The Siege of Leningrad in German Documents

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Postby Roberto » 02 Sep 2002 13:11

Scott Smith wrote:His smoking-gun quotations culled by Leftist German historians proves nothing.


Why so verbose, Mr. Smith? Does the evidence make you feel that uncomfortable?

Scott Smith wrote:Halder's signature is on the order; this is the kind of bullshit bellicose military rhetoric that is typical of the military.


Looks like Smith hasn’t even bothered to read the quotations.

One is an entry Halder made into his personal diary.

Another is an order by Halder to the troops of Army Group North, i.e. a document containing compulsory instructions on how the troops were to proceed.

The third is a private letter that General Quarter Master Eduard Wagner wrote to his wife, wherein he shared his thoughts with the person presumably most close to him. Elisabeth Wagner must have been aware of the damning nature of such confidences, for she took care to omit them when after the war she published her late husband’s biography with the title Der Generalquartiesmeister.

And there's more to follow.

Bullshit bellicose military rhetoric, Mr. Smith?

Bellicose apologetic bullshit is what I would call your feeble objections.

Scott Smith wrote:Big deal. Change the names and we could be talking about the Germans or the Japs instead of the Russians.


Yeah, sure. Give us a document wherein those evil Allies put to paper their intentions to let the population of an entire German or Japanese city perish rather than accept that city’s capitulation if it were offered. I’m definitely interested.

Scott Smith wrote:Genocide plans? Lots of smoke, not much fire. War sucks.


What sucks here should be obvious to a number of readers.

War is hell, but a policy to let the population of an entire city perish even if its government is prepared to throw the towel and hand the city over doesn’t have much to do with war anymore, does it?

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Postby Roberto » 02 Sep 2002 13:14

atkif wrote:Thank you for this translation.I would not be able to read it in German


I’m glad you appreciate it.

There’s more coming up, for the benefit of those interested in historical evidence and to feed the anger of the Führer's fans.

Cheers,

Roberto

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 4753
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

B.S. Rhetoric...

Postby Scott Smith » 02 Sep 2002 13:42

Roberto wrote:There’s more coming up, for the benefit of those interested in historical evidence and to feed the anger of the Führer's fans.

Poor Roberto. Go ahead and twist on the cross all you want. I don't mind a bit. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: B.S. Rhetoric...

Postby Roberto » 02 Sep 2002 14:24

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:There’s more coming up, for the benefit of those interested in historical evidence and to feed the anger of the Führer's fans.

Poor Roberto. Go ahead and twist on the cross all you want. I don't mind a bit. :mrgreen:


The contrast between Smith’s “do what you want” – mumbling and his previous verbosity suggests that the Führer’s first and foremost fan has again run out of arguments.

Poor Smith.

atkif
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 31 Jul 2002 23:26
Location: canada

Postby atkif » 02 Sep 2002 16:39

Scott Smith wrote:The political theorist Machiavelli lived in the 15th-16th century Italian Renaissance. "Ancient" means before the Middle Ages, the ancient world and Rome. I suggest some historical study on the historical realities of Siege Warfare.

Really ?When I mentioned Machiavelli I didn't want to connect his name
to the"Siege Warfare". I meant your tactics of pretending not to
notice the obvious points (like in the case of the "euthanasia" discussion
in the thread "soap")and picking on the facts advantageous to your ideological agenda.
This is very reminicsent of the Machiavelli tricks.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 4753
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Postby Scott Smith » 02 Sep 2002 16:52

atkif wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:The political theorist Machiavelli lived in the 15th-16th century Italian Renaissance. "Ancient" means before the Middle Ages, the ancient world and Rome. I suggest some historical study on the historical realities of Siege Warfare.

Really ?When I mentioned Machiavelli I didn't want to connect his name
to the"Siege Warfare". I meant your tactics of pretending not to
notice the obvious points (like in the case of the "euthanasia" discussion
in the thread "soap")and picking on the facts advantageous to your ideological agenda.
This is very reminicsent of the Machiavelli tricks.

Okay, I'll regard that as a compliment since I admire Machiavelli. But I thought you meant "Machiavellian" in the sense of Hitler refusing to feed the Leningraders who refused to surrender the city; and Stalin deliberately using Russian refugees to impede the German advance, or in this case not allowing the citizens of Leningrad to evacuate and ordering them to resist and starve in a long siege with little resupply. Hitler ordered the Berliners to resist that siege, but in the event he did not order them to starve since the battle did not last long. Of course, it is wrong if Hitler orders the citizens of Berlin to resist but heroic if Stalin orders the citizens of Leningrad to resist. :roll:

Anyway, atkif, I won't belabor the point that the Leningrad Genocide-allegation is THIN, with a capital T--and that rhymes with B (for bogus).

Best Regards,
Scott
Last edited by Scott Smith on 09 Sep 2002 09:28, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Postby Roberto » 02 Sep 2002 18:41

Scott Smith wrote:Anyway, atkif, I won't belabor the point that the Leningrad Genocide-allegation is THIN, with a capital T--and that rhymes with B (for bogus).


If you don't consider it genocidal to butcher the civilian population of a city or let it starve beyond the extent required to bring about the capitulation of that city, Smith is right.

Otherwise, he's just shooting the bull as would be expected of a true Nazi apologist, because the documentary evidence clearly shows that the Wehrmacht was prepared to let the population of Leningrad perish far beyond the extent required to achieve its military objectives.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Postby Roberto » 02 Sep 2002 18:52

Now to the next set of documents:

4. Lecture note from the Wehrmacht Command Staff at the Wehrmacht High Command about possible variants of the siege of Leningrad, 21.9.1941 (Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, RW 4/v.578, Bl. 144-146)

Vortragsnotiz Leningrad

Möglichkeiten:

1.) Stadt besetzen, also so verfahren, wie wir es mit anderen russischen Großstädten gemacht haben:

Abzulehnen, weil uns dann die Verantwortung für die Ernährung zufiele.

2.) Stadt eng abschliessen, möglichst mit einem elektrisch geladenen Zaum umgeben, der mit M.Gs. bewacht wird.

Nachteile: Von etwa 2 Millionen Menschen werden die Schwachen in absehbarer Zeit verhungern, die Starken sich dagegen alle Lebensmittel sichern und leben bleiben. Gefahr von Epidemien, die auf unsere Front übergreifen. Ausserdem fraglich, ob man unseren Soldaten zumuten kann, auf ausbrechende Frauen und Kinder zu schiessen.

3.) Frauen, Kinder, alte Leute durch Pforten des Einschliessungsringes abziehen, Rest verhungern lassen:

a) Abschieben über den Wolchow hinter die feindliche Front theoretisch gute Lösung, praktisch aber kaum durchführbar. Wer soll Hunderttausende zusammenhalten und vorwärtstreiben? Wo ist dann die russische Front?

b) Verzichtet man auf den Abmarsch hinter die russische Front, verteilen sich die Herausgelassenen über das Land.

Auf alle Fälle bleibt Nachteil bestehen, dass die verhungernde Restbevölkerung Leningrads einen Herd für Epidemien bildet und dass die Stärksten noch lange in der Stadt bleiben.

4.) Nach Vorrücken der Finnen und vollzogener Abschliessung der Stadt wieder hinter die Newa zurückgehen und das Gebiet nördlich dieses Abschnitts den Finnen überlassen.

Finnen haben inoffiziell erklärt, sie würden Newa gern als Landesgrenze haben, Leningrad müsse aber weg. Als politische Lösung gut. Frage der Bevölkerung Leningrads aber nicht durch Finnen zu lösen. Das müssen wir tun.

Ergebnis und Vorschlag

Befriedigende Lösung gibt es nicht. H.Gr. Nord muss aber, wenn es so weit ist, einen Befehl bekommen, der wirklich durchführbar ist.

Es wird vorgeschlagen:

a) Wir stellen vor der Welt fest, dass Stalin Leningrad als Festung verteidigt. Wir sind also gezwungen, die Stadt mit ihrer Gesamtbevölkerung als militärisches Objekt zu behandeln. Trotzdem tun wir ein Übriges: Wir gestatten dem Menschenfreund Roosevelt, nach einer Kapitulation Leningrad die nicht in Kriegsgefangenschaft gehenden Bewohner unter Aufsicht des Roten Kreuzes auf neutralen Schiffen mit Lebensmitteln zu versorgen oder in seinen Erdteil abzubefördern und sagen für diese Schiffsbewegung freies Geleit zu (Angebot kann selbstverständlich nicht angenommen werden, nur propagandistisch zu werten).

b) Wir schliessen Leningrad zunächst hermetisch ab und schlagen die Stadt, soweit mit Artillerie und Fliegern möglich, zusammen (vorerst nur schwache Fliegerkräfte verfügbar!).

c) Ist die Stadt dann durch Terror und beginnenden Hunger reif, werden einzelne Pforten geöffnet und Wehrlose herausgelassen. Soweit möglich, Abschub ins innere Russland, Rest wird sich zwangsläufig über das Land verteilen.

d) Rest der "Festungsbesatzung" wird den Winter über sich selbst überlassen. Im Frühjahr dringen wir dann in die Stadt ein (wenn die Finnen es vorher tun, ist nichts einzuwenden), führen das, was noch lebt, nach Innerrussland bzw. in die Gefangenschaft, machen Leningrad durch Sprengungen dem Erdboden gleich und übergeben den Raum nördlich der Newa den Finnen.


My translation:

Lecture Note Leningrad

Possibilities:

1.) Occupy the city, i.e. proceed as we have in regard to other Russian big cities:

To be rejected because we would then be responsible for the feeding.

2.) Seal off city tightly, if possible with an electrified fence guarded by machine guns.

Disadvantages: Of about 2 million people the weak will starve to death within a foreseeable time, whereas the strong will secure all food supplies and stay alive. The danger of epidemics that carry over to our front. It is also questionable whether our soldiers can be burdened with having to shoot on women and children trying to break out.

3.) Take out women, children and elder men through gates in the encirclement ring, let the rest starve to death:

a) Removal across the Volchov behind the enemy front theoretically a good solution, but can hardly be carried out in practice. Who is to keep hundreds of thousands together and drive them on? Where is the Russian front in this case?

b) If we do without a march behind the Russian front, those let out will spread across the land.

At any rate there remains the disadvantage that the starving remaining population of Leningrad constitutes a source of epidemics and that the strongest still remain in the city for a long time.

4.) After advance of the Fins and concluded sealing off of the city, we go back behind the Neva and leave the area to the north of this section to the Fins.

The Fins have unofficially declared, that they would like to have the Neva as their country’s border, but that Leningrad must go. Good as a political solution. The question of the population is not to be solved by the Fins, however. This we have to do.

Result and suggestion:

There is no satisfactory solution. Army Group North must, however, receive an order that can actually be carried out when the time comes.

The following is suggested:

a) We determine before the world that Stalin is defending Leningrad as a fortress. We are thus forced to treat the city with its entire population as a military objective. We nevertheless do more: We allow the humanitarian Roosevelt to feed the inhabitants not becoming prisoners of war after a capitulation of Leningrad under the supervision of the Red Cross or to transport them to his continent and guarantee free escort for this shipping movement (the offer can of course not be accepted, it is to be seen merely under propaganda aspects).

b) We seal off Leningrad hermetically for the time being and crush the city, as far as possible, with artillery and air power (only weak aerial forces available at the time!).

c) As soon as the city is ripe through terror and beginning hunger, a few gates are opened and the defenseless are let out. Insofar as possible they will be pushed of to inner Russia, the rest will necessarily spread across the land.

d) The rest of the "fortress defenders" will be left to themselves over the winter. In spring we then enter the city (if the Fins do it before us we do not object), lead those still alive to inner Russia or into captivity, wipe Leningrad from the face of the earth through demolitions and then hand over the area north of the Neva to the Fins.



5. Letter of the Navy Liaison Officer at Army Group North of 22.9.1941 (Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, RM 7/1014, Bl. 39-41)

Sehr verehrter Herr Admiral,

ich schreibe Ihnen wegen des Schicksals von Leningrad, welches jetzt der Entscheidung entgegengeht. Als ich am 19. dem Grossadmiral in Reval Vortrag hielt, war ihm offenbar unbekannt, dass es nicht beabsichtigt ist, in die Stadt hineinzugehen. Bei der Eroberung von Warschau haben wir damit böse Erfahrungen gemacht. Das weitere Vorgehen hatte sich der Führer, als er vor etwa 8 Wochen die Heeresgruppe besuchte, persönlich vorbehalten.
Ich habe aus gewissen Andeutungen, die mir der hiesige Chef des Generalstabes machte, den Eindruck, dass die Entscheidung etwa in folgendem Sinne nunmehr gefallen ist:
Leningrad ist die Geburtsstätte des Bolschwismus. Solange sie in deutscher Hand ist, wird sie dieselbe Rolle spielen, wie Konstantinopel für das zaristische Russland. Ihre Rückeroberung wird Programmpunkt Nr. 1 für den Bolschewismus sein, den der Führer in den asiatischen Raum zurückdrängen will. Die Stadt muss daher vom Erdboden verschwinden, wie s. Zt. Karthago.
Auch aus raumpolitischen Gründen ist dies erforderlich, da die Newa die Grenze zwischen Finnland und Ostland werden soll.
Zudem ist es klar, dass wir die Einwohner, z.Zt. auf etwa 5 Millionen geschätzt, nicht ernähren können.
Vermutlich soll die Stadt durch Artillerie, Bomben, Feuer, Hunger und Kälte vernichtet werden, ohne dass ein deutscher Soldat ihren Boden betritt.
Ich persönlich möchte bezweifeln, dass das bei der unglaublichen Zähigkeit des russischen Menschen gelingt. M.E. lassen sich nicht 4 - 5 Millionen Menschen so einfach umbringen.
Ich habe das aus eigener Anschauung in Kowno gesehen, wo die Letten
6 000 Juden erschossen haben, darunter Frauen und Kinder. Selbst ein so rohes Volk wie die Letten konnten dieses Morden schliesslich nicht mehr mit ansehen. Die ganze Aktion verlief dann im Sande. Wieviel schwieriger wird das mit einer Millionenstadt sein.
Zudem würde das m.E. einen Entrüstungssturm in der ganzen Welt auslösen, den wir uns politisch nicht leisten können.
Ich schneide diese Fragen an, da sie marine - politisch von grosser Bedeutung sind.
Als Hafen ist Leningrad ohne Zweifel ein Gewaltlösung, die Peter der Grosse zwangsweise wählen musste. Für das kommende Ostland wird der eisfreie Hafen von Reval oder Baltischport das Einfallstor zur See sein. Vielleicht kommt noch als Sommerhafen ein weiter ostwärts gelegener Hafen, z.B. Ust-Luga oder Oranienbaum in Frage.
Betreten wir Leningrad nicht, so bleibt der Marine die Ingangsetzung der Werften versagt. Es bleibt die Frage offen, ob wir uns das bei dem noch bevorstehenden Endkampf gegen England - U.S.A. leisten können. Schliesslich kann Leningrad auch später verschwinden, wenn wir den Seekrieg gewonnen haben.
Ich denke mir folgende Lösung: Wir erklären, dass wir wegen der Blockade durch England nicht in der Lage sind, die Bevölkerung dieser Riesenstadt noch zusätzlich zu ernähren. Zumal in einem Lande, dessen Ernährungsbasis durch die bolschewistische Misswirtschaft so verkommen ist. Wir gestatten den Frauen, Kindern und alten Männern freien Abzug. England und U.S.A. können Schiffe schicken, um sie an einen anderen Ort der Welt nach freier Wahl zu fahren. Die wehr- und arbeitsfähigen Männer kommen in Gefangenschaft.
Lehnt England / U.S.A. das Angebot ab, so tragen sie vor der Weltöffentlichkeit die Schuld am Untergang dieser Menschen. Nehmen sie es an, so sind wir die Sorge los und ihnen kostet es erheblichen Frachtraum.
Wir nehmen nach der Kapitulation gleichzeitig die Werften und einige wenige Versorgungsbetriebe mit Kriegsgefangenen in Betrieb und bauen dort ohne Luftgefährdung die Flotte, die wir für den Endkampf brauchen.
Währenddessen kann die Evakuierung der Stadt und ihr Abbau beginnen. Ist der Krieg siegreich beendet, verschwinden die noch verbliebenen Reste der Stadt. Die Werften werden nach Reval oder Baltisch Port verlegt.
Ich habe hier den Eindruck, dass im engsten Kreise um den Führer der Entschluss, wie gegen die Stadt vorgegangen wird, seit etwa 14 Tagen vorliegt, aber die verschiedensten Kreise aus bestimmten Gründen nicht unterrichtet werden.
Ich unterrichte Sie hierüber der Eile wegen unmittelbar. Vielleicht ist meine Sorge unnötig und die Seekriegsleitung genau im Bilde. Ich hielt es jedenfalls für meine Pflicht, meine Marinevorgesetzten über die hier gewonnenen Eindrücke zu unterrichten. Ich wäre dankbar, wenn die ganze Angelegenheit entsprechend vertraulich behandelt wird.
Da das taktische Vorgehen gegen die russische Flotte, Kronstadt und Leningrad in hohem Masse von den Endabsichten abhängig ist, wäre ich für eine kurze Unterrichtung dankbar. Dies ist erforderlich, da ich nur so meinen Oberbefehlshaber, der sehr viel Verständnis für die Marine und die Gesamtkriegsführung hat, sachlich richtig beraten kann. Fällt die Entscheidung gegen die Marine, so können viele Bindungen fortfallen, wie z.B, das Schonen der Werften und Hafenanlagen. Das würde den ohnehin sehr blutigen Kampf erleichtern. Auch Kronstadt braucht dann nicht genommen zu werden.

Mit ergebensten Grüssen

und Heil Hitler

Ihr

[Unterschrift]

Kapitän zur See


My translation:

Most Honored Admiral,

I’m writing to you because of the fate of Leningrad, which is now approaching decision. When I held a lecture to the Grand Admiral in Reval on the 19th, he obviously did not know that it is not intended to enter the city. During the conquest of Warsaw we had bad experiences with this. The further procedure the Führer reserved to himself personally when he visited the Army Group about 8 weeks ago.
From several hints given to me by the local head of general staff I got the impression that the decision has by now been taken in about the following sense:
Leningrad is the birthplace of Bolshevism. As long as it is in German hands it will have the same role that Constantinople used to have for the Czars’ Russia. Its re-conquest will be point no. 1 on the program of Bolshevism, which the Führer wants to displace into Asia. The city must thus disappear from the face of the earth, like Cartage in its time.
Also for reasons of territorial policy this is necessary, because the Neva is to become the new frontier between Finland and the Eastern Territories.
Besides it is clear than we cannot feed the inhabitants, which are currently estimated at about 5 million.
The city is presumably to be destroyed by artillery, bombs, fire, hunger and cold, without a single German soldier stepping into it.
I personally doubt that this will be possible, given the incredible toughness of the Russian. In my opinion 4 to 5 million people cannot be killed off that easily.
I saw this with my own eyes in Kovno, where the Latvians shot 6 000 Jews, among them women and children. Even a people as rude as the Latvians could no longer bear the sight of this murder in the end. The whole action then ran out of steam. How much more difficult will this be with a city of millions.
Besides this would in my opinion lead to a storm of indignation in the whole world, which we politically cannot afford.
I address these questions because they are of great importance in terms of naval policies.
As a port Leningrad is without doubt a makeshift solution that Peter the Great had to choose. For the future Eastern Territories the ice-free harbor of Reval or Baltischport will be the gateway to the sea. Maybe a port further to the East, e.g. Ust-Luga or Oranienbaum, is to be considered additionally as a summer port.
If we don’t set foot in Leningrad, our navy is kept from putting the threws to function. The question is whether we can afford this in view of the final fight against England and the U.S.A. still in front of us. After all Leningrad can also disappear at a later stage, when we have won the war at sea.
I imagine the following solution: We declare that due to the blockade by England we are not in conditions to additionally feed the population of this giant city. This especially in a land the food basis of which is so deteriorated due to Bolshevik mismanagement. We allow the women, children and old men to leave at will. England and the U.S.A. may send ships to taken them to another part of the world at their choice. The men able to fight and to work will be taken into captivity.
If England / U.S.A. refuse this proposal, they bear the responsibility for the demise of these people before world opinion. If they accept, we are rid of the problem and they have to expend additional freight room.
After the capitulation we immediately start operating the threws and some supply installations with prisoners of war and without danger from the air build the fleet that we need for the final fight.
In the meantime the evacuation and deconstruction of the city may commence. Once the war has been victoriously concluded, what still remains of the city will disappear. The threws will be taken to Reval or Baltisch Port.
I have the impression that in the closest circle around the Führer the decision how to proceed against the city has been taken about 14 days ago but the most varied circles are not informed thereof for certain reasons.
I inform you hereof directly due to the urgency of the matter. Maybe my concern is unnecessary and the Naval Command is accurately informed. At any rate I considered it my duty to inform my navy superiors about the impressions gained here. I would be grateful if the whole matter could accordingly be treated confidentially.
As the tactical proceeding against the Russian fleet, Kronstadt and Leningrad depends to a great extent on the final intentions, I would be very grateful for a brief notice. This is necessary because only thus I will be able to provide accurate counsel in the matter to my supreme commander, who has much understanding for the navy and the overall conduct of the war. If the decision is taken against the navy, many constraints can be eliminated, like for instance the sparing of the thews and port installations. This would make the anyway very bloody fighting easier. Neither would Kronstadt have to be taken in this case.

With my most submissive regards

and Heil Hitler

Yours truly,

[signature]

Captain at See



6. The Führer’s Decision on Leningrad (Entschluß der Führers über Leningrad), transmitted by the Naval Warfare Command (Seekriegsleitung) to Army Group North on 29.09.1941 (Tagebuch der Seekriegsleitung, quoted in Max Domarus, Hitler Reden und Proklamationen 1932-1945, Volume 4, Page 1755)

Betrifft: Zukunft der Stadt Petersburg
II. Der Führer ist entschlossen, die Stadt Petersburg vom Erdboden verschwinden zu lassen. Es besteht nach der Niederwerfung Sowjetrußlands keinerlei Interesse an dem Fortbestand dieser Großsiedlung. Auch Finnland hat gleicherweise kein Interesse an dem Weiterbestehen der Stadt unmittelbar an seiner neuen Grenze bekundet.
III. Es ist beabsichtigt, die Stadt eng einzuschließen und durch Beschuß mit Artillerie aller Kaliber und laufendem Laufeinsatz dem Erdboden gleichzumachen.
IV. Sich aus der Lage der Stadt ergebende Bitten um Übergabe werden abgeschlagen werden, da das Problem des Verbleibens und der Ernährung der Bevölkerung von uns nicht gelöst werden kann und soll. Ein Interesse an der Erhaltung auch nur eines Teils dieser großstädtischen Bevölkerung besteht in diesem Existenzkrieg unsererseits nicht. Notfalls soll gewaltsame Abschiebung in den östlichen russischen Raum erfolgen.


My translation:

Subject: Future of the City of Petersburg
II. The Führer is determined to remove the city of Petersburg from the face of the earth. After the defeat of Soviet Russia there can be no interest in the continued existence of this large urban area. Finland has likewise manifested no interest in the maintenance of the city immediately at its new border.
III. It is intended to encircle the city and level it to the ground by means of artillery bombardment using every caliber of weapon, and continual air bombardment.
IV. Requests for surrender resulting from the city’s encirclement will be denied, since the problem of relocating and feeding the population cannot and should not be solved by us. In this war for our very existence, there can be no interest on our part in maintaining even a part of this large urban population. If necessary forcible removal to the eastern Russian area is to be carried out.


More is to follow.
Last edited by Roberto on 02 Sep 2002 20:48, edited 2 times in total.

atkif
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 31 Jul 2002 23:26
Location: canada

Postby atkif » 02 Sep 2002 19:00

Petersburg is considered to be one of the most beautiful cities in Europe.
So much for the "civilized" Nazis taking pride in the German culture...

Lumpy Custard
Banned
Posts: 25
Joined: 20 Aug 2002 20:53
Location: England

Postby Lumpy Custard » 02 Sep 2002 21:40

I read with interest bits and pieces of this topic. We must remember that when the seige of Leningrad was over from that date till 1949 Stalin made it one of his main priorities to arrest the commanders who lead the seige and provided hope and inspiration for the civilians there.
Once arrested of course they were tortured to death, even their families were tracked down, some imprisoned, some executed. The reason for these thousands of deaths?, because people looked up more to them than Stalin!. Now if he is capable of doing this to his own people, who acted and defended Leningrad for him why does anybody doubt that Berlin would have been totally desimated, indeed most of germany probably if they were allowed to.
As a old veteran say to me once when I met him " I fought in berlin, the day the russians came, it was a day of hell on earth, it was the day Germany died. Chris.

atkif
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 31 Jul 2002 23:26
Location: canada

Postby atkif » 02 Sep 2002 21:55

Lumpy Custard wrote: Now if he is capable of doing this to his own people, who acted and defended Leningrad for him why does anybody doubt that Berlin would have been totally desimated, indeed most of germany probably if they were allowed to.
As a old veteran say to me once when I met him " I fought in berlin, the day the russians came, it was a day of hell on earth, it was the day Germany died.

I agree with you that Stalin was a moral monster .No doubts.
However I am not quite sure about your remark "...if they were allowed to".If they were allowed to by whom ?Remember Berlin was taken by
Russians not by Americans or Brits. The population of Berlin was not
"totally desimated" despite the absolute Russian military control.
There were no plans to annihilate Berlin as opposite to what the Germans
had in store for Moscow and Leningrad.
Yes I am sure that it was "hell on earth ".My father once told me the same - he was fighting on the Russian (Soviet) side.
But I don't think that Germany died then.Germany lives and now one of the most prosperous countries.
It is the Nazi Germany which died.

User avatar
David C. Clarke
Member
Posts: 7702
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 17:17
Location: U.S. of A.

Very

Postby David C. Clarke » 02 Sep 2002 22:05

This is VERY Compelling information Roberto. You are to be congratulated for stripping away the veneer of rhetoric
that appears when discussing the Seige of Leningrad. I think
you have revealed it for what it actually was, part of Hitler's
genocidal plans for Russia. That these plans were essentially
straight forward and well-understood by the men who would
implement them is a terrible truth that shouldn't be ignored.
Very Best Regards, David

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Postby Ovidius » 03 Sep 2002 00:19

atkif wrote:Petersburg is considered to be one of the most beautiful cities in Europe.
So much for the "civilized" Nazis taking pride in the German culture...


Dresden, Königsberg, Danzig, Hamburg, were also among the most beautiful cities in Europe, but nobody cared for it. Neither then(when it was understandable, being war), nor today, when the public ears are deaf to whatever said about.

~Ovidius

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Postby Ovidius » 03 Sep 2002 01:05

michael mills wrote:Accordingly, the death of almost one million civilians in Leningrad cannot be attributed solely to a German plan; it was also, even mainly, the result of the willingness of the Soviet Government to sacrifice millions of its own people in order to achieve its ends. If the civilian population had been evacuated in time, then there would have been no mass starvation, no matter how much the German Army bombarded the city


atkif wrote:Very serious accusation.Do you think that "the Soviet Government"
was able to foresee how long the siege would last ?
Do you think that "the Soviet Government" would benefit from the "sacrifice"of "millions of its own people"?
What ends "the Soviet Government" was trying to achieve by such a sacrifice?
Looks like some sort of a conspiracy theory.


I wrote:Why did the Party Secretary Of Leningrad, Andrei A. Zhdanov, refuse to capitulate or evacuate the city


atkif wrote:Just because the Soviet people didn't want to surrender.
Just because they somehow didn't like the idea of the Germans ruling them.It is probably ve-e-e-r-y difficult to comprehend.


Obviously even for the narrower minds, the four quotes above are not part of a logical string, because between #2 and #4 there is a contradiction.

Which is even stranger considering the two quotes are from the same author.

A case of split personality?

~Ovidius

PS this is not Off-Topic. It's a matter about the Soviets' intention to evacuate cities, this including, but not limited to the unused possibility to evacuate Sankt Petersburg(then known as Leningrad)

atkif
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 31 Jul 2002 23:26
Location: canada

Postby atkif » 03 Sep 2002 03:40

Dear Ovidius
This is very sad that you see some sort of a contradiction where there is none.There is no contradiction between these two quotations whatsoever.
The first quotation (#2 by your count ) are just sarcastic questions.
You see Ovidius - sarcasm can be expressed not only by the smiles on the green faces (as you are accustomed to express it).Sarcasm can be a lot more subtle.
It is quite a pity that you were not able to get it.
Probably your passionate devotion to Nazism blinded you somewhat.
Your attempt to insult me with your "split personality" remark is pathetic.
Look at yourself - your case is just plain idiocy.


Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]