The Siege of Leningrad in German Documents

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 4753
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Sep 2002 03:46

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

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

Who is going to butcher the population at the capitulation? Wildest fantasy. I suppose they were building the Gas-Vans for that purpose even as the pickets were positioned. Let's see, 100 persons per van per trip, how many vehicles, and how many mobile bakeries would we need to reduce the 3.5 million Subhumans into fertilizer and soap? Oh, better just starve them to death. Soylent Green is people. 8O

But of course, the inability to capture the target cleanly has nothing to do with the German military and logistical predicament in 1941 at all, and the fact that Leningrad is a prestige objective at best and not a decisive one. Yes, it can all be explained by Übermensch ideology and our teleological Genocide fantasies. :aliengray

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

Which is no surprise. It is called SIEGE-WARFARE. In modern times most sieges don't last that long. No, the Germans didn't drop MREs in by parachute for the benefit of CNN camera crews. And 3.5 million blue-blooded Victorians would have starved just the same if ordered to hold the fort to the Barbarians. Ah, the White Man's Burden...
:roll:

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

Post by Roberto » 03 Sep 2002 10:04

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

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


Scott Smith wrote:Who is going to butcher the population at the capitulation? Wildest fantasy. I suppose they were building the Gas-Vans for that purpose even as the pickets were positioned. Let's see, 100 persons per van per trip, how many vehicles, and how many mobile bakeries would we need to reduce the 3.5 million Subhumans into fertilizer and soap? Oh, better just starve them to death. Soylent Green is people. 8O


Before breaking out into another of your wild tirades, read what I wrote, Mr. Smith:

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


No, the Nazis were not going to butcher the population of Leningrad in the sense of direct killing.

Their were considering to let them die, mostly of starvation, either by keeping them encircled or by driving them out to inhospitable territory in the middle of winter.

Which in my opinion is no less criminal, of course.

Read the documents, Mr. Smith. There are more to follow.

And don't try to tell other people what to read. Let them look at the evidence and judge for themselves.

Scott Smith wrote:But of course, the inability to capture the target cleanly has nothing to do with the German military and logistical predicament in 1941 at all, and the fact that Leningrad is a prestige objective at best and not a decisive one. Yes, it can all be explained by Übermensch ideology and our teleological Genocide fantasies. :aliengray


If Smith had read the documents transcribed, he would know that the Nazis did not want to capture the target "cleanly" for a number of reasons:

1. From the personal war diary of Generaloberst Franz Halder, entry of 08.07.1941 (Generaloberst Halder, Kriegstagebuch, Bd. III: Der Rußlandfeldzug bis zum Marsch auf Stalingrad (22.6.1941 -24.9.1942), bearb. von Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Stuttgart 1964, page 53)

[...] 8.7.1941: Ergebnis [...]

2. Feststehender Beschluß des Führers ist, Moskau und Leningrad dem Erdboden gleich zu machen, um zu verhindern, daß Menschen darin bleiben, die wir dann im Winter ernähren müßten. Die Städte sollen durch die Luftwaffe vernichtet werden. Panzer dürfen hierfür nicht eingesetzt werden. [...]


My translation:

[...] 8.7.1941: Result [...]

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. [...]


Emphasis is mine.

2. Order of the Army High Command (Oberkommando des Heeres) to Army Group North of 28.09.1941 (Bundersarchiv/Militärarchiv, RM 7/1014)

Betrifft: Abschließung der Stadt Leningrad

An

Heeresgruppe Nord

Auf Grund der Weisung der Obersten Führung wird befohlen:
1.) Die Stadt Leningrad ist durch einen möglichst nahe an die Stadt heranzuschiebenden und dadurch Kräfte sparenden Ring einzuschliessen. Eine Kapitulation ist nicht zu fordern.
2.) Um zu erreichen, dass die Stadt als Zentrum des letzten roten Widerstandes an der Ostsee möglichst bald ausgeschaltet wird, ohne dass grössere eigene Blutopfer gebracht werden, ist die Stadt infanteristisch nicht anzugreifen. Sie ist vielmehr durch Niederkämpfen der Luftabwehr und der feindlichen Jäger, durch Zerstörung der Wasserwerke, Lagerhäuser, Licht- und Kraftquellen ihrer Lebens- und Verteidigungsfähigkeit zu berauben. Die militärischen Anlagen und Verteidigungskräfte des Gegners sind durch Feuer und Beschuss niederzukämpfen. Jedes Ausweichen der Zivilbevölkerung gegen die Einschliessungstruppen ist - wenn nötig unter Waffeneinsatz - zu verhindern.
3.) Durch Verbindungsstab Nord wird bei Finnischem Oberkommando gefordert werden, dass die in der Karelischen Landenge vorgehenden finnischen Kräfte die Einschliessung Leningrads von Norden und Nordosten her im Anschluss an die über die Newa vorgehenden deutschen Kräfte übernehmen und dass die Einschliessung selbst nach obigen Gesichtspunkten erfolgt.

Umgehende Verbindungsaufnahme zwischen Heeresgruppe Nord und Verbindungsstab Nord wegen Regelung der Einzelheiten wird von OKH zeitgerecht befohlen.

I.A.

gez. Halder


My translation:

Subject: Sealing off the city of Leningrad

To

Army Group North

According to directives of the Supreme Command the following is ordered:
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.
2.) In order to achieve that the city as center of the last great Red resistance on the Baltic is eliminated as soon as possible without greater sacrifices in blood of our own being brought, the city is not to be attacked by infantry. It is to be deprived of its life and defense capacity by crushing the enemy air defense and fighter planes and destroying waterworks, stores and sources of light and power. The military installations and defense forces of the enemy are to be crushed by fire and bombardment. Any move by the civilian population in the direction of the encircling troops is to be prevented – if necessary by force of arms.
3.) Liaison Staff North will require the Finnish high command to provide for the Finnish troops advancing in the Karelian isthmus taking over the encirclement from the north and north-east in connection with the German troops advancing over the Neva and the encirclement itself being carried out according to the above criteria.

Immediate contact between Army Group North and Liaison Staff North for regulation of details will be ordered by Army Supreme Command in due time.

By order

signed Halder


Emphasis is mine.

3. From the letter of General Quarter Master Eduard Wagner to his wife of 09.09.1941 (Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, N 510/48 )

[...] Der Nordkriegsschauplatz ist so gut wie bereinigt, auch wenn man nichts davon hört. Zunächst muß man sie in Petersburg schmoren lassen, was sollen wir mit einer 3 ½ Mill-Stadt, die sich nur auf unser Verpflegungsportemonnaie legt. Sentimentalitäten gibt’s dabei nicht [...]


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. [...]


Emphasis is mine.

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

Vortragsnotiz Leningrad

Möglichkeiten:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ergebnis und Vorschlag

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

Es wird vorgeschlagen:

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

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

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

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


My translation:

Lecture Note Leningrad

Possibilities:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result and suggestion:

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

The following is suggested:

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

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

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

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


Emphasis is mine.

No, Mr. Smith, nobody is saying that it was "Übermensch" - philosophy alone.

But that certainly played a part in the decision to wipe out a whole city and let its population perish rather than suffering the casualties that would have resulted from taking the city with infantry and tank forces and, more important, upsetting the established food supply policy (of feeding the Wehrmacht out of the land and sending enough food supplies to Germany to keep the food situation at a quasi-peacetime standard and thus bolstering the morale of the home front) by taking care of a conquered urban population.

You're not trying to tell us that "the German military and logistical predicament in 1941" in any way justified this murderous triage, are you?

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


Smith wrote:Which is no surprise. It is called SIEGE-WARFARE. In modern times most sieges don't last that long. No, the Germans didn't drop MREs in by parachute for the benefit of CNN camera crews. And 3.5 million blue-blooded Victorians would have starved just the same if ordered to hold the fort to the Barbarians. Ah, the White Man's Burden...
:roll:


More bull, Mr. Smith.

The objective of SIEGE WARFARE is to bring about the capitulation of an enemy stronghold, not to get rid of its civilian inhabitants.

That, however, was the objective of the siege of Leningrad, as clearly becomes apparent from the documents so far transcribed and more that will follow. A capitulation of the city was not desired. Not only was it not to be requested, it was not to be accepted even if offered.

The Führer's decision, once again:

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.


Emphasis is mine.

Still trying to tell us that such a policy would have been applied in regard to e.g. the British, Mr. Smith?

A capitulation of London not to be accepted even if offered, the population to be got rid off even if that meant everybody starving to death?

I find that extremely hard to believe.

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

Post by Lumpy Custard » 03 Sep 2002 14:05

In my opinion if the Americans and British had'nt existed when the Russians seized Berlin then maybe they would have vented their rage there even more, still, what do I know!. Perhaps being the politically correct thing not too they didnt. If Britain and America had been witness to that ,it would of made them think could europe eventually recieve that kind of treatment, communism could bulldoze its way all the way threw and start another war. Stalin as being one of the big three had to show restraint to keep the other two happy so couldnt do as what he perhaps wanted to in risk of the allies seeing his true colours and turning against him. Hitler, even in the thirties had it at the back of his mind for Britain and America to join forces with him. We all know America had up until the eighties strong connections with the SS. Just one example is when the korean war broke out in the fifties Otto Skorzeny offered the Americans three SS divisions to use in the war, made up of left overs from the second world war, although they probably wouldnt have been divisional status due to lack of numbers. I am going off on a tangent from the original topic but perhaps it shows there was still concern after the war about various political issues, who knows!, it is a vast subject and one I havent time to sit at a computer and discuss, wish I had though its interesting!. If somebody could post a link for more information on the "no plans to destroy Berlin", I would be grateful. Reagrds, Chris

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

Post by Roberto » 03 Sep 2002 14:21

Ovidius wrote:Dresden, Königsberg, Danzig, Hamburg, were also among the most beautiful cities in Europe, but nobody cared for it.


That’s right. But there remains to be found an order that goes like:

Subject: Future of the City of Königsberg
II. Comrade Stalin is determined to remove the city of Königsberg from the face of the earth. After the defeat of Nazi Germany there can be no interest in the continued existence of this large urban area. Poland 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 western German area is to be carried out.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8746
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 03 Sep 2002 15:24

I refer again to the question of whether the mass-starvation of the civilian population of Leningrad was due to the failure of the Soviet Government to evacuate it in time.

Episode 11 of the acclaimed BBC television series "The World at War" deals with the war on the Russian front between 1941 and 1943, and much of its material concerns the siege of Leningrad. It states (my transcription from the spoken commentary):

"Now the Germans were breaking through to Leningrad, Russia's second city and the capital of the Revolution. The workers were given rifles. Harking back to the days of revolution, Leningrad's leaders encouraged the whole city to stand and fight. Untrained, they marched out to face the panzers, within sight of their own factory chimneys. The chance to get non-combatants out of Leningrad was missed".

In other words, the Soviet Government chose to use the civilian population of Leningrad as cannon fodder, rather than save them by evacuating. And all to preserve the propagandistic tradition of the revolutionary city.

The program states that as a result of the Soviet Government decision, 2.5 million civilians were trapped in the city, 400,000 of them children. It then goes on to refer to Stalin's intervention, sacking Voroshilov and putting in the new team of Zhukov and Zhdanov. It states:

"Outside the city, Zhukov threatened that anyone who retreated further would be shot. Inside, the security forces hunted down spies and defeatists. Zhdanov's men ended the wastage of food, mobilising everybody for the city's defence".

One wonders who exactly those "spies and defeatists" actually were. Probably just helpless civilians trying to save their lives by getting away from the city, and for their pains shot by Zhdanov's gallant policemen as "spies and defeatists".

The script for the series was written by the Anglo-Jewish historian Neil Ascherson, who tends to adopt Soviet propaganda language a bit too easily. Reading between the lines, the passage quoted above means something like the following:

Civilians were prevented from fleeing Leningrad by Zhukov's threat to shoot them. The NKVD arrested anyone who opposed the Soviet Government policy of using the civilian population of the city as cannon fodder. Zhdanov's men seized the available food, diverting it to their own use and that of the garrison, leaving only starvation rations for the population at large. The entire civilian population was dragooned into working to support the fight.

With regard to the ice-road over Lake Ladoga, the only connection with the outside world, the program states:

"The ice-road could bring too little in, and take too few civilians out, to keep Leningrad from the onset of starvation".

The the program refers to small raiding parties from Leningrad penetrating behind German trenches. It says:

"They descended on collaborators and tried them on the spot".

Again, one wonders who exactly these "collaborators" were. Probably just helpless peasants trying to save their own lives by obeying the orders of the German occupiers.

The program states that by January 1942, about 4000 people were dying in Leningrad each day.

The program refers to the re-introduction of ferry traffic on Lake Ladoga in the Spring of 1942. It says:

"Children who should have been evacuated eight months before were taken by ship across Lake Ladoga".

Despite its pro-Soviet leaning, the program confirms that the starvation was largely due to the Soviet Government decision to make the civilian population stay and defend the city, rather than evacuating it.

On the subject of an alleged genocidal plan of the German Government to deliberately exterminate the population by starvation, that is refuted by the very documents Mr Muehlenkamp cites.

First Halder's entry in the Kriegtagebuch, documenting Hitler's decision to raze Leningrad to the ground. That was made on 8 July 1941, ie at a time when the German Government expected to gain total victory by the autumn. Therefore, Hitler's decision means that Leningrad would be destroyed sometime before winter. The aim of the destruction was to force the population to disperse, preferably out of the German-controlled area, so that a population concentration requiring feeding would not remain. No genocide of the civilian population by starvation is implied.

The actual German plan for the civilian population is revealed explicitly in the Wehrmacht lecture note of 29 September. There it is stated that after a period of siege and starvation, weakening the resistance of the people, non-combatants are to be allowed to leave and either expelled into the Russian interior (ie into the area outside German control) or dispersed over the countryside. The remainder of the fortress garrison is to be left to its own devices over the winter. Then the city is to be taken in the Spring (or previously by the Finns), and the surviving members of the garrison expelled to the interior of Russia or taken prisoner. After that the city is to be demolished and the area handed back to the Finns. Again, there is nothing about genocide of the civilain population implied in the plan.

Hitler's decision as documented on the same date, 29 September, says essentially the same thing. The crucial point about the treatment of the civilian population is in the last sentence, which Mr Muehlenkamp translates as: "If necessary forcible removal to the eastern Russian area is to be carried out". In other words, the population of Leningrad is to be transferred out of the German-occupied area, and into the area east of the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan' line that was to be left to a rump Russian state. Again, nothing genocidal there.

All in all, despite the claims of leftist historians, the documents do not prove a German plan to commit genocide by starving the several million inhabitants of Leningrad. Rather, they indicate a paln to eliminate Leningrad as a centre of population by removing the people and sending them elsewhere.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8746
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 03 Sep 2002 15:40

Roberto wrote, in regard to an imaginary scenario concerning Koenigsberg:

If necessary forcible removal to the western German area is to be carried out.


But that is precisely what did happen! The German population of Koenigsberg was expelled by the Red Army, to the extent that it had not already been evacuated by the German Government, and transported into the rump German state west of the Oder-Neisse Line.

The difference is that the city was not destroyed, but rather resettled with Russians.

An order from Stalin for the expulsion of the German population of Koenigsberg may not ahve been found, but the result demonstrates what his intention was.

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

Post by Roberto » 03 Sep 2002 16:16

michael mills wrote:Roberto wrote, in regard to an imaginary scenario concerning Koenigsberg:

If necessary forcible removal to the western German area is to be carried out.


But that is precisely what did happen! The German population of Koenigsberg was expelled by the Red Army, to the extent that it had not already been evacuated by the German Government, and transported into the rump German state west of the Oder-Neisse Line.

The difference is that the city was not destroyed, but rather resettled with Russians.

An order from Stalin for the expulsion of the German population of Koenigsberg may not ahve been found, but the result demonstrates what his intention was.


That's correct.

But there is still a difference:

Expulsion to inhospitable territory as foreseen in Hitler's order was obviously an ultima ratio - scenario in case the basis scenario (the population perishing inside the city) did not work out and the German forces found themselves with a substantial number of surviving inhabitants on their hands.

The placing of the statement regarding forcible removal at the end of the order and the conditional wording of it ("notfalls", which I translated as "if necessary" but could also be translated as "if unavoidable") make this clear:

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.


Emphasis is mine.
Last edited by Roberto on 03 Sep 2002 16:22, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Sep 2002 16:19

michael mills wrote:Despite its pro-Soviet leaning, the program confirms that the starvation was largely due to the Soviet Government decision to make the civilian population stay and defend the city, rather than evacuating it.

On the subject of an alleged genocidal plan of the German Government to deliberately exterminate the population by starvation, that is refuted by the very documents Mr Muehlenkamp cites.

Unfortunately, Mr. Muehlenkamp puts great stock in rhetoric--when it suits his agenda--that seeming to be rather similar to the somewhat puzzling agenda of Leftist German historians.
:)

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

Post by Roberto » 03 Sep 2002 17:41

michael mills wrote:On the subject of an alleged genocidal plan of the German Government to deliberately exterminate the population by starvation, that is refuted by the very documents Mr Muehlenkamp cites.


Mr. Mills is kindly invited to show me where I am supposed to have spoken of a "genocidal plan of the German Government to deliberately exterminate the population by starvation".

Extermination of the population of Leningrad by starvation is not seen by myself or any "leftist historian" as an end in itself pursued by Hitler and the German High Command, but as the most important of several possible means to an end considered by them, the end being to get rid of the city's population in order to avoid having to feed it.

This is what becomes apparent from the documents I transcribed.

Let us see:

michael mills wrote:First Halder's entry in the Kriegtagebuch, documenting Hitler's decision to raze Leningrad to the ground. That was made on 8 July 1941, ie at a time when the German Government expected to gain total victory by the autumn. Therefore, Hitler's decision means that Leningrad would be destroyed sometime before winter. The aim of the destruction was to force the population to disperse, preferably out of the German-controlled area, so that a population concentration requiring feeding would not remain. No genocide of the civilian population by starvation is implied.


1. From the personal war diary of Generaloberst Franz Halder, entry of 08.07.1941 (Generaloberst Halder, Kriegstagebuch, Bd. III: Der Rußlandfeldzug bis zum Marsch auf Stalingrad (22.6.1941 -24.9.1942), bearb. von Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Stuttgart 1964, page 53)

[...] 8.7.1941: Ergebnis [...]

2. Feststehender Beschluß des Führers ist, Moskau und Leningrad dem Erdboden gleich zu machen, um zu verhindern, daß Menschen darin bleiben, die wir dann im Winter ernähren müßten. Die Städte sollen durch die Luftwaffe vernichtet werden. Panzer dürfen hierfür nicht eingesetzt werden. [...]


My translation:

[...] 8.7.1941: Result [...]

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. [...]


Moscow and Leningrad are to be erased (the German text reads “dem Erdboden gleich zu machen”, which literally means “to reduce to ground level”) in order to save the Germans the encumbrance of having the population of the cities on their hands to feed in winter.

While this does not necessarily imply that all inhabitants will perish, the German High Command obviously counted on

i) a substantial part of the population perishing while the cities were reduced to ground level; and

ii) the survivors having to leave the ruins into inhospitable open ground were many if not most of them would also perish.

The purpose of this massacre of the civilian population – whether by bombs and artillery or by hunger – was not the attainment of any military objective, but avoidance of the encumbrance of having to feed the population in winter.

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.

michael mills wrote:The actual German plan for the civilian population is revealed explicitly in the Wehrmacht lecture note of 29 September. There it is stated that after a period of siege and starvation, weakening the resistance of the people, non-combatants are to be allowed to leave and either expelled into the Russian interior (ie into the area outside German control) or dispersed over the countryside. The remainder of the fortress garrison is to be left to its own devices over the winter. Then the city is to be taken in the Spring (or previously by the Finns), and the surviving members of the garrison expelled to the interior of Russia or taken prisoner. After that the city is to be demolished and the area handed back to the Finns. Again, there is nothing about genocide of the civilain population implied in the plan.


What Michael Mills refers to was the suggestion of a working group, which later documents show to have been dismissed or only partially accepted.

It is bad enough, though, if you read the document:

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

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

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


My translation:

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

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

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


The exit to be granted to non-combatants as mentioned in item c) was never applied.

Even if it had been, what could the besiegers possibly expect would happen to a population “ripe through terror and beginning hunger” if “pushed off to inner Russia”, i.e. expelled into inhospitable open country, in the middle of winter?

The “solution” proposed by the working group was a blend between alternatives 2 and 3 that this working group had considered:

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

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

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

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

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

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


My translation:

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

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

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

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

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

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


The solution actually adopted was closer to alternative 2) than to alternative 3), however. Never did the Germans take any measures to remove a substantial part of the civilian population. The removal of hundreds of thousands of people across Lake Ladoga by the Soviets was possible not due to any “benevolence” on the part of the besiegers, but to Soviet counteroffensives which kept the Germans from wholly closing the ring and to a remarkable organizational and logistical effort on the part of the Soviets.

But even if the solution suggested by the working group had been adopted, there would have been an enormous mortality of the civilian population – either inside the city or while being “pushed off to inner Russia” – that served no military objectives, but merely the objective of saving the besiegers the trouble of having the population on their hands.

This becomes clear from the first sentences of the lecture note, where the only possible and lawful solution that would have avoided an enormous civilian mortality is dismissed out of hand:

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

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


My translation:

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.


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.

michael mills wrote:Hitler's decision as documented on the same date, 29 September, says essentially the same thing. The crucial point about the treatment of the civilian population is in the last sentence, which Mr Muehlenkamp translates as: "If necessary forcible removal to the eastern Russian area is to be carried out". In other words, the population of Leningrad is to be transferred out of the German-occupied area, and into the area east of the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan' line that was to be left to a rump Russian state. Again, nothing genocidal there.


Just the reading of the document I would have expected a Nazi apologist to make.

Apart from the enormous mortality that the “forcible removal” would most probably have brought about (especially if carried out in the middle of winter), Mr. Mills conveniently overlooks the fact that, as I already pointed out, expulsion to inhospitable territory as foreseen in Hitler's order was obviously an ultima ratio - scenario in case the basis scenario (the population perishing inside the city) did not work out and the German forces found themselves with a substantial number of surviving inhabitants on their hands.

The placing of the statement regarding forcible removal at the end of the order and the conditional wording of it ("notfalls", which I translated as "if necessary" but could also be translated as "if unavoidable") make this clear:

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.


Emphasis is mine.

The contents of the other documents commented on by Mr. Mills support this interpretation of mine.

So do the documents that Mr. Mills conveniently avoided to address:

2. Order of the Army High Command (Oberkommando des Heeres) to Army Group North of 28.09.1941 (Bundersarchiv/Militärarchiv, RM 7/1014)

Betrifft: Abschließung der Stadt Leningrad

An

Heeresgruppe Nord

Auf Grund der Weisung der Obersten Führung wird befohlen:
1.) Die Stadt Leningrad ist durch einen möglichst nahe an die Stadt heranzuschiebenden und dadurch Kräfte sparenden Ring einzuschliessen. Eine Kapitulation ist nicht zu fordern.
2.) Um zu erreichen, dass die Stadt als Zentrum des letzten roten Widerstandes an der Ostsee möglichst bald ausgeschaltet wird, ohne dass grössere eigene Blutopfer gebracht werden, ist die Stadt infanteristisch nicht anzugreifen. Sie ist vielmehr durch Niederkämpfen der Luftabwehr und der feindlichen Jäger, durch Zerstörung der Wasserwerke, Lagerhäuser, Licht- und Kraftquellen ihrer Lebens- und Verteidigungsfähigkeit zu berauben. Die militärischen Anlagen und Verteidigungskräfte des Gegners sind durch Feuer und Beschuss niederzukämpfen. Jedes Ausweichen der Zivilbevölkerung gegen die Einschliessungstruppen ist - wenn nötig unter Waffeneinsatz - zu verhindern.
3.) Durch Verbindungsstab Nord wird bei Finnischem Oberkommando gefordert werden, dass die in der Karelischen Landenge vorgehenden finnischen Kräfte die Einschliessung Leningrads von Norden und Nordosten her im Anschluss an die über die Newa vorgehenden deutschen Kräfte übernehmen und dass die Einschliessung selbst nach obigen Gesichtspunkten erfolgt.

Umgehende Verbindungsaufnahme zwischen Heeresgruppe Nord und Verbindungsstab Nord wegen Regelung der Einzelheiten wird von OKH zeitgerecht befohlen.

I.A.

gez. Halder


My translation:

Subject: Sealing off the city of Leningrad

To

Army Group North

According to directives of the Supreme Command the following is ordered:
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.
2.) In order to achieve that the city as center of the last great Red resistance on the Baltic is eliminated as soon as possible without greater sacrifices in blood of our own being brought, the city is not to be attacked by infantry. It is to be deprived of its life and defense capacity by crushing the enemy air defense and fighter planes and destroying waterworks, stores and sources of light and power. The military installations and defense forces of the enemy are to be crushed by fire and bombardment. Any move by the civilian population in the direction of the encircling troops is to be prevented – if necessary by force of arms.
3.) Liaison Staff North will require the Finnish high command to provide for the Finnish troops advancing in the Karelian isthmus taking over the encirclement from the north and north-east in connection with the German troops advancing over the Neva and the encirclement itself being carried out according to the above criteria.

Immediate contact between Army Group North and Liaison Staff North for regulation of details will be ordered by Army Supreme Command in due time.

By order

signed Halder


Emphases are mine.

What is expected to happen to the population of a city the “life and defense capacity” of which is to be destroyed, if capitulation of the city is excluded, Mr. Mills?

3. From the letter of General Quarter Master Eduard Wagner to his wife of 09.09.1941 (Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, N 510/48 )

[...] Der Nordkriegsschauplatz ist so gut wie bereinigt, auch wenn man nichts davon hört. Zunächst muß man sie in Petersburg schmoren lassen, was sollen wir mit einer 3 ½ Mill-Stadt, die sich nur auf unser Verpflegungsportemonnaie legt. Sentimentalitäten gibt’s dabei nicht [...]


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. [...]


What did Wagner mean by letting them “fry in Petersburg”, Mr. Mills?

What “sentimentalities” did he state there would not be?

And why were the inhabitants of Petersburg to be allowed to “fry” without “sentimentalities”?

To achieve a military objective – such as capitulation of an enemy stronghold – or just to avoid burdening “our food supply wallet”?

michael mills wrote:All in all, despite the claims of leftist historians, the documents do not prove a German plan to commit genocide by starving the several million inhabitants of Leningrad.


I allow myself to doubt whether Michael Mills even knows the historians who put together the current “Verbrechen der Wehrmacht” – exhibition let alone their “claims”.

The fact is that they don’t claim a thing.

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.

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


How sweet that sounds. Adolf, the gentle and humane warlord. Do you hear the fiddle tunes?

No, Mr. Mills. Hitler and the German High Command wanted to get rid of the population of Leningrad, if possible by letting it perish inside the city and if necessary by “forcible removal” to inhospitable territory with no regard to survival chances.

That is what the documents cited show.

And there are more to come.
Last edited by Roberto on 03 Sep 2002 18:21, edited 3 times in total.

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

Post by Roberto » 03 Sep 2002 17:53

michael mills wrote:Despite its pro-Soviet leaning, the program confirms that the starvation was largely due to the Soviet Government decision to make the civilian population stay and defend the city, rather than evacuating it.


Emphasis is mine.

I note that Michael Mills has somewhat softened his previous assessment in this respect, which read as follows:

michael mills wrote:Accordingly, the death of almost one million civilians in Leningrad cannot be attributed solely to a German plan; it was also, even mainly, the result of the willingness of the Soviet Government to sacrifice millions of its own people in order to achieve its ends.


Assuming that the conclusions of his conveniently hard to verify source – a television documentary – are i) accurately rendered and ii) accurate themselves, such reasoning lead us back to two questions I have already asked him, modified in accordance with the modification of Mr. Mills previous assessment:

1. I suppose that Michael Mills would seek a substantial proportion of the responsibility for the fate that befell the inhabitants of East Prussia and Silesia in the winter of 1944/45 with the Nazi leadership, which could have evacuated these areas with plenty of time in the autumn of 1944 but refused to do so.

Am I right?

2. I suppose he would also blame the bloodbath of the RAF's Operation "Gomorrha" largely on the Nazi government's failure to evacuate more citizens of Hamburg to the countryside.

Am I right?

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

Post by Roberto » 03 Sep 2002 17:57

Scott Smith wrote:
michael mills wrote:Despite its pro-Soviet leaning, the program confirms that the starvation was largely due to the Soviet Government decision to make the civilian population stay and defend the city, rather than evacuating it.

On the subject of an alleged genocidal plan of the German Government to deliberately exterminate the population by starvation, that is refuted by the very documents Mr Muehlenkamp cites.

Unfortunately, Mr. Muehlenkamp puts great stock in rhetoric--when it suits his agenda--that seeming to be rather similar to the somewhat puzzling agenda of Leftist German historians.
:)


Looks like my friend Smith is reduced to nodding to the clever but mendacious distortions of a far more sophisticated fellow “Revisionist”.

Poor Smith.

Raymond
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: 03 Sep 2002 17:07
Location: Germany

Post by Raymond » 03 Sep 2002 17:59

Roberto, what is the purpose of your posting about the Leningrad siege?

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

Post by Roberto » 03 Sep 2002 18:15

Raymond wrote:Roberto, what is the purpose of your posting about the Leningrad siege?


To the extent that you need to have a “purpose” to post on this forum, I’d say the purpose is to provide information about documentary evidence regarding the planning and conduction of that siege.

I hope you see nothing wrong with providing historical information.
Last edited by Roberto on 03 Sep 2002 18:25, edited 2 times in total.

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

Post by Roberto » 03 Sep 2002 18:16

[Repeated post deleted]

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

Post by atkif » 03 Sep 2002 18:46

Lumpy Custard wrote:In my opinion if the Americans and British had'nt existed when the Russians seized Berlin then maybe they would have vented their rage there even more, still, what do I know!. Perhaps being the politically correct thing not too they didnt. If Britain and America had been witness to that ,it would of made them think could europe eventually recieve that kind of treatment, communism could bulldoze its way all the way threw and start another war.


Interesting argumentation.
"Perhaps being... they would have ... still what do I know."
Very convincing.
Perhaps if the granma had a beard she would have been a grandpa...
still what do I know ? 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O
If Britain and America had not seen the beard it would of made them think
that the grandma remained grandma. 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”