The Siege of Leningrad in German Documents

[Erik]

Erik wrote:
Why do the “Revisionists” make a fuss about a “piss in the ocean”, while “pooh-pooh”-ing the documented genocidal intent of a criminal siege policy?

Easy, my dear philosopher:

The "soap" stuff is puny, laughable attempt to discredit the findings of criminal justice and historiography regarding the crimes of your beloved Nazis.

…………………….
“…discredit…” is the word! The demand for it is endless. No matter how “puny, laughable” the attempt is, the opportunity is never missed.

“Don’t fight prejudices! Use them!” (Pareto).

There are philosophers (and lawyers) for all kinds of uses of them. Even criminal justice and historiography are known to have had “beloved” clients for some of their “findings”.

……………………..

The reasoning, imbecile enough, is

"if they were dead wrong (or 'lied') about the soap, they were also dead wrong (or 'lied') about other things."

……………….

If the IMT concluded that the Nazis made experiments of soap production from human fat, they implied that the Nazis were also capable of entering other “realms of madness”, right?

So “… if they were dead right about the soap, they were also dead right about other things.”

The question is, who is patronizing imbecility?

As criminal justice never mentioned anything other than the Danzig soap experiments and historians never endorsed the "RIF" myth, the fuss-makers have to more or less create to object of their fuss-making themselves.

They do so by conflating the findings on the Danzig experiments, supported by evidence, with the never confirmed "RIF" rumors.

…………
“Don’t fight rumors. Conflate them.” (Paretian corollary).
……………………..

The siege of Leningrad is a wholly different issue altogether.

Here the true believers are confronted with documentary evidence to their beloved Nazis' criminal intentions and procedures hitherto hidden in the archives, and their reaction is just the one you would expect of true believers: they try to make out that the documents don't say what they all too obviously say.

…………


“…intentions and procedures hitherto hidden in the archives…” ; Hidden? How? Never put to practice, but intended?

Or it is the other way around? The apparent procedures during the siege is corroborated by the documentary evidence?

The alleged (?)”necessities” of siege warfare are shown to have been contemplated and intended “virtues”?

Like : they never occupied the city. The documentary evidence shows that they never intended to do this.

They were never offered a capitulation. The documentary evidence shows that they would have refused such an offer.

They never offered capitulation. The documentary evidence shows that they never intended to offer it.

They implemented a siege warfare leading to the death of about a million people. The documentary evidence shows that they intended this.

Perhaps this has been “intentions and procedures hitherto hidden in the archives” in order not to belittle the heroic and victorious struggle of the population of Leningrad in Sovjet history writing?

When they have realized that they're getting nowhere with that, they will probably start squealing "forgery", as they usually do in such cases.

The “hiding” of this evidence – “hitherto” (see above) – has perhaps been part of a “forgery” of patriotic communist history? “Falsification by omission”?

Now the evidence is used to “revise” history? There are new clients, new uses? Reshaping of Orthodoxy?

Erik wrote:
And the “mirror” question:

Why do the Orthodoxy want to “bury” the Soap bar and still “smear” the Nazis with it, while making the German ambition to win the war in Russia part and parcel of the Holocaust?

First thing, "orthodoxy" exists only in the philosopher's twisted little mind.

No, the word existed long before my “twisted little mind”. “Orthodox” means “according with accepted opinion”, “spec. epithet of the Eastern Church”, according to Onions’ Etymology.

“Revisionism” wasn’t invented by my “twisted little mind” either, by the way (see above). It has a long church history, and is applicable on every “doxy”, even those that criminalize it.

Second, historians have never either endorsed the "RIF" soap rumors or made much of the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, which remained an isolated nutcase.

They endorse your “realm of madness”, though, which means that they should problematize why the experiment “remained an isolated nutcase”. Why is it “nothing that they consider particular”, when the folklore of it reigns supreme? Compare the Jewish “human sacrifice”allegation!

The psychoanalyst Eric Berne once compared – or rather “differentiated” – count Tolstoy and marquis de Sade, and characterized the works of the latter as within the creative capacity of every teenager brat who was angry with Mom. “Nothing that he would consider particular”, in other words – but all the more interesting to a psychoanalyst, one would think!! Count Tolstoy should be registered among the “isolated nutcases” instead – beyond our capacity to “consider”!

Erik wrote:
If the “realm of madness” – postulation from the Soap Issue is maintained here, it can just as well be argued that an extant, documented order to offer capitulation and to accept it if it were offered, would be a clear indication of a genocidal intent from the Nazis. The sheer madness - from a military point of view - of undertaking to feed and house the population of Leningrad during a war of this scale can only be understood if we take into consideration the overall Nazi policy in the East – to exterminate the entire population.

Roberto:

Whoever hinted that the philosopher may be out of his mind seems to have been right.

…………………………

What I had in mind – or out of it – to implement to the imagined order of offering capitulation and accepting it, was the technique of “decoding” the German “Tarnsprache”, allegedly necessary to understand the hidden extermination plans of the Germans.

Of course, it is possible that this necessity only applies to the SS and the Final Solution. The Wehrmacht never had any “codes” of this sort, perhaps?

But the everyday military expressions of “capitulation” and “surrender” could also have been used to hide a “secret” agenda! Like “Sonderbehandlung” and “durchschleusen” for the Final Solution!

If the documented directions of the Führer demanded that the army was to live on the conquered resources of the East ( plus the documented “Hungerplan”), then can an order to accept capitulation and its duty of sharing the same resources, be interpreted as a code for extermination.

Feeding and accomodating the conquered population was the Germans' duty as conquerors, as they themselves acknowleged (see e.g. document 4).

Was this duty considered by the Nazis to have priority over the “Hungerplan”?

And it was by no means a mad undertaking, but something that could have been done if the willingness had existed - after all the Germans never had any problems in adequately feeding their own population or
the population of other conquered countries, especially in Western Europe.

A postulated “realm of madness” makes all kinds of madness “unparticular”, as you have reasoned on the Soap issue.

There is no limit to what “could have been done if the willingness had existed” either. If Stalin had had the welfare of the Leningrad population foremost on his socialist agenda he could have ordered a cessation of hostilities for the time necessary for the Germans to undertake their “duty as conquerors” – but then, the philosopher is “out of his mind”, of course.

Whether the accommodation of the population of Leningrad by the Germans was a military duty or madness, in case of a capitulation, is a legal and logistical question for professionals.

If the German had shown willingness to accept their duty as civilized warriors, you could easily deduce other plans than “feeding and accommodating” from a postulated “realm of madness”.

Like the following :

Erik wrote:
What the German wanted most of all(remember the postulation!) was a chance to lay their hands on the people of Leningrad and let it meet the fate of the Jewish inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto in the extermination camp Treblinka.

Roberto:
Nonsense.

They wanted it off their hands by any means, so as not having to feed it.

Which in terms of the ultimate result was equivalent to locking them in a starvation ghetto or taking them to an extermination camp indeed, but had the advantage of being much less conspicuous.

As the extermination camps were also largely created in order to get rid of "useless eaters", the qualitative difference is actually less than it might appear to be at first sight

Then the qualitative difference between my “nonsense” and the fostering of a genocidal intention on the Germans because they wanted the Leningrad population “off their hands by any means” will also be “actually less than it might appear to be at first sight”.

Quote:
As I already said, I have no problem with considering such a policy as genocidal. Whether you kill people or let them die merely out of ideological hatred or also because and to the extent that they would otherwise upset your economical calculations hardly makes a difference to the application of the term, in my opinion.


Thu Sep 05, 2002 10:24 am

The reason I posted the quotes from the “American Almanach” was to illustrate how it is possible to foster an “intention” on someone by using rhetoric as documentation.( Here: “The shocking adoption of an official (if secret) policy by the United States”).

Reading the quotes in the light of Roberto’s statement (above) can give a clue to the technique of “fostering” genocidal intents on any refusal to accommodate “useless eaters”.

By the way, I thought the philosopher supported the application of McNamaran policies in Europe in order to keep his meager Swedish pension from being eaten up by immigrants "following the buck".

Has he changed his mind in the meantime?

I’m flattered that you remember our earlier exchanges – your misrepresentation of my “stand” concerning the said policies is an occupational habit, I guess.

In fact there are politicians around over here who uses the “American Almanach” rhetoric to suggest a official (but secret!!!) genocidal policy of “Festung Europa”. The refusal to accommodate and feed the “capitulated” economies of of the Third World can be described in terms of your statement above.

But the rhetorical table can be turned in the manner of my “nonsense” above! Those politicians perhaps is shouldering their “duty as conquerors” to accommodate “useless eaters” to the redundant welfare economies of Europe, in order to “exterminate” democratic socialism with the help of immigrant “Sonderkommandos”. A “scorched socialism policy”, using the multicultural ex-Communist countries and their low-scale internal wars as models.

Once you’re into the game of deducing intentions from rhetoric, you will have to face that the game can be played both ways.

Erik wrote:
How much Hitler was willing or able to learn from history is debatable, I guess, but perhaps he contemplated a kind of “inverted” Scorched Earth Policy? When Kutusov practiced this against Napoleon, he probably wanted to “saddle” the French with the necessity of feeding and housing the Russian peasants within their occupied – and his abandoned – territory, don’t you think?

At a time when it was standard practice for armies to live off the land, the "scorched earth" policy of retreating forces had the purpose of depriving the advancing conqueror of supplies.

Hardly a comparable situation.

There is a “language problem” here, I guess. It is difficult to use the irony of idioms you don’t master. The “…, don’t you think?” of the last sentence quoted was of course meant as such.

Neither Kutusov nor Nappy cared all that much about the fate of the peasants, “scorched” or plundered.

20th century equivalents didn’t either.

Here is a quote from one of your documentations:

Quote: […]1.) The war can only be continued if the whole Wehrmacht is fed out of Russia in the 3rd war year.
2.) Due to this umpteen million people will doubtlessly starve to death when we take what is necessary for us out of the land.
3.) Most important is the collection and shipment of oil seeds and oil cake, only thereafter of grain. The available fat and meat will presumably be consumed by the troops.[…]

Erik wrote:
Hitler hoped that it would work the other way around this time? Stalin would make the mistake of Nappy?

(Please note! My attempt at irony is continued! Napoleon of course never contemplated making any such “mistake”!)

Roberto answered:

No, Adolf wanted a maximum of food for his troops and the German home front and thus established that a sizable part of the Soviet population, including and especially the population of huge urban centers like Leningrad, must starve to death.

I remember a quote from an American general(?) Westmoreland during the Vietnam war : he wanted to “bomb North Vietnam back to the Stone Age”. Rhetoric, of course ; but you can say that he “established that a sizable part of the North Vietnamese population, including and especially the population of huge urban centers like Hanoi, must starve to death.”

This doesn’t “prove” that Hitler was “right”. And Westmoreland probably stated his bellicose view to the newspapers to strenghten the home front. Hitler signed orders.

Perhaps there is documentation where the American general used other words, like “the military duty to feed and accommodate” the North Vietnamese population? The Pentagon perhaps sent such correspondense secretly to each other? Perhaps we will find out when they get published?

Erik wrote:
But Stalin postulated the “realm of madness”(Roberto’s) that destinated the population of Leningrad to an extermination camp? That is why he forbade capitulation, without emulating Napoleon?

The philosopher also seems to be an adept of the rapist's logic that blames his crime on the parents of his teenage victim who let her out on the streets at night.

???? Little Father Stalin refused to send his children to the known molester and exterminator Hitler, who was raping Russia before his very eyes? But he considered them grown enough to defend themselves?

You seem to suggest that Stalin didn’t believe his own BS, that he knew that Hitler would shoulder his duty as a civilized warrior, and consequently feed and accommodate the population of Leningrad?

He trusted Hitler? Just as he trusted the patriotic committment of the same population, to defend the communist Fatherland to the last drop of blood?

Erik wrote:
Is this rhetoric? Obfuscating a murderous crime of modern history by turning the attention away from the terrible faith of nearly a million human beings, to a play with words?

I wouldn't even call it "rhetoric".

I'd call it a showpiece of "Revisionist" lunacy.

OK, this is written somewhat late in the night, and the moon is shining. (“Lunacy : orig. of the intermittent kind attributed to changes of moon”, acc. to Oxford Concise Dict.)(from “luna” L.)

There are the big enormous questions of the righteous war, the right to fight, to revolt, to defend yourself , what is ours, yours, mine, thine(of descending or ascending rightfulness, according to preferences) lurking somewhere in the background.

Now that the democratic countries of the West are once again urged to shoulder their onerous pledge to crusade against terrorism and antidemocratism and racism and antisemitism (no irony intended, language problem sustained), we will be challenged to interpret intentions from rhetoric, decode documents, postulate “realms of madness”(Roberto) etc etc ; in short, be obliged or tempted (Orthodoxies will frown!) to learn from the lessons of history.

The battle or siege of Leningrad and its documentation can be a sort of trainingground.

What is Right, historically? Might?

There is a Forum for Virtual History here at ThirdReich Forum, I think (not having looked into it).

“What would have happended, if…?” Etc.

“Virtual” in optics means “relating to points at which rays would meet if produced backwards (virtual focus, image)”(Oxford Concise Dict.)

History “optics” can be described that way, using documents as “rays”, “produced backwards” to “focus” on an event.

But there are “shadows” to be reckoned with , if the rays are “produced” from only one angle. What is hiding there?

Is it “lunacy”, i e, optics from the rays of “moonshine” (see def. above), to ask what would it would look like in the light from the classified archives of the victors?

Stalins orders to the Red Army at Leningrad? Are they current, like Hitler’s? Is it possible that they change the “optics” of Leningrad?

Like this?

The siege of Leningrad is a wholly different issue altogether.

Here the true believers are confronted with documentary evidence to their beloved Nazis' criminal intentions and procedures hitherto hidden in the archives, and their reaction is just the one you would expect of true believers: they try to make out that the documents don't say what they all too obviously say.

All “what they all too obviously say” about “criminal intentions and procedures” will be “made out” in another light/optics/”virtual image”, if there are documentary evidence available that the other side had comparable intentions and procedures.

The difference would then be that this “other side” had the RIGHT to such “intentions and procedures”, since they were defending themselves against an aggressor.

The “intentions and procedures” are then designed “criminal” according to who had the RIGHT TO WIN.

[Dan]

Nice post. Keep it to answering three or four challenges at one post.

[Roberto]

“…discredit…” is the word! The demand for it is endless. No matter how “puny, laughable” the attempt is, the opportunity is never missed.

Exactly. The true believers keep trying, no matter how foolish they look.

The reasoning, imbecile enough, is

"if they were dead wrong (or 'lied') about the soap, they were also dead wrong (or 'lied') about other things."

……………….

If the IMT concluded that the Nazis made experiments of soap production from human fat, they implied that the Nazis were also capable of entering other “realms of madness”, right?

So “… if they were dead right about the soap, they were also dead right about other things.”

Nonsense.

The IMT didn't "imply" anything, they assessed the evidence to each of their findings and drew their conclusions on the basis of the assessment made in each case.

Whether they were right or wrong about the soap doesn’t tell us anything at all about whether they were right or wrong about anything else.

The question is, who is patronizing imbecility?

Look in the mirror, philosopher. You’ll see a classic specimen.

As criminal justice never mentioned anything other than the Danzig soap experiments and historians never endorsed the "RIF" myth, the fuss-makers have to more or less create to object of their fuss-making themselves.

They do so by conflating the findings on the Danzig experiments, supported by evidence, with the never confirmed "RIF" rumors.

…………
“Don’t fight rumors. Conflate them.” (Paretian corollary).

Well, what the "Revisionist" true believers do is conflate evidence to one event with the rumors of another in order to make both look like one and the same thing and have something to make a fuss about.

The siege of Leningrad is a wholly different issue altogether.

Here the true believers are confronted with documentary evidence to their beloved Nazis' criminal intentions and procedures hitherto hidden in the archives, and their reaction is just the one you would expect of true believers: they try to make out that the documents don't say what they all too obviously say.

…………

“…intentions and procedures hitherto hidden in the archives…” ; Hidden? How? Never put to practice, but intended?

The philosopher is making a fuss about the term "hidden".

Poor chap.

Hidden from public knowledge in the archives of the Federal Republic of Germany, my good friend.

Until included in works of historiography.

Or it is the other way around? The apparent procedures during the siege is corroborated by the documentary evidence?

The apparent procedures and the documentary evidence are in fact mutually corroborative.

The alleged (?)”necessities” of siege warfare are shown to have been contemplated and intended “virtues”?

Like : they never occupied the city. The documentary evidence shows that they never intended to do this.

They were never offered a capitulation. The documentary evidence shows that they would have refused such an offer.

They never offered capitulation. The documentary evidence shows that they never intended to offer it.

They implemented a siege warfare leading to the death of about a million people. The documentary evidence shows that they intended this.

Sort of that, philosopher.

Are you having one of your rare lucid moments?

The documentary evidence also shows that what they intended served not a military objective but the desire to get rid of the population under any circumstances, by the way.

Perhaps this has been “intentions and procedures hitherto hidden in the archives” in order not to belittle the heroic and victorious struggle of the population of Leningrad in Sovjet history writing?

The archives in question are those of the Federal Republic of Germany, not the former Soviet archives.

The philosopher missed by miles.

When they have realized that they're getting nowhere with that, they will probably start squealing "forgery", as they usually do in such cases.

The “hiding” of this evidence – “hitherto” (see above) – has perhaps been part of a “forgery” of patriotic communist history? “Falsification by omission”?

Once again, philosopher is referring to the wrong archives.

And his riding around on the term “hidden”, used by myself in the sense of “not available” or “not discovered” rather than “withheld on purpose”, is no less silly.

Now the evidence is used to “revise” history? There are new clients, new uses? Reshaping of Orthodoxy?

“Orthodoxy”, as I said, exists only in the minds of “Revisionist” freaks.

Unlike their propaganda, serious historiography is not proprietary and serves no purpose other than providing an accurate and complete documentation of past events – which includes focusing on crimes of a totalitarian regime that have so far been hidden from view by an exaggerated focus on its most “famous” crime, the genocide of the Jews.

First thing, "orthodoxy" exists only in the philosopher's twisted little mind.

No, the word existed long before my “twisted little mind”. “Orthodox” means “according with accepted opinion”, “spec. epithet of the Eastern Church”, according to Onions’ Etymology.

I’m obviously referring to the philosopher’s use of the term, his referring to historical research into facts inconvenient to his articles of faith as “orthodoxy”.

“Revisionism” wasn’t invented by my “twisted little mind” either, by the way (see above). It has a long church history, and is applicable on every “doxy”, even those that criminalize it.

Whatever the philosopher is referring to, he is obviously missing the target again.

I’m talking about “Revisionism” in the sense of the pro-Nazi/anti-Semitic propaganda lies that his ilk tries to promote.

Second, historians have never either endorsed the "RIF" soap rumors or made much of the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, which remained an isolated nutcase.

They endorse your “realm of madness”, though, which means that they should problematize why the experiment “remained an isolated nutcase”.

Why so, philosopher?

Why should they waste their time wondering why the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute were not pursued any further?

Why is it “nothing that they consider particular”, when the folklore of it reigns supreme?

Because folklore – to the extent that it indeed “reigns supreme”, as the philosopher would have it – is not the concern of historiography.

As simple as that.

Compare the Jewish “human sacrifice”allegation!

It would be just as insignificant if the Jews had in actual fact committed mass murder on an enormous scale, as the philosopher’s beloved Nazis did.

Erik wrote:
If the “realm of madness” – postulation from the Soap Issue is maintained here, it can just as well be argued that an extant, documented order to offer capitulation and to accept it if it were offered, would be a clear indication of a genocidal intent from the Nazis. The sheer madness - from a military point of view - of undertaking to feed and house the population of Leningrad during a war of this scale can only be understood if we take into consideration the overall Nazi policy in the East – to exterminate the entire population.

Roberto:

Whoever hinted that the philosopher may be out of his mind seems to have been right.

What I had in mind – or out of it – to implement to the imagined order of offering capitulation and accepting it, was the technique of “decoding” the German “Tarnsprache”, allegedly necessary to understand the hidden extermination plans of the Germans.

The philosopher obviously failed to read the documents in question, which unlike those related to the Nazi genocide of the Jews contain no “Tarnsprache” but express the authors' goals and motivations very clearly.

The goal was getting rid of a huge urban population, even at the expense of letting everyone die.

It was to achieve this goal, and not to comply with a military necessity, that siege warfare was implemented.

If the documented directions of the Führer demanded that the army was to live on the conquered resources of the East ( plus the documented “Hungerplan”), then can an order to accept capitulation and its duty of sharing the same resources, be interpreted as a code for extermination.

It certainly is not far-fetched to see such an order as a logical consequence of the directives laid down in documents nos. 15 and 16, especially when you consider the actual course of events and the statements contained in documents nos. 10 and following.

Feeding and accomodating the conquered population was the Germans' duty as conquerors, as they themselves acknowleged (see e.g. document 4).

Was this duty considered by the Nazis to have priority over the “Hungerplan”?

Obviously not, which is exactly why they endeavored to do and did everything possible to avoid a situation where, under the rules and customs of war, they would be saddled with that duty.

And it was by no means a mad undertaking, but something that could have been done if the willingness had existed - after all the Germans never had any problems in adequately feeding their own population or the population of other conquered countries, especially in Western Europe.

A postulated “realm of madness” makes all kinds of madness “unparticular”, as you have reasoned on the Soap issue.

Exactly, philosopher.

Except that we’re not talking about a “postulated” realm of madness here, but about a factual one.

There is no limit to what “could have been done if the willingness had existed” either. If Stalin had had the welfare of the Leningrad population foremost on his socialist agenda he could have ordered a cessation of hostilities for the time necessary for the Germans to undertake their “duty as conquerors” – but then, the philosopher is “out of his mind”, of course.

How that would have benefited the population of Leningrad becomes apparent from documents 15 and 16, I would say.

By making the city into a stronghold Stalin merely did the Nazis the favor of allowing them to pursue their murderous goals in a less conspicuous manner.

Whether the accommodation of the population of Leningrad by the Germans was a military duty or madness, in case of a capitulation, is a legal and logistical question for professionals.

A logistical problem it was certainly not, except to the irrelevant subjective extent dictated by the policies of the “Hunger Plan”.

As to whether it was a legal problem, the Germans for some reason seem to have had no doubts that caring for the conquered population to the best of their abilities would be their legal duty, as becomes apparent from the documents cited.

If the German had shown willingness to accept their duty as civilized warriors, you could easily deduce other plans than “feeding and accommodating” from a postulated “realm of madness”.

Unlike “Revisionist” propaganda, historiography only makes such deductions that are warranted by evidence.

Like the following :

Erik wrote:
What the German wanted most of all(remember the postulation!) was a chance to lay their hands on the people of Leningrad and let it meet the fate of the Jewish inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto in the extermination camp Treblinka.

Roberto:
Nonsense.

They wanted it off their hands by any means, so as not having to feed it.

Which in terms of the ultimate result was equivalent to locking them in a starvation ghetto or taking them to an extermination camp indeed, but had the advantage of being much less conspicuous.

As the extermination camps were also largely created in order to get rid of "useless eaters", the qualitative difference is actually less than it might appear to be at first sight

Then the qualitative difference between my “nonsense” and the fostering of a genocidal intention on the Germans because they wanted the Leningrad population “off their hands by any means” will also be “actually less than it might appear to be at first sight”.

Indeed the qualitative difference between murdering a population of “useless eaters” by placing it under siege conditions and letting it starve to death on the one hand and shooting or gassing it on the other is scant.

Both derive from an unwillingness to provide even the survival minimum to people deemed to stand at the lowest level of humanity (or even below that), and both strive at bringing about the death of that population by violent means in order to solve the resulting "problem".

The reason I posted the quotes from the “American Almanach” was to illustrate how it is possible to foster an “intention” on someone by using rhetoric as documentation.( Here: “The shocking adoption of an official (if secret) policy by the United States”).

Reading the quotes in the light of Roberto’s statement (above) can give a clue to the technique of “fostering” genocidal intents on any refusal to accommodate “useless eaters”.

It’s good to know that the philosopher sees the statements he quoted as mere rhetoric, which is what the quoted German considerations, statements and orders regarding Leningrad were not. They were matter-of-fact references to policies to be implemented or in the process of implementation, or direct orders to take the measures necessary for this purpose.

By the way, I thought the philosopher supported the application of McNamaran policies in Europe in order to keep his meager Swedish pension from being eaten up by immigrants "following the buck".

Has he changed his mind in the meantime?

I’m flattered that you remember our earlier exchanges – your misrepresentation of my “stand” concerning the said policies is an occupational habit, I guess.

“Misrepresentation” is hardly the term.

Even if I had wrongly rendered the philosopher’s utterances, the most he could accuse me of would be “misunderstanding” – which would not be surprising considering the philosopher’s difficulties in making his nonsense understood.

In fact there are politicians around over here who uses the “American Almanach” rhetoric to suggest a official (but secret!!!) genocidal policy of “Festung Europa”. The refusal to accommodate and feed the “capitulated” economies of of the Third World can be described in terms of your statement above.

To the extent that i) there’s actual famine (not just economic misery) in certain countries and ii) such famine is the product of deliberate starvation policies applied by those who then refuse to grant entry to desperate refugees from such countries, the situation could be considered comparable to the siege of Leningrad.

But the rhetorical table can be turned in the manner of my “nonsense” above! Those politicians perhaps is shouldering their “duty as conquerors” to accommodate “useless eaters” to the redundant welfare economies of Europe, in order to “exterminate” democratic socialism with the help of immigrant “Sonderkommandos”. A “scorched socialism policy”, using the multicultural ex-Communist countries and their low-scale internal wars as models.

How does the philosopher marry these ramblings with his accusation of my having misrepresented his statements?

Once you’re into the game of deducing intentions from rhetoric, you will have to face that the game can be played both ways.

As I pointed out, the cited documents on the siege of Leningrad don’t contain mere rhetoric, however desperately those to whose ideological bias they are inconvenient (like our philosopher) would like them to.

Erik wrote:
How much Hitler was willing or able to learn from history is debatable, I guess, but perhaps he contemplated a kind of “inverted” Scorched Earth Policy? When Kutusov practiced this against Napoleon, he probably wanted to “saddle” the French with the necessity of feeding and housing the Russian peasants within their occupied – and his abandoned – territory, don’t you think?

At a time when it was standard practice for armies to live off the land, the "scorched earth" policy of retreating forces had the purpose of depriving the advancing conqueror of supplies.

Hardly a comparable situation.

There is a “language problem” here, I guess. It is difficult to use the irony of idioms you don’t master. The “…, don’t you think?” of the last sentence quoted was of course meant as such.

The problem is not language, but comparing apples with oranges – tactics applied against enemy forces without regard for the civilian population on the one hand with tactics directed specifically against the civilian population on the other.

Neither Kutusov nor Nappy cared all that much about the fate of the peasants, “scorched” or plundered.

20th century equivalents didn’t either.

Not caring is one thing, trying to make them die so as not to be saddled with the burden of caring for them another.

Exploitation that may lead to hardship is one thing, exploitation that is expected from the start to lead to the starvation death of millions is another.

Here is a quote from one of your documentations:

Quote: […]1.) The war can only be continued if the whole Wehrmacht is fed out of Russia in the 3rd war year.
2.) Due to this umpteen million people will doubtlessly starve to death when we take what is necessary for us out of the land.
3.) Most important is the collection and shipment of oil seeds and oil cake, only thereafter of grain. The available fat and meat will presumably be consumed by the troops.[…]

Well, if that’s the only “20th century equivalent” the philosopher can dig up, he has made my point.

But it’s not exactly an equivalent, as explained – unless Napoleon envisaged requisition leading to mass starvation and Kutuzov ruled out the evacuation of people from the area where he applied “scorched earth” to hinterlands where every effort would be made to feed and accommodate them.

Erik wrote:
Hitler hoped that it would work the other way around this time? Stalin would make the mistake of Nappy?

No, Adolf wanted a maximum of food for his troops and the German home front and thus established that a sizable part of the Soviet population, including and especially the population of huge urban centers like Leningrad, must starve to death.

I remember a quote from an American general(?) Westmoreland during the Vietnam war : he wanted to “bomb North Vietnam back to the Stone Age”. Rhetoric, of course ; but you can say that he “established that a sizable part of the North Vietnamese population, including and especially the population of huge urban centers like Hanoi, must starve to death.”

That was LeMay, if I well remember, whose intentions would have been criminal indeed had they amounted to more than big-mouthed rhetoric (the bombing of North Vietnam is considered a war crime regardless of how serious this "stone age" rambling was, by the way).

What the Germans intended to do in regard to Leningrad was not mere rhetoric, however, and what they actually achieved went beyond the wildest and most murderous dreams LeMay may have had in regard to North Vietnam.

This doesn’t “prove” that Hitler was “right”.

Of course not. Even if LeMay had been as bad in intention and execution, that wouldn’t make the philosopher’s beloved Führer look any better.

And Westmoreland probably stated his bellicose view to the newspapers to strenghten the home front. Hitler signed orders.

Exactly. Not mere rhetoric, but concrete intentions and measures taken to carry them out. Intentions and measures that were carefully kept from the knowledge of the German people, by the way.

Perhaps there is documentation where the American general used other words, like “the military duty to feed and accommodate” the North Vietnamese population? The Pentagon perhaps sent such correspondence secretly to each other? Perhaps we will find out when they get published?

I dare say that if there were concrete murderous plans, orders and policy statements in regard to North Vietnam comparable to the cited documents about the siege of Leningrad, they would have been the subject of scandalous revelations long ago.

But even if the philosopher’s wishful thinking should come true some day, that won’t make his beloved Führer look any better – it will only make US policies and plans in regard to North Vietnam look as criminal as the Nazis’ policies and plans in regard to Leningrad.

But Stalin postulated the “realm of madness”(Roberto’s) that destinated the population of Leningrad to an extermination camp? That is why he forbade capitulation, without emulating Napoleon?

The philosopher also seems to be an adept of the rapist's logic that blames his crime on the parents of his teenage victim who let her out on the streets at night.

???? Little Father Stalin refused to send his children to the known molester and exterminator Hitler, who was raping Russia before his very eyes? But he considered them grown enough to defend themselves?

As I often say, the greatest weakness of “Revisionist” true believers is that they can’t help being themselves.

A government’s failure to get its population out of harm’s way in the face of a brutal conqueror certainly entails a certain moral and political responsibility for the population’s fate on the part of that government, but it does in no way diminish the criminal nature of the conqueror’s brutality directed against that population.

You seem to suggest that Stalin didn’t believe his own BS, that he knew that Hitler would shoulder his duty as a civilized warrior, and consequently feed and accommodate the population of Leningrad?

No, philosopher. What I’m saying is that it is completely irrelevant to the criminal nature of Nazi policies and measures against the population of Leningrad whether Stalin could have foreseen their fate or got them out of harm’s way.

He trusted Hitler? Just as he trusted the patriotic committment of the same population, to defend the communist Fatherland to the last drop of blood?

Irrelevant considerations, see above – except insofar at they show how the mind of a true “Revisionist” works.

Is this rhetoric? Obfuscating a murderous crime of modern history by turning the attention away from the terrible faith of nearly a million human beings, to a play with words?

I wouldn't even call it "rhetoric".

I'd call it a showpiece of "Revisionist" lunacy.

OK, this is written somewhat late in the night, and the moon is shining. (“Lunacy : orig. of the intermittent kind attributed to changes of moon”, acc. to Oxford Concise Dict.)(from “luna” L.)

In the face of the philosopher’s attempt at “comic relief”, I substitute the term “lunacy” by “madness”.

Clear enough now?

I skip the ensuing rambling and move right on to this:

Stalins orders to the Red Army at Leningrad? Are they current, like Hitler’s? Is it possible that they change the “optics” of Leningrad?

Like this?

The siege of Leningrad is a wholly different issue altogether.

Here the true believers are confronted with documentary evidence to their beloved Nazis' criminal intentions and procedures hitherto hidden in the archives, and their reaction is just the one you would expect of true believers: they try to make out that the documents don't say what they all too obviously say.

All “what they all too obviously say” about “criminal intentions and procedures” will be “made out” in another light/optics/”virtual image”, if there are documentary evidence available that the other side had comparable intentions and procedures.

I wonder what such documentation could possibly look like.

Let’s assume that Stalin had plans to blow up the entire city and it’s inhabitants in case the Germans entered, regardless of what the latter planned to do with the city and its inhabitants themselves.

That would make Stalin’s intentions in regard to Leningrad those of a mass murderer, for sure. They would probably even qualify as genocidal.

But would it make the intentions of Hitler and the German High Command look any better?

Hardly so.

It would only mean that the inhabitants of Leningrad were at the mercy of two murderers who saw the wholesale dying of the city's population as a means to achieve their goals.

The difference would then be that this “other side” had the RIGHT to such “intentions and procedures”, since they were defending themselves against an aggressor.

As much as Chiang Kai Chek had the right to flood the Yangtse Kiang and drown hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians in order to slow down the Japanese advance in 1937/38, I would say.

Not at all, that is.

The “intentions and procedures” are then designed “criminal” according to who had the RIGHT TO WIN.

By no means, my dear philosopher.

Deliberately causing the deaths of an enormous number of unarmed noncombatants is criminal regardless of who does it, at least to the extent that it is not aimed at a military objective and required to achieve it.

Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

[…]

SECTION III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY
OF THE HOSTILE STATE

[…]

Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

[…]

Art. 46.
Family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.

[…]

Art. 52.
Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

[...]

Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

[Erik]

Following the repeated advice of Mr Dan, I will try the technique of addressing “points”.

Erik wrote:
The “intentions and procedures” are then designed “criminal” according to who had the RIGHT TO WIN.

By no means, my dear philosopher.

Deliberately causing the deaths of an enormous number of unarmed noncombatants is criminal regardless of who does it, at least to the extent that it is not aimed at a military objective and required to achieve it.

First “by no means”,

Then an added

“…,at least…”!

If the “military objective” is to throw an aggressor’s army out of (part or the whole of) your country and the refusal to offer capitulation to a besieger is required to achieve it, then a legitimate RIGHT TO WIN will surely make this refusal non-criminal, even if an enormous number of unarmed noncombatants will be doomed to death.

Otherwise will a documented refusal by Stalin to accept any expected (or suspected) offer of capitulation from the Germans make him just as criminal as the aggressor’s refusal to offer or accept capitulation.

Erik wrote:
The difference would then be that this “other side” had the RIGHT to such “intentions and procedures”, since they were defending themselves against an aggressor.

As much as Chiang had the right to flood the Yangtse Kiang and drown hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians in order to slow down the Japanese advance in 1937/38, I would say.

Not at all, that is.

Or “…., at least to the extent that it is not aimed at a military objective and required to achieve it.”????

Erik wrote: Whether the accommodation of the population of Leningrad by the Germans was a military duty or madness, in case of a capitulation, is a legal and logistical question for professionals.

Aren’t we saying the same thing?

[Erik]

………………………

Roberto wrote:
Second, historians have never either endorsed the "RIF" soap rumors or made much of the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, which remained an isolated nutcase.


Erik wrote:
They endorse your “realm of madness”, though, which means that they should problematize why the experiment “remained an isolated nutcase”.

Why so, philosopher?

Why should they waste their time wondering why the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute were not pursued any further?

Erik wrote:
Why is it “nothing that they consider particular”, when the folklore of it reigns supreme?

Because folklore – to the extent that it indeed “reigns supreme”, as the philosopher would have it – is not the concern of historiography.

As simple as that.

Here Roberto has unwittingly supplied an excellent illustration of the frame of mind that characterizes “orthodoxy”.

Roberto wrote:
First thing, "orthodoxy" exists only in the philosopher's twisted little mind.


Erik wrote:
No, the word existed long before my “twisted little mind”. “Orthodox” means “according with accepted opinion”, “spec. epithet of the Eastern Church”, according to Onions’ Etymology.

I’m obviously referring to the philosopher’s use of the term, his referring to historical research into facts inconvenient to his articles of faith as “orthodoxy”.

I’m obviously referring to Roberto’s referring to historical research into facts inconvenient to his articles of faith as “not the concern of historiography”.

It is not “according with accepted opinion”(Onions’ Etymol. Dict.) and so a “waste of time”.

(The definition in Oxford Concise Dict. is : “holding correct or currently accepted opinions, esp. on religious doctrine, not heretical or independent-minded or original, generally accepted as right or true esp in theology, in harmony with what is authoritatively established, approved, conventional..”)

Erik wrote:
Compare the Jewish “human sacrifice”allegation!

It would be just as insignificant if the Jews had in actual fact committed mass murder on an enormous scale, as the philosopher’s beloved Nazis did.

There are many Jews who don’t think the allegation insignificant. Countless pogroms have originated in it.

It has lost its power to induce pogroms in proportion to the decline of literalist Bible reading and since the disappearance of Jewish Ghettos.

It has its roots in a kind of Orthodoxy that dogmatized the proceedings and findings of a “historiography”, in this case the books of the Old Testament of the Bible. It postulated a “realm of Jewish mentality”, evidenced as extermination of neighbors and intermittent practices of human sacrifice.

For the greater part of Western History this mentality has been fostered on the Jews. I have referred above to a Swedish “World History for the General Public” (1907) by Johan Bergman (1864-1951), prof of Classical Studies at Dorpat, and Emil Svensén. In this, the extermination procedures described in the book of Joshua exemplifies something called “Semitic cruelty”, and is supposed to be shared by the victims of the same. “Nothing particular”, in this “realm of cruelty”, accordingly.

There are probably more famous examples of this “defamation” in the “historiography” that once was as orthodox as hallowed by those who “just followed the facts”, and who regarded “revisionism” of it’s “articles of faith” as “pro-Semitic/anti-Christian propaganda”.

[Roberto]

The “intentions and procedures” are then designed “criminal” according to who had the RIGHT TO WIN.

By no means, my dear philosopher.

Deliberately causing the deaths of an enormous number of unarmed noncombatants is criminal regardless of who does it, at least to the extent that it is not aimed at a military objective and required to achieve it.

First “by no means”,

Meaning that the criminal nature of measures against unarmed non-combatants is independent of whether the cause is a legitimate one (defense) or an illegitimate one (aggression).

Then an added

“…,at least…”!

And so?

If the “military objective” is to throw an aggressor’s army out of (part or the whole of) your country and the refusal to offer capitulation to a besieger is required to achieve it, then a legitimate RIGHT TO WIN will surely make this refusal non-criminal, even if an enormous number of unarmed noncombatants will be doomed to death.

That’s arguable to the extent that there was no way to get non-combatants out of harm’s way.

To the extent that there was, such a policy is questionable at least.

But it does not affect the assessment of the aggressor’s measures against unarmed non-combatants, which in this case consisted of the implementation of a siege aimed not at forcing the surrender of an enemy stronghold, but at getting rid of an unwanted civilian population by any means, including and especially mass starvation.

Otherwise will a documented refusal by Stalin to accept any expected (or suspected) offer of capitulation from the Germans make him just as criminal as the aggressor’s refusal to offer or accept capitulation.

If the siege had been aimed at achieving capitulation and such had been demanded but refused, the criminal behavior would have been the defenders’ to the extent that they could reasonably expect mercy from the conqueror on the one hand and no relief by their own forces on the other.

What we have here, however, is a wholly different case.

No mercy could be expected from the conqueror, while holding out offered at least the prospect of the siege being broken and normal life restored, which is what eventually happened.

The difference would then be that this “other side” had the RIGHT to such “intentions and procedures”, since they were defending themselves against an aggressor.

As much as Chiang had the right to flood the Yangtse Kiang and drown hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians in order to slow down the Japanese advance in 1937/38, I would say.

Not at all, that is.

Or “…., at least to the extent that it is not aimed at a military objective and required to achieve it.”????

At least to that extent, meaning that certain measures can be considered criminal even if warranted by a military necessity.

Siege warfare, cruel though it is, was not considered criminal at least until the end of World War II to the extent that it was necessary to achieve a military objective.

Other measures were considered criminal regardless of such necessity.

The flooding of the Yangtse Kiang I would place in the latter category.

Erik wrote: Whether the accommodation of the population of Leningrad by the Germans was a military duty or madness, in case of a capitulation, is a legal and logistical question for professionals.

Aren’t we saying the same thing?

What’s that supposed to mean?

As I think to have demonstrated, feeding and accommodating the urban population of Leningrad was both a legal duty of the conqueror and an objective logistical possibility (the subjective considerations related to the “Hunger Plan” are irrelevant in this respect).

It was to avoid being saddled with this duty and burden, and not to bring about the surrender of the city, that siege warfare was not only preferred to other possible options (such as capture by assault) and implemented, but also intended to be continued not until enemy resistance had been broken, but until the whole urban population of “useless eaters” had been removed, preferably by total starvation inside the city.

A criminal objective pursued by measures which by the standards of the time would not have been considered criminal if they had been aimed at and necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective, which they were not.

Like self-defense is a justification for otherwise criminal homicide, military necessity was at the time considered a justification for otherwise criminal siege warfare.

But the siege of Leningrad was neither necessary nor even intended to achieve a military objective.

[Roberto]

Second, historians have never either endorsed the "RIF" soap rumors or made much of the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, which remained an isolated nutcase.

They endorse your “realm of madness”, though, which means that they should problematize why the experiment “remained an isolated nutcase”.

Why so, philosopher?

Why should they waste their time wondering why the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute were not pursued any further?

Why is it “nothing that they consider particular”, when the folklore of it reigns supreme?

Because folklore – to the extent that it indeed “reigns supreme”, as the philosopher would have it – is not the concern of historiography.

As simple as that.

Here Roberto has unwittingly supplied an excellent illustration of the frame of mind that characterizes “orthodoxy”.

In a true believer’s opinion, which the philosopher doesn’t even seem able to explain.

I couldn’t care less.

First thing, "orthodoxy" exists only in the philosopher's twisted little mind.

No, the word existed long before my “twisted little mind”. “Orthodox” means “according with accepted opinion”, “spec. epithet of the Eastern Church”, according to Onions’ Etymology.

I’m obviously referring to the philosopher’s use of the term, his referring to historical research into facts inconvenient to his articles of faith as “orthodoxy”.

I’m obviously referring to Roberto’s referring to historical research into facts inconvenient to his articles of faith as “not the concern of historiography”.

A rather unconvincing commentary.

First because “Revisionist” propaganda has nothing to do with historical research.

Second because it has not revealed any facts.

Third because I have no articles of faith.

And fourth because the issues that “Revisionists” make such a fuss about are irrelevant to historiography indeed.

It is not “according with accepted opinion”(Onions’ Etymol. Dict.) and so a “waste of time”.

No, it is a waste of time because it would in no way affect the historical record of the facts related to the crimes of the Nazi regime.

Whether or not some people believe in the “RIF” rumors, the Nazi mass murder of millions of people is still a proven fact.

Whether or not the evidence to the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute holds water - and I've seen no demonstration that it does not so far - , the Nazi mass murder of millions of people is still a proven fact.

Better get used to the idea, philosopher.

If you want to stop making a fool out of yourself, that is.

Compare the Jewish “human sacrifice”allegation!

It would be just as insignificant if the Jews had in actual fact committed mass murder on an enormous scale, as the philosopher’s beloved Nazis did.

There are many Jews who don’t think the allegation insignificant. Countless pogroms have originated in it.

For the historical record on Judaism, the “human sacrifice” allegation has some significance insofar as it has served as a pretext for defamation and even persecution in the past.

For the historical record on National Socialism the “soap libel” is completely irrelevant, on the other hand.

A regime that murdered millions of people doesn't look any better on account of having refrained from making its victims' dead bodies into soap.

[Roberto]

Request to the moderator:

Please move Erik’s post of Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:54 pm and my post of Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:40 am to the “Soap” thread, where they belong.

Thank you.

[Marcus]

Roberto,

Unfortunately it is not possible to move a post to another thread, only to move it to a completely new thread.

/Marcus

[Roberto]

Roberto,

Unfortunately it is not possible to move a post to another thread, only to move it to a completely new thread.

/Marcus

If so, please leave them where they are. One "Soap" thread is enough.

Thanks,

Roberto

[Erik]

Erik wrote:

First “by no means”,

Meaning that the criminal nature of measures against unarmed non-combatants is independent of whether the cause is a legitimate one (defense) or an illegitimate one (aggression).

Erik wrote:
Then an added

“…,at least…”!

And so?

Erik wrote:
If the “military objective” is to throw an aggressor’s army out of (part or the whole of) your country and the refusal to offer capitulation to a besieger is required to achieve it, then a legitimate RIGHT TO WIN will surely make this refusal non-criminal, even if an enormous number of unarmed noncombatants will be doomed to death.

That’s arguable to the extent that there was no way to get non-combatants out of harm’s way.

To the extent that there was, such a policy is questionable at least.

“By no means..” ending again with an “..at least”.

I suppose that all the relevant points on the matter of the siege of Leningrad have already been made, and posted, above, on the 9 sides of the thread.

Roberto initiated it, and now, when the battle is over, is he acting “Einsatzgruppe”singlehandedly to stop some sniper from “getting points”.

Are there any points to be made?

If I try to make the point that the victors of war decide what is considered genocidal war policy (“Big deal”-point, really) I will probably be met with a “by no means”,….

Meaning that the criminal nature of measures against unarmed non-combatants is independent of whether the cause is a legitimate one (defense) or an illegitimate one (aggression)

ending with an

To the extent that there was, such a policy is questionable at least.

Perhaps since

The philosopher's "admitted" nonsense is a blend of wishful thinking and misrepresentation of my statements.

I think I have made clear enough that I consider the implementation of murderous siege warfare not warranted by a military necessity to be mass murder.

Whether that mass murder qualifies as genocide, as I also pointed out, depends on how you interpret the definition of the term as contained in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. See my post of Mon Sep 09, 2002 11:23 am on this thread.

There is room enough between a “by no means” and an “at least” to assure the causal reader that no concessions are being made to “revisionist” lunacy, and at the same time provide for some back-pedalling.

[Erik]

Erik wrote: Whether the accommodation of the population of Leningrad by the Germans was a military duty or madness, in case of a capitulation, is a legal and logistical question for professionals.

Aren’t we saying the same thing?

What’s that supposed to mean?

As I think to have demonstrated, feeding and accommodating the urban population of Leningrad was both a legal duty of the conqueror and an objective logistical possibility (the subjective considerations related to the “Hunger Plan” are irrelevant in this respect).

It was to avoid being saddled with this duty and burden, and not to bring about the surrender of the city, that siege warfare was not only preferred to other possible options (such as capture by assault) and implemented, but also intended to be continued not until enemy resistance had been broken, but until the whole urban population of “useless eaters” had been removed, preferably by total starvation inside the city.

A criminal objective pursued by measures which by the standards of the time would not have been considered criminal if they had been aimed at and necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective, which they were not.

Like self-defense is a justification for otherwise criminal homicide, military necessity was at the time considered a justification for otherwise criminal siege warfare.

But the siege of Leningrad was neither necessary nor even intended to achieve a military objective.

So…

Erik wrote:
Whether the accommodation of the population of Leningrad by the Germans was a military duty or madness, in case of a capitulation, is a legal and logistical question for professionals.

You have made this “legal and logistical question for professionals” your own, and have come to the conclusion above.

But if “the siege of Leningrad was neither necessary nor even intended to achieve a military objective”, it must have had another objective!

A postulated “realm of madness” would perhaps make a GENOCIDAL objective “non-particular” at Leningrad, as well as it made soap production from human fat at Danzig into “nothing that you would consider particular”?

Then the feeding and accommodation of the surrendering population that “was both a legal duty of the conqueror and an objective logistical possibility” were a non-option to the Germans, of course.

But what if there WAS a documented option (i e “order” to do so) to demand and accept capitulation? Would that make the siege of Leningrad “necessary and intended to achieve a military objective”, do you think?

Or it is just to “follow the facts”, here too?? From the “realm-of-madness” – postulate?

[Alexx]

I have been reading the posts on this forum the whole night, so I am pretty tired.

Erik: Many thanks for your posts on this thread. It's been a pleasure reading them.

Roberto: You have had the questionable pleasure of having been completly taken apart. Like a brilliant "matador" Erik is using your arguments against your own case.

Well, I am hitting the sack,God night or rather Good morning.

[Roberto]

First “by no means”,

Meaning that the criminal nature of measures against unarmed non-combatants is independent of whether the cause is a legitimate one (defense) or an illegitimate one (aggression).

Then an added

“…,at least…”!

And so?

If the “military objective” is to throw an aggressor’s army out of (part or the whole of) your country and the refusal to offer capitulation to a besieger is required to achieve it, then a legitimate RIGHT TO WIN will surely make this refusal non-criminal, even if an enormous number of unarmed noncombatants will be doomed to death.

That’s arguable to the extent that there was no way to get non-combatants out of harm’s way.

To the extent that there was, such a policy is questionable at least.

I would like to add here that Soviet authorities seem to have done what was in their power to get non-combatants out of the threatened city before the city was sealed off:

By early August [1941] 467,000 Leningraders had been evacuated from the city, including 216,000 children. By the end of the month the figures had reached 636,000, including more than 100,000 refugees from the Baltic states. The plans to evacuate another half a million women and children were frustrated by the German advance, and they remained sealed up with the men.

Source of quote:

Richard Overy, Russia’s War, page 103

So the “Revisionist” pseudo-argument that the Soviets acted in a “criminal” manner by not making an effort to evacuate the city’s population in time goes down the drain before we even have to point out its utter lack of relevance to the assessment of the Nazis’ policies and actions.

“By no means..” ending again with an “..at least”.

And so?

I suppose that all the relevant points on the matter of the siege of Leningrad have already been made, and posted, above, on the 9 sides of the thread.

Roberto initiated it, and now, when the battle is over, is he acting “Einsatzgruppe”singlehandedly to stop some sniper from “getting points”.

Not much of an effort, as the “sniper” is obviously having trouble in even making his “points” understood.

Are there any points to be made?

The philosopher is obviously trying to get at something.

Too bad he can’t explain what it is.

If I try to make the point that the victors of war decide what is considered genocidal war policy (“Big deal”-point, really) I will probably be met with a “by no means”,….

If the philosopher tries to propagate such nonsense, he is indeed likely to be met by a demonstration that he’s dead wrong.

Meaning that the criminal nature of measures against unarmed non-combatants is independent of whether the cause is a legitimate one (defense) or an illegitimate one (aggression)

ending with an

To the extent that there was, such a policy is questionable at least.

Now what’s the purpose of taking two statements of mine out of their context and bunching them together?

What exactly are you trying to tell us?

I see no contradiction between one statement and the other, if that’s what you’re trying to get at.

And I strongly doubt the philosopher can demonstrate that there is any.

Perhaps since

The philosopher's "admitted" nonsense is a blend of wishful thinking and misrepresentation of my statements.

I think I have made clear enough that I consider the implementation of murderous siege warfare not warranted by a military necessity to be mass murder.

Whether that mass murder qualifies as genocide, as I also pointed out, depends on how you interpret the definition of the term as contained in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. See my post of Mon Sep 09, 2002 11:23 am on this thread.

There is room enough between a “by no means” and an “at least” to assure the causal reader that no concessions are being made to “revisionist” lunacy, and at the same time provide for some back-pedalling.

“Backpedalling” whereto, and what for?

The issue may be hard for a twisted "Revisionist" mind to grasp, but it’s really quite simple:

1.) Siege warfare is mass murder in principle.

2.) It is exceptionally not mass murder if and to the extent that it is warranted by a military necessity.

3.) A military necessity was not the reason for implementation of siege warfare in the case of Leningrad.

4.) This alone – i.e. independently of the criminal nature of the aims of the siege themselves - makes the implementation of siege warfare an act of mass murder.

5.) Whether that mass murder qualifies as genocide is a matter of how you interpret the term, as it is defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

If you think there’s anything wrong with my above assessment, tell us what you think it is.

Your helpless and unintelligible picking at my terminology is not likely to get you anywhere.

It stands a far greater chance of demonstrating that the philosopher hasn’t got anything to say let alone a point to make.

Whether the accommodation of the population of Leningrad by the Germans was a military duty or madness, in case of a capitulation, is a legal and logistical question for professionals.

Aren’t we saying the same thing?

What’s that supposed to mean?

As I think to have demonstrated, feeding and accommodating the urban population of Leningrad was both a legal duty of the conqueror and an objective logistical possibility (the subjective considerations related to the “Hunger Plan” are irrelevant in this respect).

It was to avoid being saddled with this duty and burden, and not to bring about the surrender of the city, that siege warfare was not only preferred to other possible options (such as capture by assault) and implemented, but also intended to be continued not until enemy resistance had been broken, but until the whole urban population of “useless eaters” had been removed, preferably by total starvation inside the city.

A criminal objective pursued by measures which by the standards of the time would not have been considered criminal if they had been aimed at and necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective, which they were not.

Like self-defense is a justification for otherwise criminal homicide, military necessity was at the time considered a justification for otherwise criminal siege warfare.

But the siege of Leningrad was neither necessary nor even intended to achieve a military objective.

So…

Erik wrote:
Whether the accommodation of the population of Leningrad by the Germans was a military duty or madness, in case of a capitulation, is a legal and logistical question for professionals.

You have made this “legal and logistical question for professionals” your own, and have come to the conclusion above.

That’s my assessment, yes.

Anything you think is wrong with it?

But if “the siege of Leningrad was neither necessary nor even intended to achieve a military objective”, it must have had another objective!

If the philosopher had read the documents I quoted, he wouldn’t need to speculate.

He would know that the objective was to utterly destroy the city and get rid of its population of “useless eaters”.

A postulated “realm of madness” would perhaps make a GENOCIDAL objective “non-particular” at Leningrad, as well as it made soap production from human fat at Danzig into “nothing that you would consider particular”?

Care to explain to our esteemed audience what this junk is supposed to mean?

Then the feeding and accommodation of the surrendering population that “was both a legal duty of the conqueror and an objective logistical possibility” were a non-option to the Germans, of course.

That conclusion requires no “postulation”, but a simple reading of the documents cited:

[…]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.

(document no. 1, my translation)

[...] 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. [...]

(document no. 3, 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. […]

(document no. 4, my translation)

But what if there WAS a documented option (i e “order” to do so) to demand and accept capitulation? Would that make the siege of Leningrad “necessary and intended to achieve a military objective”, do you think?

Capturing or forcing the capitulation of an enemy stronghold is a legitimate military objective.

Had this been the declared purpose of the siege, had capitulation been demanded and the murderous siege conditions been foreseen to end upon capitulation, the siege of Leningrad would have been a siege like any other – an extremely cruel form of warfare, but not a crime.

Yet none of these conditions were present, as the cited documents clearly show.

Or it is just to “follow the facts”, here too?? From the “realm-of-madness” – postulate?

No “postulate” is required, my dear philosopher.

Reading the documents is all it takes.

The conclusion that the Nazis intended to get rid of the population of Leningrad, preferably by wholesale starvation under siege conditions (and went about to accomplish this goal, and were largely successful), is not based on any “postulate” that they were hideous monsters who "would do such things".

It is based on their own documented statements and actions.

[Roberto]

Roberto: You have had the questionable pleasure of having been completly taken apart. Like a brilliant "matador" Erik is using your arguments against your own case.

I don't think so at all (and I wonder who, other than Mr. "Alexx", does).

But if you do, please explain to our esteemed audience why you do.

Maybe you have less problems in making those outside your frame of mind understand your “points” than the philosopher has. (I would blame my comprehension difficulties on my limited intelligence if it was not for other posters having the same problem, see e.g. the discussion under
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... fb6a#42711 .)

If no intelligible explanation is produced, I’ll conclude that you’re just another (?) confused soul of the philosopher’s kind - or a good friend trying to cheer up the poor "matador", at the very best.