You continue to deliberately dismiss the very obvious difference between the regular "Siege Warfare " and the massacre of civilians.
Scott Smith wrote:There is no massacre of civilians and I am drawing from historical examples of siege-warfare, where a city is surrounded, bombarded and starved until it surrenders.
There are times when you have to question Smith's intelligence, and this is one of them.
The objective of siege warfare is to bring about the surrender of an enemy stronghold
The objective of the siege of Leningrad, however, was to get rid of a civilian population that the besiegers did not want on their hands
Capitulation of the city was not to be required, not even accepted if offered
Occupation of the city was not to take place, even if possible
Leningrad was to be wiped from the face of the earth, and its inhabitants were to perish with it or, if for some reason they survived, "forcibly removed", in their weakened condition and in the middle of winter, which would have killed most of the survivors. What the heck, as long as we don't have to feed them, was the besiegers' attitude.
That's not siege warfare, Mr. Smith.
That's mass murder.
Let me remind you the quote brought up by Roberto
. 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
It was not what happened with Berlin ,was it ?
Scott Smith wrote:Of course not. The capture of Berlin effectively ended the war.
What that silly answer has to do with atkif's question totally escapes me.
The capture of Leningrad was never intended by Hitler and the German High Command, because that would have burdened the conquerors with feeding the population.
Leningrad was to disappear from the face of the earth, and its inhabitants with it.
See the difference, Mr. Smith?
atkif wrote:Those are the genocide intentions.
Scott Smith wrote:Really? And what of the motives of the Allies in expelling Germans from their native lands to comply with the Yalta and Potsdam treaties? I suppose that this Gruesome Harvest was Justice and not Genocide, huh? The definition of the term "Genocide" is a club that depends on whose ox is being gored.
With his back to the wall, Smith helplessly fumbles for moral equivalency arguments.
As if anyone here had stated that the postwar expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe was "Justice".
It was actually one of the first mass crimes to which Lemkin's term "genocide" was applied, IIRC.
But here we are discussing the siege of Leningrad, Mr. Smith.
What your beloved Nazis did to the people of Leningrad doesn't look any better on account of what the Poles and Czechs did to ethnic Germans
after the war, you know.
P.S.I can see that you are indeed a Machiavelli admirer.
Scott Smith wrote:[Yes, I am. However, I don't think that you know the first thing about Machiavelli, assuming that is even relevant here.
Wow, now he's bitching about like an offended fish-woman of Nazaré, Portugal.
And that although atkif has been rather gentle by calling him a "Machiavelli admirer".
To me he's just an ideologically blind admirer of the Nazi system wildly lashing out against the evidence that threatens his cherished articles of faith.