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

Post by Raymond » 03 Sep 2002 20:16

Scott Smith wrote:
Caldric wrote:Leningrad was as much a holocaust as any of the death camps, that is good enough reason for posting information on it. The so-called "Siege" was really just the beginning of destroying all of Leningrad and its population. As they said they had no way to care for the population so it was better that they died.

Caldric, do you really believe this? Since when is it the responsibility of an attacker to support the welfare of a besieged city maintaining resistance? Historically, a city that resists once the wall has been breached is starved and massacred or enslaved. The Germans had no such intentions, although they were reluctant to capture a panacea-target that would not be decisive for their ongoing campaign. But no surrender was offered and the Germans had no responsibility to support the resisting enemy population in any case. Wars kill people but wars are not fought to kill people--except when the enemy is the Nazis, of course, and the Victory of the Good-Guys is fantastic. Never Forget.
:)



Although terrible, Leningrad is not comparable to the systematic mass killing at the extermination camps. On the other hand, the planned starvation of people is no "collateral effect", but a cold blooded warcrime.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 2976
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 03 Sep 2002 20:19

Scott Smith wrote:
Caldric wrote:Leningrad was as much a holocaust as any of the death camps, that is good enough reason for posting information on it. The so-called "Siege" was really just the beginning of destroying all of Leningrad and its population. As they said they had no way to care for the population so it was better that they died.

Caldric, do you really believe this? Since when is it the responsibility of an attacker to support the welfare of a besieged city maintaining resistance? Historically, a city that resists once the wall has been breached is starved and massacred or enslaved. The Germans had no such intentions, although they were reluctant to capture a panacea-target that would not be decisive for their ongoing campaign. But no surrender was offered and the Germans had no responsibility to support the resisting enemy population in any case.
:)


Yes I do believe the German's set out to destroy the cities (Moscow included) and as one of Hitler's favorite words to "annihilate" them. They wanted to the cities completely destroyed. German's would not have excepted a surrender anyway. What I mean in the above is if they completely destroy Leningrad what is to be done with the millions of displaced citizens? They have to be fed etc. It would be better to have them starve and die then have to worry about such problems. That is how I take the German General's attuitude on the subject.

Here is the quote:

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.

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

Post by atkif » 03 Sep 2002 20:20

Scott
You continue to deliberately dismiss the very obvious difference between the regular "Siege Warfare " and the massacre of civilians.
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 ? Those are the genocide intentions.
Regards.
P.S.I can see that you are indeed a Machiavelli admirer. :)

Caldric
Member
Posts: 2976
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 03 Sep 2002 20:22

Raymond wrote:
Caldric wrote:Leningrad was as much a holocaust as any of the death camps, that is good enough reason for posting information on it. The so-called "Siege" was really just the beginning of destroying all of Leningrad and its population. As they said they had no way to care for the population so it was better that they died.



Mass killings did ever take place in history by various occasions and by many people, who have called himself human. Leningrad is one of them, a historical undoubtful fact.



Not sure I understand what you are saying here. Other crimes and mass murder in other timelines of history are not really relevant, if that is what you are talking about.

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

Post by Raymond » 03 Sep 2002 20:26

Not sure I understand what you are saying here. Other crimes and mass murder in other timelines of history are not really relevant, if that is what you are talking about.


I did say that Leningrad was a warcrime, a planned mass starvation. It's a historical fact, so terrible, that the hungry people began to eat the human remains of death men and women.

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

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Sep 2002 20:30

atkif wrote:Scott
You continue to deliberately dismiss the very obvious difference between the regular "Siege Warfare " and the massacre of civilians.

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.

atkif wrote: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 ?

Of course not. The capture of Berlin effectively ended the war.

Those are the genocide intentions.

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.

P.S.I can see that you are indeed a Machiavelli admirer. :)

Yes, I am. However, I don't think that you know the first thing about Machiavelli, assuming that is even relevant here.

Best Regards,
Scott
:)

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

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Sep 2002 20:41

Caldric wrote:Yes I do believe the German's set out to destroy the cities (Moscow included) and as one of Hitler's favorite words to "annihilate" them. They wanted to the cities completely destroyed.

Annihilate or wiping-out the enemy is what you do in war. It becomes "excessive" use-of-force only when the enemy offers unconditional surrender. The Russians didn't do that. They didn't even ask for terms.

German's would not have excepted a surrender anyway. What I mean in the above is if they completely destroy Leningrad what is to be done with the millions of displaced citizens? They have to be fed etc.

No, they don't. Once they occupy the city they don't have to do anything. Perhaps they should feed the refugees--but if they can't, they can't. They certainly don't have to if the city continues to resist.

It would be better to have them starve and die then have to worry about such problems.

Only if it is more important to kill Untermenschen than to fight (and win) the war. This is the bullshit Genocide theory-of-history so enamored by Leftist German historians who see what they want to from the rhetoric of the Rightwing German Generalität.
:)

Best Regards,
Scott
Last edited by Scott Smith on 09 Sep 2002 09:46, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by atkif » 03 Sep 2002 20:42

Scott
I don't know what you consider "the first thing about Machiavelli"
Even if this indeed not very relevant to the current discussion it is still relavant to your tactics to adjustt the very obvious facts to your agenda


The most controversial aspects of Machiavelli's analysis emerge in the middle chapters of his work. In Chapter 15 he proposes to describe the truth about surviving as a monarch, rather than recommending lofty moral ideals. He describes those virtues which, on face value, we think a prince should possess. He concludes that some "virtues" will lead to a prince's destruction, whereas some "vices" allow him to survive.

It seems to me that your main interest is surviving as "sceptic" rather than taking in consideration "lofty moral ideals."
My regards.
P.S. But I should give you yours .You are doing it with the spark.

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

Post by atkif » 03 Sep 2002 20:48

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.

Are not we discussing the siege of Leningrad ?
My understanding of "Genocide" is deliberate annihilation of the cilivilian population.
Expelling and physical annihilation is not the same.
Last edited by atkif on 03 Sep 2002 20:51, 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 20:50

Atkif, with all due respect, I submit that you think my "tactics" reproachable because you don't agree with my positions. That is fine--the important thing is to have dialog and to agree-to-disagree. But pretending that there is something wrong with my position or tactics of debate shows a lack of confidence in your own argument, I think.

In any case, have a nice day.
:)

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

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Sep 2002 20:53

atkif wrote:
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.

Are not we discussing the siege of Leningrad ?

We are and whether the German tactics, as alleged, are historically contextual or not. If the Potsdam treaty has no place in the discussion then neither does the Siege of Berlin. However, historical and situational example is always necessary for historical and situational context.

There are no rubber-rulers or double-standards in honest history, all "lofty moral ideals" aside.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 09 Sep 2002 09:49, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by atkif » 03 Sep 2002 21:16

Scott
O.K. I narrowed it even more.
Why don't you want to pay attention to this sentence.
The cities are to be destroyed by the air force. Tanks may not be used for this purpose

If this doesn't prove to you the Genocide intentions ,what does ?

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

Post by Roberto » 03 Sep 2002 21:17

atkif wrote:Scott
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.

atkif wrote: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.

atkif wrote: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.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 2976
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 03 Sep 2002 21:22

Scott Smith wrote:
Caldric wrote:Yes I do believe the German's set out to destroy the cities (Moscow included) and as one of Hitler's favorite words to "annihilate" them. They wanted to the cities completely destroyed.

Annihilate or wiping-out the enemy is what you do in war. It becomes excessive use of force only when the enemy offers surrender. The Russians didn't do that.

German's would not have excepted a surrender anyway. What I mean in the above is if they completely destroy Leningrad what is to be done with the millions of displaced citizens? They have to be fed etc.

No, they don't. Once they occupy the city they don't have to do anything. Perhaps they should feed the refugees but if they can't they can't. They certainly don't have to if the city continues to resist.

It would be better to have them starve and die then have to worry about such problems.

Only if it is more important to kill Übermensch than to fight (and win) the war. This is the bullshit Genocide theory-of-history so enamored by Leftist German historians who see what they want to from the rhetoric of the Rightwing German Generalität.
:)

Best Regards,
Scott


I think I know where you are coming from on the subject, so to speak. If it happens during the war then it is really horrible but no crime. However, if Germany set out, as I think they did, with the intention of starving the People of Leningrad and Moscow to death in order to destroy the cities utterly for political reasons then it is a horrible crime.

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

Post by Roberto » 03 Sep 2002 21:47

Caldric wrote:Yes I do believe the German's set out to destroy the cities (Moscow included) and as one of Hitler's favorite words to "annihilate" them. They wanted to the cities completely destroyed.


Smith wrote:Annihilate or wiping-out the enemy is what you do in war. It becomes excessive use of force only when the enemy offers surrender. The Russians didn't do that.


It wouldn't have helped them anything if they had. Capitulation was not to be required, not even accepted if offered. Got that, Mr. Smith?

Caldric wrote:German's would not have excepted a surrender anyway. What I mean in the above is if they completely destroy Leningrad what is to be done with the millions of displaced citizens? They have to be fed etc.


Smith wrote:No, they don't. Once they occupy the city they don't have to do anything.


Is that so, Mr. Smith?

Halder seems to have thought differently. He wrote (document 1, my translation):

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.

Same for the Wehrmacht Command Staff on 21.9.1941 (document 4, my translation):

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.


Smith wrote:Perhaps they should feed the refugees but if they can't they can't.


What does that mean, "can't"?

Are considerations like those of General Quarter Master Wagner supposed to be sufficient?

Wagner wrote (document 3, 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. [...]


Caldric wrote:It would be better to have them starve and die then have to worry about such problems.


Smith wrote:Only if it is more important to kill Übermensch than to fight (and win) the war.


Both goals seem to have been one and the same to Smith's beloved Führer, the German High Command and merciless technocrats like General Quarter Master Wagner.

Smith wrote:This is the bullshit Genocide theory-of-history so enamored by Leftist German historians who see what they want to from the rhetoric of the Rightwing German Generalität.
:)


Boy, I can almost see him gibbering.

The "Leftist German historians" have done nothing other than transcribe a number of documents for those interested in historical facts to look at.

The "Rightwing German Generalität" produced compulsory orders and internal memoranda on how to proceed, not "rhetoric".

And the only bullshit I see consists of a Nazi apologist's frantic attempts to make mass murder into "siege warfare".

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”