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.
atkif
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 31 Jul 2002 23:26
Location: canada

Post by atkif » 07 Sep 2002 18:29

Yes I agree with you.The discussion is getting to the realms of absurdity.
Roberto provided documents which show irrefutable evidence what Nazis prepared in store for the Leningraders.
Namely 1.Sealing up the city "tight' (legitimate method of Siege Warfare)2.Bombing the city rather than employing tanks and infantry in order to spare the German personal (also legitimate per se)
3.Having plans not to accept capitulation (documented) even if surrender is offered.( This is not legitimate .Are you arguing this?)
This along with the two above points makes the German
intentions towards Leningrad criminal.To argue that is to demonstrate
some strong bias.
You disagree with me ( out of pride combined with your bias ,I believe)
not providing any strong arguments on behalf of your position.
So let it be .People who read the documents have their own minds to
realize what was planned for Leningrad by the Nazis.
It is absolutely futile effort to dissuade you from your preconceived opinion.
The same could not be said about me because I base my opinion on the documented facts not on "It could not have happened because it could not
have happened .Period."
My regards,

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 07 Sep 2002 20:37

Roberto wrote:
michael mills wrote:
The following quotes are from:

Harrison E. Salisbury, The 900 Days. The Siege of Leningrad. Avon Books, New York, 1970

Page 383

Quote:
[…]Hitler insisted that von Leeb draw the tightest kind of circle around Leningrad. Secretly, the Führer instructed von Leeb that the city’s capitulation was not to be accepted. The population was to die with the doomed city. Random shelling of civilian objectives was authorized. If the populace tried to escape the iron ring, they were to be shot down.
No hint of this brutal decision was made public.[…]



michael mills wrote:The above quote from the book by Harrison Salisbury (wasn't he the guy who predicted a war between the Soviet Union and Red China?)


Which seems to have been a distinct possibility following the border clashes in 1969/70, something Mills obviously expects the audience not to know.

michael mills wrote:indicated that he distorted German actions to some extent.


Whoever writes stuff like:

michael mills wrote:Rather, they indicate a paln to eliminate Leningrad as a centre of population by removing the people and sending them elsewhere.


should refrain from accusing others of "distorting" anything.

Unless, of course, the term "elsewhere" was meant to include the mass grave first and foremost.

As I see it, there's nothing in Salisbury's description that can be considered as a "distortion" of Hitler's order as transmitted to Army Group North on 29.09.1941:

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.


or Halder's order of 07.10.1941 containing i.a. the precision that civilians leaving the city in the direction of the German lines were to be shot down.

michael mills wrote:Salisbury gives the impression that ALL civilians attempting to leave the city were to be shot down.


Not exactly incorrect. That's what the order amounted to in practice, for the "smaller gaps" never existed and even if they had it is rather doubtful to what extent civilians would have chanced death by cold and starvation in the open plains to avoid death by starvation inside the city, where at least there was a shimmer of hope that the blockade might eventually be lifted and normal supplies restored.

On the lips of Leningraders who carried on in spite of every peril, he knew, was only one question, repeated again and again: "Will the Germans soon be driven out? Will the blockade soon be lifted?"


Salisbury, as above, page 555

The instruction to fire on civilians seeking the mercy of the besiegers seems to have been no less theoretical, by the way. Hardly a case of civilians having sought that way out is known.

michael mills wrote:In fact, Jodl's order of 7 October 1941 indicates that civilians were to be allowed to leave for Soviet-held territory.


That's not exactly a brilliant discovery on the part of Mr. Mills. Read my document no. 7.

michael mills wrote:The relevant part of his order, as translated in "Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression", Vol. VI, Doc. C-124, reads:

"The exodus of the population through the smaller, unguarded gaps towards the interior of Russia is to be allowed.".


Boy, what a lousy translation. The original German text reads:

Kleinere, nicht gesperrte Lücken, die ein Herausströmen der Bevölkerung nach Innerrußland ermöglichen, sind daher nur zu begrüßen.


My translation:

Smaller gaps not sealed which allow for a streaming out of the population to inner Russia are thus only to be welcomed.


The Nuremberg translation sounds somewhat more benevolent, which explains why Michael Mills gave preference to it although aware of its inaccuracy.


P.S.

It’s worth while looking at the passage that Michael Mills makes so much of in the context of the document in question>

Kein deutscher Soldat hat daher diese Städte zu betreten. Wer die Stadt gegen unsere Linien verlassen will, ist durch Feuer zurückzuweisen. Kleinere, nicht gesperrte Lücken, die ein Herausströmen der Bevölkerung nach Innerrußland ermöglichen, sind [b]daher[b] nur zu begrüßen. Auch für die übrigen Städte gilt, dass sie vor der Einnahme durch Artilleriefeuer und Luftangriffe zu zermürben sind und die Bevölkerung zur Flucht zu veranlassen ist.


My translation>

No German soldier may thus set foot in these cities. Whoever wants to leave the city in the direction of our lines is to be rejected by fire. Smaller gaps not sealed which allow for a streaming out of the population to inner Russia are [b]thus[b] only to be welcomed. Also for the other cities the principle applies that prior to being taken they must be worn down by artillery fire and air attacks and the population induced into fleeing them.


Emphases are mine.

The highlighted term “daher” (which means “thus” or “therefore”) struck me as odd because I would have expected a “dagegen” (meaning “whereas” or “on the other hand”) in its place.

The statement would then have meant that “whoever wants to leave the city in the direction of our lines is to be rejected by fire, whereas smaller gaps not sealed which allow for a streaming out of the population to inner Russia are only to be welcomed”. This would have been a perfectly logical sequence of thought.

But the term is “daher”, which means the message conveyed by the two sentences is that “whoever wants to leave the city in the direction of our lines is to be rejected by fire, for which reason smaller gaps not sealed which allow for a streaming out of the population to inner Russia are only to be welcomed”.

Does this make sense?

Could the “daher” have been typed in by mistake?

Considering how often a document as important as Jodl’s order is likely to have been redrafted and reviewed, every word and every sentence weighed and discussed before reaching its final version, this must be dismissed as an extremely remote possibility.

A closer look at the context of the document, on the other hand, shows that, contrary to what appears to be the case at first sight, the message

“whoever wants to leave the city in the direction of our lines is to be rejected by fire, for which reason smaller gaps not sealed which allow for a streaming out of the population to inner Russia are only to be welcomed”

makes perfect sense.

As becomes apparent i.a. from the Wehrmacht Command Staff’s memorandum of 21.9.1941 (document no. 4, my translation)>

It is also questionable whether our soldiers can be burdened with having to shoot on women and children trying to break out.


the German High Command was very much concerned with the psychological burden that having to shoot down helpless civilians trying to leave the city in the direction of the German lines would represent for the German troops, i.e. with the effects that being called upon to perform such massacres would have on troop morale.

It is therefore reasonable to see Jodl as having reasoned that it would not be so bad if such a situation could be avoided or at least eased by leaving the starving, desperate people somewhere else to turn to in case they decided to get out of the city or at least having them believe that there was such a possibility.

This would have the additional advantage of worsening the situation in the Soviet hinterland (to the extent that any of those trying to flee actually got there), and the besiegers would get rid of the “useless eaters” they intended to get rid of all the same.

Whether any of those who might try to get out through those “smaller gaps” actually survived was of no importance to Jodl or his superior. In fact that would have been rather unlikely. People weakened by starvation usually can barely walk and would thus have hardly endured a foot march first out of the city, then through Soviet-held territory inside the encirclement and finally through German-held territory to the Soviet lines outside the ring, all that without rations and in the middle of winter.

But what happened to the people of Leningrad neither Hitler nor the German High Command cared about. That all or most of them would die of starvation or cold one way or the other (either inside the city or during suicidal attempts to get out on their own) was fine with them because it served their goal, which was to avoid having to feed the population of Leningrad.

The “smaller gaps” thus signaled no benevolence whatsoever toward the city’s civilian population and didn’t mean that they were to be given a realistic chance of survival. They were thought of solely or mainly for the purpose of keeping the starving civilians from approaching the German lines in case their desperation prompted them to seek a way out, and thus sparing German troops the psychological burden of having to shoot down emaciated, desperate women and children hoping for their mercy.

Sometimes the devil is in the details.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 07 Sep 2002 20:52

Scott Smith wrote:I guess we are going to have to agree-to-disagree on this "Leningrad Genocide" issue because I think the whole thing is nonsense and that the documents are interpreted about like the scriptures among the faithful.


Says one of the faithful paladins of Adolf who went out of their way trying to convince people that the documents don’t say what they obviously do.

By signal the one who, unlike his more sophisticated companion, didn't even try to propose a reading of the documents in question that might be considered an alternative to the reading he professes to dislike.

Nothing we haven-t seen before, really.

In fact one of the mainstays of “Revisionist” argumentation, practiced to such an extent that the Revs are falling victim to the “boy cries wolf” – effect> nobody takes their whining seriously anymore.

Scott Smith wrote:I've said such things as the 1935 Nuremberg Laws were ill-advised and excessive and that Germany should not have invaded the Soviet Union or declared war on the United States, although I do feel that there was ample justification in doing so.


A statement that says everything about the true believer’s mind.

Adolf shouldn’t have turned those bloody Jews into outcasts, and he shouldn‘t have staged his all-out war of unprovoked aggression on the Soviet Union, not because the first was highly immoral at the very least and the last was downright criminal (why, according to Smith there was even “ample justification” for both), but because both turned out to be inconvenient to the interests of Greater Germany, the latter even leading to its demise.

That’s how the Fuehrer’s Faithful see it.

Very instructive.

Scott Smith wrote:Of course, if all I wind-up doing is engaging in Is-Too/Is-Not with people and responding to reductionistic Spam, then the quality of my posts likewise obviously goes down.


Well, Smith, the truth is that your posts never contain much from the very start. Endlessly repeated nonsensical assertions coupled with equally repetitive slogans and phrases that are as handy as they are silly, and little else.

Scott Smith wrote:I can usually deal with namecalling, aspersions and other nonsense myself so it's no big deal--unless threads become a one-on-one slugfest instead of a multilateral dialog, or start getting locked as a result.


I don’t see how there can be a “multilateral dialog” with the likes of Smith, unless his interlocutors are prepared to sheepishly nod to his nonsense.

Something that most people around here are fortunately too smart and too critical to do.

Scott Smith wrote: The whole point is to promote discussion and a free-exchange of ideas. Otherwise, what difference does it make what I think about Leningrad?


Indeed it makes no difference at all, Mr. Smith.

Indeed your intervention is completely uncalled for, as you have nothing but a stubborn repetition of your articles of faith to offer.

But as it stimulates discussion and thus furthers my providing of information to those interested (this thread probably would not have been so widely read if it had not been for the fuss made by the Fuehrer’s valiant defenders), I don’t exactly mind it.

Scott Smith wrote:Oh course, Roberto will tell you that there are no ideas or variegated viewpoints, just his "facts."


There’s no such thing as “my” facts or my “facts”, Mr. Smith.

There are only the facts borne out by the evidence.

Where evidence requires interpretation, there are reasonable and defensible interpretations of evidence on the hand and far-fetched or even nonsensical, ideologically colored interpretations of it on the other.

My interpretations (and those of Atkif, Walter Kaschner, Richard Murphy, Hans, Tarpon, Xanthro and other objective, reasonable posters) belong in the former category.

Yours and those of other true believers, and also (although far more imaginative and sophisticated) those of Michael Mills, belong in the latter.

Scott Smith wrote:But Scripture is always self-evident to the Believer.


Contemporary documents are no “scripture”.

They are evidence subject to assessment and interpretation.

I have provided mine in this case, which I’m confident stands up to reasonable critical scrutiny.

Your verbose “vade retro” rhetoric, on the other hand, shows that you haven’t even bothered to look at the documents in question.

Poor show, Mr. Smith.

Scott Smith wrote:That's why I tell him to ALWAYS BELIEVE...


That’s why the “always believe” is the ultimate in hypocritical junk, it being more than obvious to anyone with brains inside his skull that the True Believer is Smith himself.

But then, a propagandist’s tactics of accusing others of his own fallacies are nothing new either, are they?

User avatar
Cletus
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Apr 2002 01:52
Location: Alberta, Canada

Post by Cletus » 08 Sep 2002 07:55

It is "obvious" from the above documents that "encircle the city" means build a dome around it, and "Forcibly remove", means hook a Diesel engine up to it.

It's all Tarnsprache to me!! :mrgreen:

Am I going far enough? :roll:

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 08 Sep 2002 10:33

Cletus wrote:It is "obvious" from the above documents that "encircle the city" means build a dome around it, and "Forcibly remove", means hook a Diesel engine up to it.

It's all Tarnsprache to me!! :mrgreen:

Am I going far enough? :roll:

Good one! :lol:

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 08 Sep 2002 11:30

atkif wrote:1. Sealing up the city "tight' (legitimate method of Siege Warfare)

2. Bombing the city rather than employing tanks and infantry in order to spare the German personal (also legitimate per se).

No problem so far.

3. Having plans not to accept capitulation (documented) even if surrender is offered. (This is not legitimate. Are you arguing this?)

Maybe, maybe not. Germany was under no obligation to accept the surrender of the city as long as the war was being fought. And presumably this means also absorbing the refugees (perhaps deliberately) left in the path of the advancing enemy armies.

It is clear to me that the documents are intended for unity-of-command, that any surrender or negotiation of capitulation would be conducted by the High Command or Hitler himself.

However, Hitler does not need to order himself not to accept surrender. If there had been an offer of surrender (or even an offer to negotiate a surrender of the city with authorized German representatives) then one could say that, indeed, no offer of surrender was accepted. Thus, your argument would be much stronger.

As it is, the case is rather moot. :mrgreen:

This along with the two above points makes the German intentions towards Leningrad criminal. To argue that is to demonstrate some strong bias.

"Strong bias"? That sounds like nuclear physics, here. :D

Well, remember the adage that "all's fair in love and war," so it would take some pretty strong arguments to justify the "criminal" assertion. For example, I don't really regard Bomber Harris or Iron Ass LeMay as criminal, just stubbornly-stupid and cleverly-fanatical, respectively. (But then Dr. Goebbels was a clever fanatic too.) Anyway, I'm reluctant to use the rather oxymoronic term war-crimes nonetheless.

If Leningrad is the quintessentially Petrine city that is held hostage to bombardment until the Red Tsar, Stalin surrenders, then surrounding and bombarding the city might be a *legitimate* terror-tactic if one overestimates its importance to the overall struggle. A variation of this was employed by the RAF during the war (even though I would argue that the destruction of Dresden could hardly have brought about the surrender of Germany). The firebombing of Tokyo and the nuclear irradiation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also terror-tactics intended to bring about victory. We can hardly blame the Germans for fighting the war to win.

You disagree with me (out of pride combined with your bias, I believe) not providing any strong arguments on behalf of your position. So let it be. People who read the documents have their own minds to realize what was planned for Leningrad by the Nazis. It is absolutely futile effort to dissuade you from your preconceived opinion. The same could not be said about me because I base my opinion on the documented facts not on "It could not have happened because it could not have happened. Period."

Well, the missing prerequisite for your Genocide argument is that Leningrad NEVER offered its surrender. Therefore you are left with "woulda, coulda, shoulda" argumentation.

And even so, it is only "illegitimate" if considered outside of historical context and because the Victors write the Histories and sing the songs.

Basically, any tactic that is used to try to win a war has always historically been seen as legitimate (unless there are unresolved axes to grind). It may be an atrocity; it may be cruel or inhuman; but realistically, it is wrong only if it is "excessive," and one can only judge that in historical context and at the time or point of contact. To say otherwise is teleological.

Retrospectively, I do happen to think that refusal to accept Leningrad's (hypothetical) surrender *would* have been excessive. Just like the strategic bombing of civilian targets during the war.

But the Bottom Line is that no surrender was ever offered to the Germans. Therefore, the suffering of the city cannot be blamed on anything but the vagaries of warfare. Period.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 09 Sep 2002 09:00, edited 1 time in total.

atkif
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 31 Jul 2002 23:26
Location: canada

Post by atkif » 08 Sep 2002 15:29

Scott Smith wrote:It is clear to me that the documents are intended for unity-of-command, that any surrender or negotiation of capitulation would be conducted by the High Command or Hitler himself.

What are you talking about ?
Have not you read this:
It is the established decision of the Führer to erase Moscow and Leningrad in order to avoid that people stay in there who we will then have to feed in winter. The cities are to be destroyed by the air force. Tanks may not be used for this purpose.

Pay attention to the '' established decision " mentioning.
Well, remember the adage that "all's fair in love and war," so it would take some pretty strong arguments to justify the "criminal" assertion

No.There is such a notion as "war crimes" to your knowledge.
Not "all " fair in ..war ".Murdering non- combatants is a war-crime.
Intentions to murder non-combatants (on a scale where millions of people are affected ) should be called criminal.

....the nuclear irradiation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also terror-tactics intended to bring about victory

Which was also a crime .But it is not to be discussed in this thread.
Well, the missing prerequisite for your Genocide argument is that Leningrad NEVER offered its surrender. Therefore you are left with "woulda, coulda, shoulda" argumentation

Again -Genocide per se and the plans to committ Genocide is not the same.But the intentions are no less criminal because of this.
It is of absolutely no importance whether surrender was offered or not.
"Capitilation was not to be accepted".
Now you are deliberately mixing the issues here stating that if the crime was not committed it is not a crime .Yes it is not but the plans are criminal.
( We are going in circles. That's why I said our discussion becomes to be absurd)As far as "Woulda,coulda,shoulda" type of argumentation is concerned that where you are projecting your own faults .
Are not you talking about ''if surrender...woulda...shoulda...etc"?
And even so, it is only "illegitimate" if considered outside of historical context and because the Victors write the Histories and sing the songs.

Not necessarily.Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the case of a crime committed by the Victors.

But the Bottom Line is that no surrender was ever offered to the Germans. Therefore, the suffering of the city cannot be blamed on anything but the vagaries of warfare. Period.

Here we go again.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Romulus
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 03 Aug 2002 02:18
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by Romulus » 08 Sep 2002 16:41

Not necessarily.Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the case of a crime committed by the Victors.

So was Nemmersdorf.

User avatar
Cletus
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Apr 2002 01:52
Location: Alberta, Canada

I'll follow it where it leads, but I'll be wrong!

Post by Cletus » 08 Sep 2002 18:36

I'm sorry, I dont see anything in the documentation that expressly says lets murder everybody in Leningrad.

I think I'll follow the documentation where it leads... :mrgreen:

Roberto wrote:
Unlike Mr. Mills, who tries to sell his ideologically colored interpretation of the documents contents, the leftist historians let the documents speak for themselves and readers draw their own conclusions.


My own conclusions are as follows, but I'm sure it's all just, "hollow bunk/platitudes", "Bullshit" or an "ideological bubble". :mrgreen:

It is the established decision of the Führer to erase Moscow and Leningrad in order to avoid that people stay in there who we will then have to feed in winter. The cities are to be destroyed by the air force. Tanks may not be used for this purpose. [...]


"Erase": Means to remove the cities as habitable areas.

"...in order to avoid that people stay...": To make it so people will not remain in the cities.

"...who we will then have to feed in the winter...": This assumes that you feed living people. Where's the Genocide?


It seems that the Germans wanted to expell the citiens in order to destroy the cities, and make it impossible for the people to return. This is ethnic cleansing, not genocide.


[...]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.



The city's surrender would be denied because it would be preferred if the population would retreat or be evacuated before encirclement. If not the germans will "let them fry" to break morale and make it possible to force them to flee to the east.

This would have a strategic purpose in that it would not encumber the German Army with refugees to feed, and it would disrupt the Red Army.

Apparently even when the Germans admitted they couldn't handle feeding refugees, and thus didn't want them, the are still genocidal maniacs. If that's the case, why not allow them to surrender, and then starve them?, Better yet send them to an extermination camp.

Please someone point out to me where there was a deliberate policy to make sure that all Leningraders died. Please show me where it clearly says:

Roberto wrote:The objective was thus not breaking enemy resistance and forcing the surrender or enabling the capture of an enemy stronghold, but merely slaughtering the civilian population or submitting it to starvation.


My interpretation is simply this: The Germans wanted to level the city of Lenigrad so it would not exist for Russians to live in. They could have done that with the people inside the buildings if they wanted to commit genocide. Instead they had a policy the would force the population to leave the city and become a burden to the Russians, not the Germans. Inevitably many people died.

The problem was the the city was never captured and it did not surrender, so whether or not the people would have been liquidated by the Germans is academic isn't it? The Germans wanted no surrender, but a type of civilian retreat. In other words "don't surrender to us and come over to our side, bugger off further into Russian territory."

But then again:
And I [Roberto] haven't seen an interpretation of yours that would come anywhere near mine or atkif's


That's because everyone else's interpretation has to be wrong, especially if it doesn't fit into your ideological bubble! :mrgreen:



Roberto wrote: Whatever becomes apparent from the evidence, the fanatic's fantasy-prone mind dismisses it as "fantasy" because what he doesn't want to have been simply cannot have been, period.



This door swings both ways! :monkee:

The Germans never captured Leningrad, never liquidated the population, and never refused a surrender offer.

Yet they still commited Genocide.

Are we so short on German war crimes that we now have to go after them for what they might have been thinking about doing?



Love,
Cletus

atkif
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 31 Jul 2002 23:26
Location: canada

Re: I'll follow it where it leads, but I'll be wrong!

Post by atkif » 08 Sep 2002 20:24

Cletus wrote:The Germans never captured Leningrad, never liquidated the population, and never refused a surrender offer.

Yet they still commited Genocide.

Nobody said the German committed Genocide in Leningrad (they were simply unable to and were beaten back eventually ).
But their intentions to committ Genocide are absolutely obvious according to the documents.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: I'll follow it where it leads, but I'll be wrong!

Post by Roberto » 08 Sep 2002 21:23

Cletus wrote:I'm sorry, I dont see anything in the documentation that expressly says lets murder everybody in Leningrad.

I think I'll follow the documentation where it leads... :mrgreen:

Roberto wrote:
Unlike Mr. Mills, who tries to sell his ideologically colored interpretation of the documents contents, the leftist historians let the documents speak for themselves and readers draw their own conclusions.


My own conclusions are as follows, but I'm sure it's all just, "hollow bunk/platitudes", "Bullshit" or an "ideological bubble". :mrgreen:

It is the established decision of the Führer to erase Moscow and Leningrad in order to avoid that people stay in there who we will then have to feed in winter. The cities are to be destroyed by the air force. Tanks may not be used for this purpose. [...]


"Erase": Means to remove the cities as habitable areas.

"...in order to avoid that people stay...": To make it so people will not remain in the cities.

"...who we will then have to feed in the winter...": This assumes that you feed living people. Where's the Genocide?


It seems that the Germans wanted to expell the citiens in order to destroy the cities, and make it impossible for the people to return. This is ethnic cleansing, not genocide.


[...]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.



The city's surrender would be denied because it would be preferred if the population would retreat or be evacuated before encirclement. If not the germans will "let them fry" to break morale and make it possible to force them to flee to the east.

This would have a strategic purpose in that it would not encumber the German Army with refugees to feed, and it would disrupt the Red Army.

Apparently even when the Germans admitted they couldn't handle feeding refugees, and thus didn't want them, the are still genocidal maniacs. If that's the case, why not allow them to surrender, and then starve them?, Better yet send them to an extermination camp.

Please someone point out to me where there was a deliberate policy to make sure that all Leningraders died. Please show me where it clearly says:

Roberto wrote:The objective was thus not breaking enemy resistance and forcing the surrender or enabling the capture of an enemy stronghold, but merely slaughtering the civilian population or submitting it to starvation.


My interpretation is simply this: The Germans wanted to level the city of Lenigrad so it would not exist for Russians to live in. They could have done that with the people inside the buildings if they wanted to commit genocide. Instead they had a policy the would force the population to leave the city and become a burden to the Russians, not the Germans. Inevitably many people died.

The problem was the the city was never captured and it did not surrender, so whether or not the people would have been liquidated by the Germans is academic isn't it? The Germans wanted no surrender, but a type of civilian retreat. In other words "don't surrender to us and come over to our side, bugger off further into Russian territory."

But then again:
And I [Roberto] haven't seen an interpretation of yours that would come anywhere near mine or atkif's


That's because everyone else's interpretation has to be wrong, especially if it doesn't fit into your ideological bubble! :mrgreen:



Roberto wrote: Whatever becomes apparent from the evidence, the fanatic's fantasy-prone mind dismisses it as "fantasy" because what he doesn't want to have been simply cannot have been, period.



This door swings both ways! :monkee:

The Germans never captured Leningrad, never liquidated the population, and never refused a surrender offer.

Yet they still commited Genocide.

Are we so short on German war crimes that we now have to go after them for what they might have been thinking about doing?



Love,
Cletus


Mr. Cletus,

In case you don't just feel like clowning about, I have a suggestion for you:

Read the whole set of documents and the assessments thereof by Michael Mills on the one hand and myself on the other.

When you're finished, tell us whose assessment you agree with and why.

In the meantime, I'll take apart the nonsense you produced above.

See you tomorrow.

User avatar
Cletus
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Apr 2002 01:52
Location: Alberta, Canada

Post by Cletus » 08 Sep 2002 21:23

If no Genocide was committed then why all the fuss?


Roberto wrote: In other words: Have the people of Leningrad and Moscow die or run away so that we don't have to feed them.

I have no problem with seeing in that a form of utilitarian genocide



Roberto wrote: As I said, I have no problem in using the term "genocide" for a procedure involving enormous civilian losses that is not aimed at or necessary to achieve a military objective, which is what we would have here even under the most "moderate" of alternatives considered.



Roberto wrote:Leningrad was to be wiped from the face of the earth, and its inhabitants were to perish with it or, if for some reason they survived, "forcibly removed", in their weakened condition and in the middle of winter, which would have killed most of the survivors. What the heck, as long as we don't have to feed them, was the besiegers' attitude.

That's not siege warfare, Mr. Smith.

That's mass murder


Caldric wrote:Leningrad was as much a holocaust as any of the death camps,


Roberto wrote: Whether they did so or not is completely irrelevant. Siege warfare aimed at bringing about the surrender of an enemy stronghold is an act of war. Siege warfare aimed at bringing about the obliteration of a city and the annihilation of its population is genocidal. As simple as that.


Roberto wrote: The siege of Leningrad was aimed not at forcing the surrender of an enemy stronghold - a legitimate military objective - , but at obliterating a city of millions and getting rid of its inhabitants.

By any means necessary, as Malcolm X would have said.

That makes it an exception to the rule.

That makes it genocidal.


Roberto wrote: I have no problem with seeing such policies as genocidal or at least as non-genocidal mass murder, which is what siege warfare must be considered unless serving a clear-cut military objective and foreseen to cease once that objective is achieved.


atkif wrote:You stubbornly deny documented facts that Leningrad was planned for
destruction and Genocide.


atkif wrote: Intentions to murder non-combatants (on a scale where millions of people are affected ) should be called criminal.



atkif wrote:Now you are deliberately mixing the issues here stating that if the crime was not committed it is not a crime .Yes it is not but the plans are criminal.


atkif wrote: What the Nazis prepared for Leningrad is plain Genocide.



So if the Germans only planned to commit genocide, but never actually did it what's the problem? I know they're evil, baby eating bastards, but come on, they didn't implement the policy!

But I guess it doesn't matter, because when dealing with Germany, their intentions are all we need. The Germans were there, so they must have planned genocide. :mrgreen:

They would never have moved a finger during the war without first thinking about the genocidal possibilities. :roll:

By the way, I'm still looking for the passage in the documents that obviously/clearly states that the Germans planned to murder the population of Leningrad. Maybe something with the words, "murder", slaughter," or "get rid of", in it!

P.S. Please, not the usual "it's obvious because it was the Germans!" line.

Oh, and if the Russians couldn't feed them either, are they just as genocidal as the Germans? :aliengray


Love,
Cletus

User avatar
Cletus
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Apr 2002 01:52
Location: Alberta, Canada

Post by Cletus » 08 Sep 2002 21:29

Yes I just came in here and randomly posted!

I read the whole thread, that's why I replied.

I agree with my assessment, that's why I gave one. Why? Do we have to pick Roberto or Micheal? You keep telling your readers to make up their own minds, and when one does, you want them to choose between your interpretation or Mills', I choose my interpretation. You did read it didn't you.

You sound like a priest who says "think for yourself but don't think differently than the bible."

Take apart my nonsense, but when you do show me where it clearly states mass murder, not just what you interpret the documents to mean. They could go either way, and what's really important is what actually happened, not what may have happened.

Let's go after the Morganthau Plan. That could have been ugly! :mrgreen:

My sincerest best wishes,

Cletus.

(See, I told you my opinions were wrong! :oops: )

atkif
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 31 Jul 2002 23:26
Location: canada

Post by atkif » 08 Sep 2002 22:07

Take apart my nonsense, but when you do show me where it clearly states mass murder, not just what you interpret the documents to mean. They could go either way, and what's really important is what actually happened, not what may have happened

O.K.
Let's listen how you interpret this:
2. It is the established decision of the Führer to erase Moscow and Leningrad in order to avoid that people stay in there who we will then have to feed in winter. The cities are to be destroyed by the air force. Tanks may not be used for this purpose

And this:
1.) The city of Leningrad is to be sealed of by a ring to be taken as close as possible to the city in order to save forces. A capitulation is not to be required

And this :
Any move by the civilian population in the direction of the encircling troops is to be prevented – if necessary by force of arms

And this:
The northern theater of war is a good as cleaned up, even if you hear nothing about it. Now we first must let them fry in Petersburg, what are we to do with a city of 3 ½ million that would only lie on our food supply wallet. Sentimentalities there will be none.

Those are quotations from the German documents.
Give us your explanation of their meaning...

User avatar
Cletus
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Apr 2002 01:52
Location: Alberta, Canada

Post by Cletus » 08 Sep 2002 22:34

I already stated how I would interpret those documents. But that doesn't matter. The only correct interpretation is Roberto's. Re-Read my original post. I very clearly stated what I felt those documents meant.

The big difference is that I'm not trying to claim I'm right and you're wrong. I've always said it's just my interpretation. Roberto said read the documents and make up your own mind. When I did , he accused me of not reading the thread. If we all don't come to the same conclusion he does, he calls it nonsense. I would call it difference of opinion. But Roberto doesn't like opinions except his own. :roll:

I'm allowed to make up my own mind so long as Roberto agrees with my conclusion. If not he calls it "bullshit" 8O

I'm not saying the Germans had the welfare of Leningraders at heart, but I find it difficult to find Genocide in those documents, especially considering the Germans never gained control of the city.

I'm still waiting for the obvious intended mass extermination clearly stated in the documents.
Not just, "fry" "remove", "forcibly", "sentimentalities". Show me the directive that says "leave no civilian alive." In fact this is all moot because they didn't take the city.


By the way, I still don't see why all this fuss is made over an intention.

Love,
Cletus

[/b]

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”