicide missions, but I'll check tonight to be sure.

15th October 2003, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Underemployed

Go read the above-mentioned books and eye-witness accounts. It is sadly all too believable.

Ummm. Which books in particular? Quite a lot of books have been mentioned already. I've read several of those but I don't remember anything about penal batallions. Though, I may remember incorrectly.

Have you seen the film "Enemy At The Gates" (based on the book of the same name)?

Aaarrrrrgh. If I see one more Eastern Front movie where a little Russian boy gets executed, I'll ... I'll ... I'll, well I don't know what I'll do, but I will certainly hate that movie with undying passion. If there is one overused cliche, then that is it.

But anyway, Enemy at Gates should not be taken as authentic history. For the basic plot the screenwriter took the possibly already embellished story of duel between Vasily Zaitsev and "major König" but since it wasn't Hollywood enough he had to write in a personal vendetta. [We can be reasonably certain that Zaitsev hunted down an excellent German sniper. What we don't know is who that sniper was.]

The opening scene of the river crossing and subsequent unarmed charge into German territory was no exaggeration.

And the relevance of that portrayal to the question of penal batallions is ... ?

Anyway, attacks by inadequadly supplied units are not the sole property of the Red Army, though they did them more often than others in the early phases of war. For example, in the Finnish counter attack to Patoniemi at Taipaleenjoki on Christmas Day 1939, some of the attackers started unarmed (they were replacements who arrived just before the Soviet attack and there weren't enough rifles for them).

There are numerous reports of Soviets machinegunning their own withdrawing troops. However, all descriptions that I've found have been from the enemies of Red Army, Finnish or German. Such mass executions are not mentioned in Soviet sources, not even in unofficial ones. I'm not saying that they didn't happen, but I don't think they were the norm.

It is interesting to note that in Sodalla on hintansa by Viktor Stepakov (I don't know if the book is published anywhere else than in Finland even though the author is Russian) there is a lenghty account by a Soviet MG-gunner who participated in the Winter War and fought at Summa in the February 1940 breakthrough attack. The soldier faults the high command as being boneheaded idiots who slaughtered thousands of Russians needlessly. But he doesn't at any point allude for MG fire against own troops, even though some Finnish accounts mention such occurrences at Summa.

Soviet sources show a different kind of executions. Namely, a commissar shooting one or few soldiers who hesistate in following an order. This was a common occurrence in early war. Stepakov's two books (the other is Paraatimarssi Suomeen with Orehov) contain at least ten such cases reported by surviving veterans.

15th October 2003, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by LW

However, all descriptions that I've found have been from the enemies of Red Army, Finnish or German.

And what I mean here is that the descriptions of the enemy actions are often, how would I put it, inaccurate. Sometimes inaccurate to the extreme.

A nice example for this is a raid by Soviet partisan detachment "Avengers" to a village on the west side of Lake Onega. I've seen two accounts for it, one written by Dmitri Gusarov who was a member of Avengers and one by a Finnish sapper who was positioned in the village.

Well, Gusarov's story tells how the partisans secured the village after a hard battle, and how the battle ended when the "surviving remnants of the garrison" escaped into the forest.

The Finnish account says that the "surviving remants" who climbed out of the window of their house were the whole garrison, a single squad of sappers assigned on a guard duty. They got surprised, put on their clothes, fired a few shots from a window, and escaped.

And since I don't want to give the impression that only Soviet accounts are in suspect, there's the occasion of an another partisan raid in the area. Two men, one Finn (Eino Pietola) and one Karelian (Jaakko Rugojev) have written books about it, one from both sides. Rugojev's book is a sober description of a partisan raid that had to turn back before it met its objectives (Rugojev himself was seriously wounded in an ambush and his survival was a small miracle). Pietola's book is a fantastic story of desperate (but ultimately succesfull) combats against numerically superior partisans who seem to be almost all-knowing .

The books have only one thing in common: both claim that the enemy communicated by faking cuckoo sounds and both claims are false. Neither Finns nor Russians used that method, ever.

Malachi151

15th October 2003, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Hypocolius

I have, but it isn't what Malachi was talking about. In Enemy the opening sequence showed an under-supplied (not unarmed) unit being thrown into the action, and then shot by there own side when they retreated. Quite believable, and I'm sure events like it happened occasionally, however Malachi was talking about prisoners being able to volunteer for Punishment Battalions whose primary purpose was to go on suicide missions.

My contention is that, while it is not impossible for this to have happened, it is unlikely to have happened very often, thus the implication that this was some kind of regular policy on the part of the Soviets is wrong. Only in the realms of fiction do such policies occur. I have read fairly widely on the subject, and while most accounts agree on the apparent disdain the USSR had for its soldiers, there is less agreement on these stories of suicide missions. Would you entrust a prisoner with a suicide mission?

edited to add
I just checked back to see which books you mentioned. I have read both of Beevor's books, and excellent they are. I really don't think he mentions Punishment Battalions being sent on suicide missions, but I'll check tonight to be sure.

Well, they interviewed a Russian survivor of one of these "so called" penail units on the History Channel. He said that he was only of only a handfull of survivors from these units and he had been sentanced to one year in prison for being late to class or something like that. He described the events, etc, and they then went into further detail about how the prison units worked. So, that's where my info on the matter comes from, call it into question if you will.

15th October 2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Well, they interviewed a Russian survivor of one of these "so called" penail units on the History Channel.

It might be interesting to get some more details. One thing to remember is that human memory is fallible. If the veteran was interviewed recently, then he has had almost 60 years of time to forget things. I mentioned above the two books by Stepakov. They were compiled in late 80s from interviews of veterans. Some of the accounts contain stuff that is demonstratably false, like one man's account of hand-to-hand combat against Finnish women's batallion [there were no such units in Finnish army]. Some others contain stuff that Soviet soldiers almost universally believed to be true during the war, even though they weren't. For example, there are numerous detailed accounts of "cuckoo-hunting", killing Finnish snipers who were positioned high up in trees. The problem there is that the vast majority of Finnish snipers shot from the ground [and they were very glad of Soviet practice of peppering all nearby treetops with lead after a sniper attack]. I've not been able to find even one confirmed case of Finnish sniper climbing into a tree.

Requoting earlier stuff:

They sent the prisoners coprs into known enemy positions with no weapons so that they could estimate the strength of the opposition.

Soviets definitely had one slightly similar practice. In late war, before they started a major offensive Soviets sent a number of recon probes to attack the enemy lines. However, in all cases that I'm aware of the attackers were armed.

These probes were generally much stronger than probes in other armies. While Finns, for example, used almost exclusively platoon-sized units in them, Soviets did often send companies or even batallions in such attacks.

The idea was that the advance elements would try to capture individual enemy strongpoints that presented the greatest danger for the planned large-scale breaktrough and identfy weak spots in the defences. The probes were often so intense that the enemy believed them to be a part of the main attack. So, for example, all Finnish sources state that the Soviet 1944 offensive started on June 9 while all Soviet sources use June 10. Similarily, Finns usually count the February major offensive at Summa to have started on February 1, 1940, while Soviet sources use February 11 as the start date.

I find it plausible that some men participating in the probes didn't know that they were only probing the enemy, not making a full assault. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if some of the men believed that they were sent there to get killed. Particularly unlucky probing units might suffer heavy casualties if they were aimed at heavy defences and their commanders didn't stop the attack at time.

The veteran in that document may have taken part in some of those probes, though I'm still sceptical about the "unarmed" part.

NoZed Avenger

15th October 2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

Beware of people who understand the "real history" as opposed to popular junk history. Clearly, the rest of us, no matter how well read, will ever be able to understand the "real history" because we are unenlightened and dupes.

Still my hero, hs4.

That may sadden you as well, of course. I think I'll avoid asking.

JAR

15th October 2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by LW
Aaarrrrrgh. If I see one more Eastern Front movie where a little Russian boy gets executed, I'll ... I'll ... I'll, well I don't know what I'll do, but I will certainly hate that movie with undying passion. If there is one overused cliche, then that is it.
Are you saying that it didn't happen?

In the book called "Enemy at the Gates: The Battle of Stalingrad", the execution of the boy happened.

Maybe the book's wrong. It happens quite often in historical works. When I read an historical work and I don't find a flaw, it's probably because I'm not familar with the subject.

renata

15th October 2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

Still my hero, hs4.

That may sadden you as well, of course. I think I'll avoid asking.

Yes, another great post from hs4. I already nominated it for the language prize. I wish he would contribute more to the PC&E. Of course, you have to be careful, NoZed, or else HS4 will put that comment of yours in his sig...and then next thing you know you will be knitting him blankets, too. :p Of course if he does that, I would have to post this comment of his in my sig "Renata -- as always, my heroine! Keep up the good fight!" from a certain troll busting thread of mine. That would really short circuit you, won't it? ;)

a_unique_person

15th October 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by JAR

Are you saying that it didn't happen?

In the book called "Enemy at the Gates: The Battle of Stalingrad", the execution of the boy happened.

Maybe the book's wrong. It happens quite often in historical works. When I read an historical work and I don't find a flaw, it's probably because I'm not familar with the subject.

AFAIK, the book is really a work of fiction.

JAR

15th October 2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
AFAIK, the book is really a work of fiction.
Well, if the book is wrong, I'm going to have to apologize to my father.

When he saw the part in the movie where the boy is executed, he said that it couldn't have happened. A while later, I read the book which said that the boy was executed and my father had to eat his words. Looks like I might have to eat my words.

NoZed Avenger

15th October 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by renata

Yes, another great post from hs4. I already nominated it for the language prize. I wish he would contribute more to the PC&E. Of course, you have to be careful, NoZed, or else HS4 will put that comment of yours in his sig...and then next thing you know you will be knitting him blankets, too.

Renata, I would feel guilty taking a blanket while you sit there, naked.

Not guilty enough to avoid taking it away from you and leaving you naked. But guilty, nonetheless.

NA

PS: Besides, I have sigs I haven't even touched, yet.

"A lesson learned from that- never argue against NoZed."
Renata, 10/7

16th October 2003, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by JAR

When he saw the part in the movie where the boy is executed, he said that it couldn't have happened. A while later, I read the book which said that the boy was executed and my father had to eat his words. Looks like I might have to eat my words.

There is no doubt that also children were executed by Germans. In some cases whole villages were destroyed and all inhabitants killed as a reprisal after a partisan raid.

What I ranted against was the seemingly necessary innocent Russian boy that gets killed in almost every war movie that is placed on the East Front.

In Cross of Iron he is shot by Russians when returning from Germans.

In Stalingrad the main characters of the movie are forced to execute him by an eevil nazi major.

And now in Enemy at Gates an eevil german major hangs him to find the sniper.

As I mentioned before, the way the duel is presented in the movie is not even close to the account given by Chuikov in his book "Stalingrad" (that is the earliest one that I've managed to find, probably there are previous Russian sources).

There the story goes like this: Russian snipers have got notable successes and to combat them Germans send in the commander of sniper school. I don't think the commander is named in Stalingrad, but other sources identify him as "Major König". Then, several Russian snipers got killed by a German sniper on a specific sector of the front. Zaitsev then guessed that the expert sniper is active there, and started to hunt him. After several days they find out that he was hidden under a destroyed tractor (or tank, or something like that). The hiding spot was identified when a Russian comissar saw him, but the German shot the comissar before he had time to reveal the place to the others. However, the Russian snipers got the general direction and then few hours later saw sunlight reflecting quickly from the scope of the German. The next day they constructed an ambush where one sniper very carefully raised his helmet on a plank, and shouted "in agony" when the sniper shot at it. Then. the German raised his head for an instant, and Zaitsev killed him.

Nothing about hanging children, there.

JAR

16th October 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by LW

There is no doubt that also children were executed by Germans. In some cases whole villages were destroyed and all inhabitants killed as a reprisal after a partisan raid.

What I ranted against was the seemingly necessary innocent Russian boy that gets killed in almost every war movie that is placed on the East Front.

In Cross of Iron he is shot by Russians when returning from Germans.

In Stalingrad the main characters of the movie are forced to execute him by an eevil nazi major.

And now in Enemy at Gates an eevil german major hangs him to find the sniper.

As I mentioned before, the way the duel is presented in the movie is not even close to the account given by Chuikov in his book "Stalingrad" (that is the earliest one that I've managed to find, probably there are previous Russian sources).

There the story goes like this: Russian snipers have got notable successes and to combat them Germans send in the commander of sniper school. I don't think the commander is named in Stalingrad, but other sources identify him as "Major König". Then, several Russian snipers got killed by a German sniper on a specific sector of the front. Zaitsev then guessed that the expert sniper is active there, and started to hunt him. After several days they find out that he was hidden under a destroyed tractor (or tank, or something like that). The hiding spot was identified when a Russian comissar saw him, but the German shot the comissar before he had time to reveal the place to the others. However, the Russian snipers got the general direction and then few hours later saw sunlight reflecting quickly from the scope of the German. The next day they constructed an ambush where one sniper very carefully raised his helmet on a plank, and shouted "in agony" when the sniper shot at it. Then. the German raised his head for an instant, and Zaitsev killed him.

Nothing about hanging children, there.
That's pretty much the way I remember the duel happening in the book. It wasn't as elaborate as it was in the movie.

[Edited to add: I just looked in the book and it says that the boy was executed by the Germans for espionage activities.]