The crimes of the Red Army in eastern Germany are bogus?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23463
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 14 Jul 2005 19:15

Dmitry -- You remarked:
He gave us excerpt from "Soviet War News". I have not this book. There is no such a book in Russian. It's a sort of almanac that was published in England only. How can I check on the original if I don't know what an article was called in Russian, in what newspaper was it published and when? I suppose there is something lost in translation in English rendering. Soviet's soldiers read in Russian and the texts quoted could have absolutelly another meaning in Russian.
A Google search for "Soviet War News" turned up this "Voice of Russia" article (it was the second article on the hit list; the emphases are mine). As you can see, "Soviet War News" was a publication of the Soviet government:
“THE SOVIET INFORMATION BUREAU REPORTS…”
(Soviet writers’ contribution to the USSR war effort)

by Olga Troshina

“The Soviet Information Bureau reports” were the first words the best-known Soviet radio announcer Yury Levitan said when reading reports about the situation at the frontline, as well as about developments in the world and at home, in the war years. That was the Information Bureau’s basic objective, and millions of people all over this country listened in with abated breath. The Bureau staff members were prominent Soviet writers, poets and journalists. They wrote articles, sketches and reports both for the Soviet newspapers and the radio and also for numerous foreign publications.

In August 1941 Alexei Tolstoy sent a letter to “The Horizon Magazine” in the United States. The letter said:
“The struggle we are fighting is hard and bitter. The enemy is exerting itself, yet the Red Army resistance is growing stronger by the day… Please, give the warmest of regards from Soviet writers and poets to British and American writers, to all those who are bending every effort to wipe out the bloody and bestial Nazism off the face of the earth. Whether the dark night we’re living through lasts long or short depends on all of us.”


The Commander of the 19th Army Lieutenant-General Ivan Konev wrote this in his memoirs about his meeting with a group of war correspondents in August 1941.
“…I felt that the nation realized how heavy the burden the Soviet military had to shoulder was, so the best Soviet writers came to help us, soldiers… In those days it was great moral support for me… This made me feel confident that…our intelligentsia was prepared to fully share our fate and, absolutely certain of our ultimate victory, withstand the horrible German onslaught that had already brought the enemy to the distant approaches to Moscow.”
Americans, far away from the Soviet-German frontline, took a keen interest in articles by the Soviet Information Bureau war correspondent Yevgeny Petrov. Here’s a brief report that he telegraphed for the “North American Newspaper Alliance”:
“November 29th. Today on the approaches to Moscow. The greatest of battles has been fought into its 14th day. Far away in front of us we can see our villages on fire, the villages our troops retreated from some time ago… The Germans will surely want some respite soon and will check their advance. But the moment they stop, they’ve lost their general battle. This will mark the beginning of the end. Yevgeny Petrov. The field army.”


Since the breakout of the Great Patriotic War the Soviet Embassy to the UK had been issuing a daily bulletin, and later on the weekly newspaper “The Soviet War News”. Admiral Nikolai Kharlamov, in charge of the Soviet military mission to London in the war years, wrote this in his memoirs:
“I remember very well the day when the newspaper editor Semyon Rostovsky brought me the just printed first issue of “The Soviet War News”, which still smelt of printing-house. That was a good reason for celebration… The publication of “The Soviet War News” had come to symbolize the increasingly stronger ties between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom… We realized that our newspaper would prove instrumental in briefing the British on the actual situation on the Soviet-German front and on the Red Army’s heroic fighting.”


When Nazi troops approached Stalingrad in August 1942, Konstantin Fedin wrote an article headlined “The Volga – the Mississippi” for readers in the United States, which said:
“We are exerting ourselves to stop the avalanche of Hitler’s tanks, to wipe out the hated Nazi troops that have been sent to cut off the Volga. We can’t even think of surrendering the Volga. We will not surrender it. But, our dear American friends, please, don’t forget that the Volga is the Mississippi and that Hitler’s troops are a mere 60 miles away from it. We must not lose time to defend such rivers as the Volga and the Mississippi.”
And this is what the Soviet Information Bureau war correspondent Yevgeny Kriger wrote about the Battle of Stalingrad, the one that determined the course of the entire Second World War:
“There has never been a battle in human history that was fought for months on end non-stop. It was impossible to hold Stalingrad, yet the defenders of the city on the Volga did hold it… I remember the day when the people in Europe and overseas heard the incredible news, one that overshadowed all they knew about the valor of soldiers and of the wisdom of military leaders in war history. At Stalingrad the Russians launched a counteroffensive.”
The greatest battle on the Volga ended in the Soviet victory. The Soviet Information Bureau reported about it on February 2nd, 1943:
“Earlier today… the troops of the Don Army Group wiped out all of the Nazi German troops that had been encircled in the area of Stalingrad. The Soviet troops broke down the enemy resistance and forced the Germans to lay down their arms… The history-making Battle of Stalingrad ended in the complete victory of our troops on February 2nd, 1943.”
The prominent war journalist, writer and poet Konstantin Simonov wrote down in his diary an excerpt from a letter by his reader who fought in the war, an excerpt that, Simonov felt, “featured a surprisingly brief and precise description of the change that was taking place in the course of fighting”:
“There is a world of difference between the morale of an army on the defensive and that of an army on the offensive. We know only too well how it feels in each of the two cases”. “Nazis,” Konstantin Simonov added, “also knew how it felt, only they felt it in reverse order.”


The Soviet Information Bureau reported increasingly more often that “On the Western front our troops continued fighting offensive battles,” and people gradually got used to this kind of news. “…The advancing Soviet troops broke down the fierce resistance of the enemy and captured the city of Belgorod,” the Soviet Information Bureau reported on August 5th, 1943.

“The events have been unfolding so fast,” wrote Yuri Zhukov in an article, “that war correspondents find it increasingly more difficult to cover them… We are now in Belgorod, an old Russian city that’s located close to Ukraine… A nearby road sign that Germans set up two years ago says “Kharkov – 80 kilometers”. …But very soon the Soviet Information Bureau will report that the Soviet troops have engaged the enemy in the Kharkov sector of operations. The Belgorod sector of operations is already a thing of the past, now it is the Kharkov sector. And we are certain that the day will come when this sector is replaced by others, lying further westwards. And this will continue until one fine day we’ll read in an Information Bureau report that the advancing Soviet troops have mounted an offensive in the Berlin direction…”

In 1943 the Soviet writer Mikhail Sholokhov wrote his “Letter to American Friends” to point to the need for a speedy opening of the second front by the USSR allies:
“It is almost two years now that we’ve been fighting the Germans in a fierce and bloody war. You are aware, of course, that we have managed to stop and repel the enemy. But, perhaps, you know little of the Herculean effort we have had to make to achieve this …I’ve been to the Southern, South-Western and Western Fronts as a war correspondent, and currently I’m writing a novel I will entitle “They Fought for their Motherland”. I want to show how hard it is for people to fight for their freedom. But since I am not through with the novel yet, I’d like to address you not as a writer, but just as a citizen of an allied nation… The fight is growing in scale and bitterness, and we’d like to see our friends fighting by our side. We need your help in that fight. What we suggest is more than just friendship between our nations, but friendship between our soldiers… We must be aware that your armies… will deliver powerful strikes at the enemy from the rear.”
The Second Front was opened in the summer of 1944, when the Allied troops landed in Normandy on June 6th. Later on Konstantin Simonov offered this comment on the development:
“We awaited the recent occurrence in Normandy back in 1942, when it seemed a sheer miracle that we did manage to hold out, we looked forward to the second front opening in the spring of 1943, when everybody in this country was worried about the forthcoming German offensive. No other development in recent years has disappointed our hopes so much as this - the second front! But this only serves to help retain every detail of the way I perceived the landing in Normandy; the second front has indeed been opened at last, for the allied troops to fight to the death! For me personally that day was a happy one.”


The Soviet writer Vassily Grossman wrote an article he entitled “The Power of an Offensive”, to describe the Red Army’s and its allies’ joint military action:
“We are now at the Oder, on the approaches to Berlin. The powerful enemy defenses are now back to the east. The Red Army and the Allied forces are now separated by a mere 500-odd kilometers. The interaction of the armies rolling into Germany from the east and the west has become a reality. A while ago I saw dozens of “Flying Fortresses” making a circle high up in the sky as they were getting ready to attack Berlin from the east. A low muffled humming sound can be heard in the towns and villages overlooking the Oder when the allied aircraft drop their bomb load on the Nazi capital…”
“Red Army units mounted an offensive in the Berlin direction…” That happened in the spring of 1945.

On April 21 the Soviet Information Bureau reported:
“The Red Army central group has been going on with its offensive operation west of the Oder…”.
The Soviet writer Vsevolod Ivanov wrote a sketch about fighting at the Oder. Here’s an excerpt from it:
“Tomorrow Red Army units will storm the enemy fortified area on the western bank of the Oder. Bridges are being laid and troops and artillery pieces are being brought along. The first thing we shall hear tomorrow morning will be a long piece of artillery music, as it were, a symphony of sorts, with a leitmotif kind of saying: “To Berlin!.. Into Berlin!”


This is the way the war correspondent Pavel Troyanovsky describes those tragic for the Nazi Germany capital days:
“The Red Army was advancing on Berlin, a huge city that stretched out before it. That was the place where the war had been planned and prepared, a city that in the autumn of 1941 expected the Wehrmacht to capture Moscow any minute… We were so close to the city that we needed no binoculars to see the vast endless panorama of the German capital. …Black smoke was rising from all around the city to form a huge heavy cloud over Berlin. The German capital was ablaze. The cannonade thunder made the air, the ground and the buildings shake. Many thousand artillery guns were firing on Berlin, which was responding with thousands of shells and mines.”

“A report by the Soviet Information Bureau. Following fierce street fighting, the troops of the 1st Belorussian Front under the command of Marshal of the Soviet Union Zhukov with support from the troops of the 1st Ukrainian Front under the command of Marshal of the Soviet Union Konev put the Berlin group of the German troops to rout and established earlier today, May 2nd, full control of the German capital – the city of Berlin…”
“The war is over. The Nazis are defeated”. On May 8th Nazi Germany surrendered. Here’s how the prominent Soviet war correspondent Boris Gorbatov described that historic day:
“On the 8th of May 1945 humanity gave a sigh of relief. The war was over, and Nazis were defeated. …We had to cover a very long road to make this happen. It was a road of fighting, of blood and victories. And so, this is it, - the day of our Victory. Berlin has a thin haze around it, the sun is high up in the sky above the Tempelhof airfield… The wreckage of the destroyed “Junkers” aircraft is scattered about the concrete runways, the splinters of exploded aerial bombs, now dead and cold, are all over the place. This airfield was a battlefield… Today it will become the venue of friends and allies who will meet to dictate their will to the defeated enemy.

“…Soviet Generals under General Sokolovsky, representing the Red Army Command, arrive at the Tempelhof airfield at 14 hours. Then we can see “Douglas” planes with US and British military commanders aboard… The colors of the Allied nations are fluttering in the breeze. The band is playing the national anthems.

“…Everybody feels the importance of the moment. Everyone realizes that they are attending an event that is determining the future of many generations of people.

“Then the members of delegations and all the others at the airfield leave for the Berlin suburb Karlshorst, where Germany’s unconditional surrender is due to be signed. They are traveling through Berlin, a destroyed and defeated Berlin that the Soviet troops took by assault just days ago.

“…Finally they arrive at Karlshorst. …The historic meeting gets under way. It is a brief meeting. Few people are attending, and few words are said.

“…I suggest that those representing the German High Command,” Marshal Zhukov says slowly, “should come up to the table and sign the Act of Unconditional Surrender.” …The authorized German Generals sign the Act in silence. Then it is Marshal Zhukov and Air Chief Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Tedder who sign the Act… The German Generals stand up and leave the hall…”
Reading the Soviet Information Bureau report on Germany’s surrender was the famous Soviet radio announcer Yury Levitan:
“We, the undersigned, acting on behalf of the German High Command, agree to the unconditional surrender of all our armed forces on the ground, at sea and in the air, and also of all the forces that are currently under German command, to the Red Army Supreme Command and simultaneously to the Supreme Command of the Allied Expeditionary Force”. Signed: Keitel, Friedeburg, Stumpf. May 8th, 1945”.
“It’s victory! Today humanity can breathe a sigh of relief. Today guns do not fire,” wrote Boris Gorbatov.

In his article, dedicated to the Great Victory, the prominent Soviet writer Leonid Leonov summed up the results of the bloodiest war that humanity has ever fought:
“…We have defended not only our lives and our property, but also the very notion of a human being, which Nazism sought to deprive us of.”


Copyright c 2003 The Voice of Russia
http://www.vor.ru/English/Victory/vict_24.html

User avatar
Dmitry
Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 15:01
Location: Moscow

Post by Dmitry » 14 Jul 2005 20:04

David Thompson wrote: Since the breakout of the Great Patriotic War the Soviet Embassy to the UK had been issuing a daily bulletin, and later on the weekly newspaper “The Soviet War News”.
Oh, I was mistaken. It was not an almanac as I thought. It was the newspaper issued in UK. They printed tranlations from Soviet newspapers here. But translation is translation. It could have unintentional errors, difficulties in rendering etc. That's why original is better I believe. As for example 'flaxen-haired witches' from what michael mills comes to a conclusion that it's a sign of Ehrenburg thinking in racial terms. I'm almost sure it's a bad translation of "belokuraya bestia" (blond deep one, oh it's just untranslatable) or wordplay related to the well-known in Russia journalist term. And I'd like to know how "will not easily escape us" looks in original Russian text. Translator just could make his job easy. You cannot make far-reaching conclusions from translations, I think.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8865
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 15 Jul 2005 01:05

Another example of Erenburg's excessively violent propagandising, written on 12 October 1941. This is from his book "Russia at War", p.220f, as quoted in the book by Dr Joachim Hoffmann.
They are perverts, sodomites, addicted to all forms of bestiality.......They grab Russian girls and drag them into brothels.......They hang priests....They wear belts with the motto 'God With Us', but beat dying prisoners in the face with their belts........Culture to them means fountain pens and safety razors. They use the fountain pens to jot down how many girls they have raped; they shave with safety razors, then use straight razors to cut off the noses, ears and breasts of their victims.
The above shows a high degree of "lurid embellishment". There were many atrocities comitted in occupied Soviet terrotory by German forces that Erenburg could draw on as a basis for his propaganda.

But he is using the propagandist's devices of generalisation from a number of true incidents and exaggeration.

He is also inserting a sexual element when he accuses German soldiers of being "perverts" and "sodomites". That may be a personal projection of his own psychological make-up, or it could be an element prescribed to him by his employers.

It should be noted that when the feared head of the NKVD, Ezhov, was purged at the end of 1938, one of the accusations that was made against him was that of "sodomy", ie homosexual practices. Given the sexually repressive nature of Soviet society, it is no wonder that such accusations were used against Stalin's enemies, whether internal such as the victims of purges or external, such as the German invaders.

Erenburg's accusation that the German soldiers were rapists mirrors the same accusation later flung at Soviet soldiers. Erenburg was certainly the equal of Goebbels when it came to atrocity propaganda.

Another example from his diatribe "Wolves They Were, Wolves They Remain", published in Soviet news Weekly, 15 March 1945, giving his account of a two-week visit he made to occupied east Prussia.
The [German] girls gaze at the passing Red Army men ingratiatingly, lecherously, as if they were cabaret waitresses instead of burghers' daughters.
Here Erenburg is implying that German women are whores, ready to jump into bed with lusty Red Army men. The clear message is that Red Army men are not raping innocent German women, they are just giving the randy German bitches what they want.

The likelihood is that Erenburg was distorting reality at this point. We can be reasonably confident that most German women left in East Prussia early in 1945 were hiding themselves away, trying to avoid being noticed. It is also possible that Erenburg is projecting his own sexual fantasies.

Another excerpt from Soviet War News of 19 October 1944, as quoted by Hoffmann.
They [released foreign workers] are not concerned with what happens to the Germans, whether we should teach morals to what remains of them or feed them oatmeal broth. No. This young Europe has long known that the best Germans are the dead Germans......The problem that the Russians and Poles are presumably attempting to solve is whther it is better to kill the Germans with axes or clubs. They are not interested in reforming the inhabitants......They are only interested in reducing their numbers.
Erenburg added: "And it is my modest opinion that the Russians and Poles.....are right".

An excerpt about Erenburg from Dr Hoffmann's book:

Pages 159-60:
It is not true that Ehrenburg's articles, some of which were translated into the English language, were received with approval everywhere in great Britain and the USA. in 1945, for example, a well-known New York magazine called for a protest against the "cruelty of Soviet writers such as Alexei Tolstoy and Ilya Ehrenburg". On October 26 and November 23, 1944, Ehrenburg was publicly compelled to reply to a lady Gibb, who had written to him as follows:
You call forth a very, very old evil in the hearts of the Russian people, ie the desire for revenge after victory has been won. This old, old evil......brings the victor no blessings.......We are very anxious to see you place your great talents in the service of Russia on behalf of a just and lasting peace, which can never be based on self-righteousness and the lust for revenge.
Soviet propaganda, which at this time was already quite busy defending enormous Soviet territorial acquisitions, began to put massive pressure upon Lady Gibb in an attempt to nip any impulse of jutice nad humanity in the bud. Ehrenburg answered in the hate-filled tones of an "un-human", quoting from the alleged letter of a lieutenant Zinchenko, who was said to have written in shock: "My mother is religious too, and in the name of religion she asks 'kill the Germans with my blessings' ". "One must not pity a wild beast", said Ehrenburg, "rather, one must destroy it........that is the opinion of our people, dear Lady".
Just a comment on the use of the term "un-human" applied to Ehrenburg in the above excerpt. The book by Hoffmann that I am quoting from is a translation from the original German, and contains a number of clumsy renderings, such as this one.

I assume that the original German word being translated here is "Unmensch", which does not denote someone who is literally not human, but someone who is cruel and inhumane, who does not live up to the standards of humanity.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23463
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 15 Jul 2005 01:08

Dmitry -- You said:
You cannot make far-reaching conclusions from translations, I think.
The translation in question was authorized and published by the Soviet government, which was responsible for its accuracy. The readers can decide for themselves whether the article is a "message of hatred and revenge" from the overall tone of the language.

There is a practice in argument, known in English as "pettifogging." It involves bickering or quibbling over trifles when there are more important issues to be dealt with. The practice is discouraged here. Avoid it.

User avatar
Dmitry
Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 15:01
Location: Moscow

Post by Dmitry » 15 Jul 2005 03:30

David Thompson wrote:Dmitry -- You said:
You cannot make far-reaching conclusions from translations, I think.
The translation in question was authorized and published by the Soviet government, which was responsible for its accuracy. The readers can decide for themselves whether the article is a "message of hatred and revenge" from the overall tone of the language.
OK. Then I claim that in original Russain Ehrenburg texsts that I have read I have never met anything against civilians. He could characterize and generalize (he was a writer, you know) but I have never met calls to use violence against German civilians. Period.

Here what Ehrenburg wrote about hatred and what he understand by this:
Ëþáîâü - âå÷íàÿ òåìà. Íî ÷òî îáùåãî ìåæäó Ðîìåî è Äæóëüåòòîé è ïðîñòèòóòêîé ñ åå êëèåíòîì? Òîëüêî ãîðåíèå ñåðäöà âîçâûøàåò òåëåñíóþ ñòðàñòü. Ñîæèòåëüñòâî áåç ëþáâè áåçíðàâñòâåííî è óðîäëèâî. Áåçíðàâñòâåííà è óðîäëèâà âîéíà áåç íàñòîÿùåé íåíàâèñòè. Íåíàâèñòè íåëüçÿ íàó÷èòü, êàê íåëüçÿ íàó÷èòü ëþáâè. Íåíàâèñòü - ýòî èññòóïëåíèå, ýòî íàêàë ñåðäöà. Âîéíà æèâåò íåíàâèñòüþ, êàê ìîòîð æèâåò ãîðþ÷èì. Íåëüçÿ ñîïîñòàâèòü âûñîêóþ, èñïåïåëÿþùóþ ñåðäöå íåíàâèñòü íàøåãî íàðîäà è ìåëêóþ çëîáó, ïðèñóùóþ ôàøèñòàì. Ìû íåíàâèäèì â ãåðìàíñêîé àðìèè ïðîÿâëåíèå çëà. Äëÿ íàñ â ãèòëåðîâöå ñîáðàíû âñå íèçêèå, îòâðàòèòåëüíûå ñâîéñòâà ÷åëîâåêà. Óáèâàÿ íåìöà, ìû óáèâàåì íå òîëüêî íàøåãî îáèä÷èêà, ìû óáèâàåì íîñèòåëÿ çëîãî íà÷àëà. Îá ýòîì ãîâîðÿò äåñÿòêè, ñîòíè, òûñÿ÷è ïèñåì ñ ôðîíòà: ðîæäåíèå íåíàâèñòè áûëî ïîðóêîé íàøåé ïîáåäû.
http://www.sscadm.nsu.ru/deps/hum/reade ... g/010.html
It's clear what he means. He talked about hatred toward fascists and their tool - german army.

I'm not interested in commenting renderings if there are no links to original Russian text.

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004 10:39
Location: Russia

Post by Karman » 15 Jul 2005 09:17

michael mills wrote:
That pamphlet was produced by Erenburg toward the end of the war, after he visited German territory already under Soviet occupation. The theme was that the German people would always remain wolves because of their race.
Speaking with regard to Soviet pre-war and war propaganda we should not forget that for many years the fighters of Red Army were educated and skilled as revolutionary fighters. Red Army after the civil war and up to the end of thirties was meant a revolutionary army. If you remember Tukhachevskiy defined his war doctrine in the words that the future war will be the war of motors against the class heterogenous enemy. Tukhachevskiy also insisted that
"èñòî÷íèêîì êîìïëåêòîâàíèÿ àðìèè ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðîëåòàðèàò âñåãî ìèðà íåçàâèñèìî îò íàöèîíàëüíîñòè".
quoted from here: http://ipmb.ru/8_p_1.html

Translation: " International proletariat of any nationality is the recruiting source for the Red Army".

He isnsited that the WW2 should be the class war (some kind of the world revolution). He also said that all kinds of national (not class) resistance to any invader though from friendly to Red Army positions is a natural enemy of that army. Though Tukhachevskiy was executed; many of his practices and ideas were altered; all crap about the world revolution was destroyed in the Soviet politics before the war yet many Red Army people, party members and commons believed in class solidarity with some classes and stratas in the foe country. They believed that German workers and common people except some polititians, militaries and business circles did not support the war and will solidarize with Red Army. Following the old Tukhachevskiy doctrine they believed that when the war starts the German proletariat will join Red Army fighters in their struggle against fascism. Following Trozkiy and Tukhachevskiy they relied on the permanent world revolution.

Stalin radically altered Tukhachevskiy doctrine in terms of propaganda. The future war will not be the class war but the war for national survival, continuation of glorified traditions of ancient Holy Mother Russia and struggle for Fatherland (Otechestvo). Stalin personally corrected the history text books for children insisting on partiotic but not class education. Serghey Eisenstein produced his Alexander Nevskiy. The film is about a Russian Saint, Prince and Patriot produced to the audience whose leaders for years had denied any of nobility, religion and patriotism. One of French pro-fascist critics Robert Brasillach callled Alexander Nevskiy the Slavs War Lay that had no sign of Marxism and could had been produced in a fascist country

Well let's leave Erenburg's personal manias and phobias to himself. But Erenburg worked in line of Stalin's partiotic propaganda and education. His objective was to eliminate the last silly hopes of the class solidarity of Soviet and German working classes. He was to show that all Germans supported the war notwithstanding their class and education background. In the national war, in the war between nations there was no room for class and marxist hopes and believes. And that was the basis for his generalizations IMHO but not the appeal to kill all moving target including women and children. Erenburg often uses the word: Russian (russkiy) instead of Soviet (sovetskiy) , he referred to Christian tradition and said that Germans killed even priests determening it as a crime (which was a strange thing for an atheist country)

Regards,
P.S. All that was changed by Khrushiov again who reintroduced the communist crap and was the same believer in the world revolution as Trozkiy and Tukhachevskiy.
P.P.S. In Russian tradition Sodomia is not homosexual sex only but mostly bestiality. Actually in ancient Russia they say (I do not remember the source) Sodomia meant also the sexual relations between a Russian Orthodox and a person of opposite sex of any other confession.

Liste10
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 11 Mar 2005 16:12
Location: baden württemberg

Post by Liste10 » 17 Jul 2005 00:32

Denying the soviet war crimes is as bad as lying about the holocaust. period


random comment

Serus
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 03 May 2005 08:46
Location: Warsaw-Poland

Post by Serus » 17 Jul 2005 11:10

Dmitry wrote: ...
I'm not interested in commenting renderings if there are no links to original Russian text.
How convenient for your argument. You know well that your discutants dont speak Russian - so they have limited acces to original Ehrenburg articles. But they provided you an english translation - not a random one but made and published by Soviet governemnt - then you just dismiss this proof. Do you have any reason to belive that those english translations are not trusthworthy and that Ehrenburg never wrote such things ? I wouldnt call it a constructive way of debating.

User avatar
Dmitry
Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 15:01
Location: Moscow

Post by Dmitry » 17 Jul 2005 12:37

Serus wrote:But they provided you an english translation - not a random one but made and published by Soviet governemnt - then you just dismiss this proof. Do you have any reason to belive that those english translations are not trusthworthy and that Ehrenburg never wrote such things ? I wouldnt call it a constructive way of debating.
There is no way for word to word translation. If you know foreign languages you should know that. That's why I think it's uselles to discuss rendering without original.

Just to illustrate my point:

Alexander Burak
A Practical Introduction to Written Translation from Russian to English.
Published by Moscow State University. Faculties of Foreign Languages. 2002
Unit 1
An Overview of Basic Terminology and Course Aims

1. What is translation?
As a means of interlingual communication, translation is a transfer of meaning across cultures. More specifically, translation is the process and result of creating in a target, or translating, language (TL) a text which has approximately the same communicative value as the corresponding text in the source language (SL).

2. Translation is always an approximation.
The target text (TT), or translation, that is created by the translator never perfectly reflects, either in meaning or tone, the original source text (ST). The form and con¬tent of the original and its translation always differ. This is due to the constraints imposed on the translator by the formal and semantic differences between the source language and the target language. Never¬theless, the users of the target language usually accept a translation as the functional, structural, and semantic equivalent of the original.

3. A simple illustration of the impossibility of absolute equivalence.
Even a very simple translation illustrates the formal and semantic differences between the original and its translation. Leaving aside considerations of context, the English sentence "The student is reading a book" can be translated as "Ñòóäåíò ÷èòàåò êíèãó" (Student chitaet knigu). On a formal, or grammatical level, the Russian sentence is devoid of the meaning of the articles and the present continuous tense. The Russian sentence does not contain any explicit indication that a specific student is reading some unspecified book. Nor does it indicate that the process of reading is most likely taking place at the moment of speaking. However, the Russian sentence carries some grammatical meaning which is absent in the English sentence. The verb "÷èòàåò"(chitaet) is marked for person, number and conjugation while the noun "êíèãó"(knigu) is feminine and is used in the accusative case. On a semantic level, the Russian sentence also contains some information absent from the English original. It is clear from the Russian translation that the student is male and a college or university undergraduate while the English original may refer to a grade or high school student or even a scholar. Some of the information lost or added in the process of translation may be irrelevant for effective communication and some of the information may be supplied or neutralized by context. It is important to understand that equivalence achieved in translation is relative.
The good example is 'Kill' article. English has no specific word for 'a German male' as Russian has (nemec). So it was translated as 'a German in gereral' that changed the meaning of the article dramatically.

I don't know who translated articles for “The Soviet War News” - whether a native Russian or a native Briton... But 'flaxen-haired witches' make me think that the translations were not that good.

Serus
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 03 May 2005 08:46
Location: Warsaw-Poland

Post by Serus » 17 Jul 2005 15:35

Sorry i can only quote mr Thompson here:
There is a practice in argument, known in English as "pettifogging." It involves bickering or quibbling over trifles when there are more important issues to be dealt with.
...
You are doing exactly this. Let the readers decide on their own...

User avatar
Dmitry
Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 15:01
Location: Moscow

Post by Dmitry » 17 Jul 2005 16:07

Serus wrote:You are doing exactly this. Let the readers decide on their own...
Decide what? Does this renderings match the originals? while "discutants dont speak Russian". That's way to go. Sorry to disturb you...

User avatar
Dmitry
Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 15:01
Location: Moscow

Post by Dmitry » 17 Jul 2005 16:54

michael mills wrote:
You quote Dr Hoffmann's book:
Soviet propaganda, which at this time was already quite busy defending enormous Soviet territorial acquisitions, began to put massive pressure upon Lady Gibb in an attempt to nip any impulse of jutice nad humanity in the bud. Ehrenburg answered in the hate-filled tones of an "un-human", quoting from the alleged letter of a lieutenant Zinchenko, who was said to have written in shock: "My mother is religious too, and in the name of religion she asks 'kill the Germans with my blessings' ". "One must not pity a wild beast", said Ehrenburg, "rather, one must destroy it........that is the opinion of our people, dear Lady".


I've find the original in Russian. Cannot find there anything against civilians.

The judges speak (reply to a lady Gibb) http://www.sscadm.nsu.ru/deps/hum/reade ... g/023.html
Ðàçâåä÷èê ìëàäøèé ëåéòåíàíò Çèí÷åíêî âñïîìèíàåò, êàê â 1941 ã. íåìåöêèå ëåò÷èêè íà áðåþùåì ïîëåòå ðàññòðåëèâàëè áåæåíöåâ: "Îäèí ïðèçåìëèëñÿ - åãî ñáèëè, åãî ñïðîñèëè, çà÷åì îí óáèë äåòåé, è òðóïû åìó ïîêàçàëè. Îí îòâåòèë: "Ôþðåð è Ãåðìàíèÿ ñ ýòèì íå ñ÷èòàþòñÿ". ß áûë òîãäà íåîáñòðåëÿííûé äóðàê, íî ýòè ñëîâà ÿ çàïîìíèë... Ýòè ãàäû õîäèëè ïî ìîåé Óêðàèíå, êàê õîçÿåâà, è ìíå ãîâîðÿò, ÷òîáû ÿ æàëåë íåìöà? Ëåïåò èçíåæåííîé äàìû, êîòîðàÿ âîîáùå íå çíàåò ôðèöà! Ó ìåíÿ åñòü ïðåâîñõîäñòâî íàä ëåäè Ãèáá: ÿ íåíàâèæó íåìöåâ, è ýòî ïîìîãëî ìíå ïðîéòè òûñÿ÷ó êèëîìåòðîâ ïî îñâîáîæäåííîé çåìëå, âûðó÷èòü òûñÿ÷è ëþäåé... Ìîÿ ìàòü òîæå âåðóåò, è îíà âî èìÿ ýòîé âåðû áëàãîñëîâëÿåò ìåíÿ: "Óáåé íåìöà!"
It's clear here that Zinchenko says about combatants.

More quotes from the article:
Ìû íå áóäåì óáèâàòü äåòåé, íî íåìöåâ, êîòîðûå õîòåëè èñòðåáèòü íàñ, ìû èñòðåáèì.
Translation: We will not kill children but we will kill those Germans who wanted to kill us.
Êàæäûé êðàñíîàðìååö çíàåò, ÷òî ìû èäåì â Áåðëèí íå çà äîáû÷åé. Ìû èäåì ñóäèòü âèíîâíûõ, è ýòî íå òîëüêî â íàøèõ èíòåðåñàõ, íî â èíòåðåñàõ âñåõ ñâîáîäîëþáèâûõ íàðîäîâ
Translation: Each Red Army soldier knows - we go to Berlin not for goods. We are going to judge and condemn the guilties. And it's not of ours interest only. It should be done in behalf of all lovers of liberty.

Agricolae
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 18 Jul 2005 04:54
Location: Newcastle, Australia

Holocuast Victim Numbers.

Post by Agricolae » 21 Jul 2005 02:27

KalaVelka wrote:I dont know the exact way how did holocaust researcher reach the number of 6 millions nor I dont know the exact way how did the researcher of the red armys rapes reach their numbers. I have seen various claims for the rapes and thats why I said:
hundreads of thousands (even millions) of women
.

How they came up with the numbers of Holocuast Victims. I know this.

Firstly, there were the Soviet estimates of the capacities of Auschwitz, as detailed in Nuremberg Document USSR-8 (sometimes USSR-008) i.e.

"In Crematorium No. 1, which existed for 24 months, 9,000 bodies could be burnt monthly, which means a total of 216,000 during the entire period of its existence; The corresponding Figures are: -crematorium no. 2, 90,000 bodies per month, total figure 1,710,000 bodies; Crematorium no. 3, 18 months, 90,000 bodies per month, toatal figure 1,620,000 bodies, Crematorium no. 4: 17 months, 45,000 bodies per month, total figure 765,000 bodies; Crematorium no. 5: 18 Months, 45,000 bodies per month. Total capacity of all five crematoria was 279,000 bodies per month, for a total figure of 5,121,000 for the entire period of existance." Extract taken from document USSR-8.

Later however the decision was made to do a count back by census.

So they took the census results from several years before the war and the census from sometime after the war, and found the Jewish population had declined in Europe by over 6,000,000 and so we have our figure. (of course though this study was flawed as it failed to take into account emmigration to countries outside of Europe.)

I hope this clarrifies it up for you.

Somebody
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 07 Aug 2005 20:35
Location: estonia

Post by Somebody » 07 Aug 2005 22:25

if ehrenburg says kill germans then that is what he ment. if he would have smthg narrower in mind he would use some other word.
what becomes to stalin or party condemning ehrenburg then this was not serious. if it would be serious then he would simply dissapear. failure to follow stalin/party line would not be tolerated. everybody knows that, people were executed or sented to gulag for far less reason.
what become to russians to officially admit their warcrimes we need to wait some 50-100 more years. it took some 50 years to recognize katyn.
ww2 is the only thing left for most of the russians to remember as honourable and victorious. if u take that away, nothing will be left. they call themselves liberators but are considered occupants by those whow they liberated. tough.

Molobo
Banned
Posts: 629
Joined: 14 Feb 2005 14:20
Location: Poland

Post by Molobo » 08 Aug 2005 00:41

if ehrenburg says kill germans then that is what he ment. if he would have smthg narrower in mind he would use some other word.
I could bet that the word "Germans" appears in British, American and other allied texts in reference to fighting German Reich.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”