Heroic Defense of the Adzhimushkai Quarry in 1942

[Kim Sung]

Still no sources for the mentioned claims ??

Jan-Hendrik

See what Oleg Grigoryev posted above. That's the source.

[Jan-Hendrik]

That is a claim in Internet in a not understandable language ...

Maybe you do not understand what the word "source" implies ?

Jan-Hendrik

[Kim Sung]

Survivors' accounts were the only evidence on the use of poison gas as I said above. What do you want more? Do you think survivors fabricated all the stories? If you don't believe them, there's nothing more. I don't have any access to classified former Soviet documents about Adzhimushkay and Brest. I'm not a high ranking diplomatic official yet who can request Russians to open their classified documents.

[Jan-Hendrik]

So we are not any far as in the beginning ...


Claims , but no sources .

Jan-Hendrik

[Kim Sung]

If we can't believe survivors' accounts(for example, diary), there's no other source. The Red Cross investigation or government reports can be fabricated for some political intention. Survivors' accounts are the most reliable sources in these cases.

In case of Brest fortress, details on the heroic fightings of red army soldiers were completely ignored and concealed by Stalin regime until Krushchev era because Stalin wanted to conceal his failure in preventing German attack in advance, causing debacle of the red army. So, details of the battle including the use of gas were revealed 15 years later. In this situation, things like Red Cross investigation was already inconceivable. Survivors' accounts were the only evidence on the use of poison gas. What could they do more at the time?


* Stalin also completely ingored and concealed the sacrifice of the famous spy, Richard Sorge because Stalin wanted to conceal his failure in preventing German attack even though Sorge gave information on impending German attack on the Soviet Union.

In case of Adzhimushkay, when the red army liberated Kerch area in April, 1944, they found huge piles of corpses in quarries. Because scores of survivors from the battle of Adzhimushkay were still imprisoned in German POW camps at the time, details on the battle were not known until the end of the war. Without knowing details of the battle, how could they summon the Red Cross to Adzhimushkay?

Like in case of Brest, survivors' consistent accounts on the use of poison gas are the only evidence. Did they fabricate the story to boast of their ordeal at Adzhimushkay? I don't think so.

[Oleg Grigoryev]

So we are not any far as in the beginning ...


Claims , but no sources .

Jan-Hendrik

You never siad what you will consider to be a source. There was couple of post-war investigations done by the Soviet authorities -would you consider these results to be a source?

[Larry D.]

killchola -

From your initial post of 9 September 2005:

But 10-15 thousand soldiers didn't surrender
and retreated in the caves in Adzhimushkai vicinities and continued to fight against
Germans from these old deserted quarries. They had no hope to survive, they practically
had no any water and any food (they have to take them in combats and raids) but they
proceeded with active actions against Germans. The Germans had to leave there some
combat units against that Soviet soldiers. Nazis used large amount of explosives
against Soviet soldiers there and even used some poison gas against their opponents
hiding in Adzhimushkai. Only in October, 1942 Germans could eliminate the last points of
resistance there. The soldiers of Adzhimushkai fought to death but didn't surrender,
almost nobody from them survived (as I know).

If this were a story of a half-dozen or a dozen soldiers holed up in a quarry or a bunker or whatever, I would give it no further thought. But 10-15 thousand Russian soldiers? And we are to buy this without any more "evidence" than a few survivor accounts or a diary or two? I learned along time ago to never but never trust isolated survivor accounts and personal diaries without some sort of official documents and/or investigations to corroborate the incident, either in whole or in part. Accordingly, I do not accept the veracity of this incident.

If you read above in this thread, you will find that the poison gas at Brest-Litovsk allegation has also been dismissed.

Until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt, both of these claims are fictitious.

--Larry

[Oleg Grigoryev]

killchola -

From your initial post of 9 September 2005:

But 10-15 thousand soldiers didn't surrender
and retreated in the caves in Adzhimushkai vicinities and continued to fight against
Germans from these old deserted quarries. They had no hope to survive, they practically
had no any water and any food (they have to take them in combats and raids) but they
proceeded with active actions against Germans. The Germans had to leave there some
combat units against that Soviet soldiers. Nazis used large amount of explosives
against Soviet soldiers there and even used some poison gas against their opponents
hiding in Adzhimushkai. Only in October, 1942 Germans could eliminate the last points of
resistance there. The soldiers of Adzhimushkai fought to death but didn't surrender,
almost nobody from them survived (as I know).

If this were a story of a half-dozen or a dozen soldiers holed up in a quarry or a bunker or whatever, I would give it no further thought. But 10-15 thousand Russian soldiers? And we are to buy this without any more "evidence" than a few survivor accounts or a diary or two? I learned along time ago to never but never trust isolated survivor accounts and personal diaries without some sort of official documents and/or investigations to corroborate the incident, either in whole or in part. Accordingly, I do not accept the veracity of this incident.

If you read above in this thread, you will find that the poison gas at Brest-Litovsk allegation has also been dismissed.

Until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt, both of these claims are fictitious.

--Larry

and since there is nothing of the sort that as far as you concerned that can be clear that "reasonable" doubt - it all fictitious by definition?

[Larry D.]

and since there is nothing of the sort that as far as you concerned that can be clear that "reasonable" doubt - it all fictitious by definition?

YES, insofar as I am concerned. You are free to believe whatsoever you wish.

[Oleg Grigoryev]

and since there is nothing of the sort that as far as you concerned that can be clear that "reasonable" doubt - it all fictitious by definition?

YES, insofar as I am concerned. You are free to believe whatsoever you wish.

so by your criteria then EF was practically war crime –free –is that what you believe?

[Qvist]

If we can't believe survivors' accounts(for example, diary), there's no other source. The Red Cross investigation or government reports can be fabricated for some political intention. Survivors' accounts are the most reliable sources in these cases.

A general comment here. A key point with any account of own experiences is that even if completely truthful and based on perfect recall, its value is limited to what the person writing it was in a position to know.

As has been pointed out, how can survivors be expected to distinguish between combat gases on the one hand and things like exhaust-generated gas or plain smoke (which is more than noxious enough in confined spaces with no means of ventilation)? In view of the, to the best of my knowledge, complete absence of anything indicating that either side employed chemical weapons in the proper sense of the word, what is there in these survivor's accounts that allows the conclusion that what was used was poison combat gas rather than some sort of ad-hoc generated smoke, for example?

And, I would agree with Larry that to draw any firm conclusions solely on the basis of a published memoir account such as the above would seem hazardous, to say the least.


cheers

[Oleg Grigoryev]

A general comment here. A key point with any account of own experiences is that even if completely truthful and based on perfect recall, its value is limited to what the person writing it was in a position to know.

As has been pointed out, how can survivors be expected to distinguish between combat gases on the one hand and things like exhaust-generated gas or plain smoke (which is more than noxious enough in confined spaces with no means of ventilation)? In view of the, to the best of my knowledge, complete absence of anything indicating that either side employed chemical weapons in the proper sense of the word, what is there in these survivor's accounts that allows the conclusion that what was used was poison combat gas rather than some sort of ad-hoc generated smoke, for example?

And, I would agree with Larry that to draw any firm conclusions solely on the basis of a published memoir account such as the above would seem hazardous, to say the least.

A general comment on a general comment. The remaining accounts speak of “poison gas” or “gas” – then never tried with any degree of certainty to establish what exactly was used and what its nature was. Post war research points out to very strong version of a tear gas (the same gas was used in soviet army to teach recruits to adjust their gas mask properly) -Which is when in pumped into enclosed environment without ventilation can be deadly simply by displacing oxygen.
At no point there was a claim that some nerve agent was used. The only info on the subject is available either via personal accounts or post-Soviet research. At this forum these tend to be rejected as “propaganda” . The way to check would be to see if German unit in question had any tear gas available to it and if there was reported drop on quantity. The problem is I have no idea what was the German unit in question. Given the general behavior of Germans in Crimea (Bagerovskiy Rov) for instance – I definitely would not put it past them

[Kim Sung]

Given the general behavior of Germans in Crimea (Bagerovskiy Rov) for instance – I definitely would not put it past them

Is Bagerovskiy Rov a similar thing to Adzhimushkay? Or another kind of atrocity?

[Oleg Grigoryev]

Given the general behavior of Germans in Crimea (Bagerovskiy Rov) for instance – I definitely would not put it past them

Is Bagerovskiy Rov a similar thing to Adzhimushkay? Or another kind of atrocity?

Bagerovskiy Rov is similar to Babiy Yar but on a smaller scale

[Qvist]

Hello Oleg

The only info on the subject is available either via personal accounts or post-Soviet research. At this forum these tend to be rejected as “propaganda” .

I should hope that this is not the case to any unreasonable degree, at least among our more reasonable posters.

The way to check would be to see if German unit in question had any tear gas available to it and if there was reported drop on quantity. The problem is I have no idea what was the German unit in question.

I agree - there ought to be some trace of it somewhere in German documentation if something as extraordinary as the use of chemical agents for combat purposes was taking place. I doubt however that German units carried tear gas on any routine basis.

Given the general behavior of Germans in Crimea (Bagerovskiy Rov) for instance – I definitely would not put it past them

Nor would I, in terms of scruples. But there appears to have been very strong inhibitions against the use of poison gas in combat with the German military, quite beyond any moral factors.


cheers