Another cause of death of Soviet POWs

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: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 09 Oct 2002 00:52

Caldric wrote:
I think you are dreaming. You should do some more reading about the Soviet Union during its Stalinist salad-days because you don't know what you are talking about. The post-Stalin period was not considered totalitarian, btw. Stalin is still popular, however. At best, if it can be argued that a "fascist war" was inevitable before Hitler even came to power, then Stalin's career as a totalitarian strongman can be justified to insure Soviet victory, including the eggs broken to make the "omelets."
I am very well read on the USSR under Stalin, and the rise of Marxist such as Lenin and Stalin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinovev etc etc etc. What's your point?

I did not defend the Soviets, but nor do I say they are worse then the Germans, in truth I never can decide which were worse. Is not important, what is important is your statement that the Germans were doing nothing that the Soviets were not already doing to these poor people.

If Germany would have shown compassion and mercy for these crushed souls who knows what the world would look like today...
Okay, Caldric, I will respect your opinion on the Soviet Union. But, IMHO, I do not think that the Nazi system was worse than the Soviet, nor that the USA was justified in going to war in Europe, particularly to support Soviet Communism and British Imperialism.
:)

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 09 Oct 2002 00:54

Well I agree with that, and I would not want to go to War to support Communist either. More importantly Stalin, I am a big fan of Truman. :D

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 09 Oct 2002 00:59

Caldric wrote:True the US can decide who is going to become Citizen, but without a major legal battle they can not strip the ones already citizens of that right.
All that would be required is for a new Constitutional Amendment to be passed. That, however, is not very easy to do. The criterion could literally be anything, not just race. You are correct in that if the 15th Amendment were simply repealed it would require a major legal battle to strip Blacks of their citizenship, assuming that it could be done anyway, because they are not enslaved.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 09 Oct 2002 11:14

Scott Smith wrote:You imply that living conditions in Nazi Germany were no better than Soviet Russia; that is nonsense unless one is a Jew, and even then only if we are talking about wartime.
The reason for the wartime execution of certain measures being the one pointed out by Goebbels in his diary entry of 27.03.1942:
Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.
The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is to carry this measure through, is doing it with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention. A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them. The prophesy which the Fuehrer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters. If we did not fight the Jews, they would destroy us. It's a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Here, too, the Fuehrer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.
The ghettoes that will be emptied in the cities of the General Government now will be refilled with Jews thrown out of the Reich. This process is to be repeated from time to time. There is nothing funny in it for the Jews, and the fact that Jewry's representatives in England and America are today organizing and sponsoring the war against Germany must be paid for dearly by its representatives in Europe - and that's only right.
Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goe ... ts-02.html

Emphasis is mine.

Due to similar considerations, Adolf waited for the outbreak of war to launch the "euthanasia" killings of physically and/or mentally handicapped people. The rationale was that, whereas in peacetime unfavorable reactions could be expected from the German and foreign public opinion, the liberation of the society from the “burden” of the mentally ill would catch less attention in wartime, when the world’s attention was focused on the course of military actions and the value of human life was lower anyway. Evidence to such considerations was provided by the testimonial of Dr. Karl Brandt at the Nuremberg “Medical Case”.

But it's not as if the pre-war measures turning them into non-citizens and non-persons had been a piece of cake for German Jews, is it?
Caldric wrote:In Germany just about all civil liberties were removed from the citizens.
Smith wrote:It wasn't a liberal-democracy, of course, but a Democracy-Capitalist system in wartime is hardly different.
Yeah, it will also execute its citizens of put them in concentration camps for having listened to foreign radio stations, told "Hitler jokes" or otherwise indulged in what the Nazis called Wehrkraftzersetzung, "undermining of defense capacity".

It will also execute thousands of alleged deserters from the armed forces. About 15,000 death sentences for desertion were executed by the Wehrmacht during World War II. The US army shot one single deserter, private Eddie Slovik, during the whole war. And this difference, unlike American "apple pie" historian Stephen Ambrose would have it, was not related to a much higher desertion rate in the Wehrmacht than in the US Army. The desertion rate was actually equal, maybe even a little lower in the Wehrmacht.
Smith wrote:Male homosexuals were arrested because sodomy was against the criminal code dating from before the Weimar government. Sodomy was also illegal in Great Britain and still is in many U.S. states. The Nazis merely enforced the law. If we don't like the implications of that then we should repeal bad laws. This was finally done in Arizona a couple of years ago.

The Jehovah's Witnesses were arrested because they refused to work or be drafted. Some were martyred because pacifism runs against the Prussian mentality, but Stalin would have simply had them all shot or liquidated as a class, not just the Refuseniks.
In his favorable comparisons between the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, Smith conveniently overlooks a key difference.

In the former people were arrested according to the laws in force, tried before a court of justice and, if found guilty, sentenced to serving in prison the penalty established in the law.

In the latter, anyone who didn't fit into the picture was taken into "protective custody" for a period of time that depended entirely on the whim of his or her captors, without the benefit of a trial according to proper legal standards. Gestapo and SS operated outside the law and were subject to no judicial control.
Caldric wrote:the sick were murdered for being sick,
Smith wrote:That is the case in the USA today because the poor (and the working poor) don't have health insurance.
Hardly the same thing as being bumped off by state authorities, isn't it?
Caldric wrote:the Jews (which had been in Germany for Generations) were stripped of all rights
Smith wrote:Any sovereign state can determine who qualifies to be a citizen or not.
Certainly so. I'm sure that if the US government decided to strip all people called "Smith" (or all "Anglo-Saxon Celts") of their citizen rights and deprived them of any legal protection, Smith would obediently accept this because, after all, "any sovereign state can determine who qualifies to be a citizen or not".

As Smith also considers the sovereign state entitled to decide who shall live and who shall not, I'm equally sure that, the day the US government decided that all people called "Smith" (or all "Anglo-Saxon Celts") do not deserve to live and will be mercilessly hunted down and bumped off, Smith will diligently hang himself so as to save the government any unnecessary expenses.
Caldric wrote:and later on would be murdered by the millions.
Smith wrote:Yeah, during the war.
Hardly a relevant objection, given that the murders were only remotely if at all related to anything that may be deemed acts of war.
Smith wrote:Germans were murdered by the millions during and after the war as well.
Millions, Mr. Smith? Let's see a body-count supported by reliable sources.

And why "murdered", my dear boy?

Except for the wild rampages of Soviet soldiers at the end of the war and of Czech and Polish popular milita thereafter, weren't all the killings of German civilians due to legal or administrative measures of sovereign nations and therefore perfectly legal, by Smith's own imbecile standards?
Smith wrote:War sucks.
Smith is a warlord or a pacifist, as the occassion demands. :lol:
Smith wrote:And brutality is reprehensible.
But it's perfectly legal, right?

At least when practiced by the National Socialist sovereign state.

When practiced by other sovereign states, it is "murder".
Smith wrote:And I have never advocated putting critics in the slammer for political reasons, as Hitler did with the Reds and a few other prominents like Niemöller, who got passed over for Reichsbishop. That was popular but wasn't the right thing to do in the long haul, and neither is putting people in prison for Hate Speech or Thoughtcrime, as Germans are known for today, particularly against the Left.
Aside from differences qualitative (between silencing real or perceived opposition on the one hand and protecting the public order and ethnic minorities against the effects of extremist hate speech on the other) and quantitative (between a concentration camp, the gallows or the guillotine on the one hand and a few months in prison or a fine on the other), do you consider such measures illegal because they violate the rights of the individual, Mr. Smith?

Or do you merely consider them inconvenient?
Caldric wrote:Unless one, you do not consider Jews German citizens or two they are not people.
Smith wrote:What I think doesn't matter because the Germans did not consider the Jews to be German citizens; the Nürnberg Laws of 1935 were perfectly legal, majority rules, and to hell with the minority.
Yeah, it was perfectly legal to rule that Jews were not citizens and that any Jew caught banging an Aryan would be severely punished.

See my above comments on the implications of such reasoning.
Smith wrote:Perhaps worse was that the USA refused to let the Jews immigrate into our own country when they needed a place to go, an uncharitable attitude not lost on the Germans, who already regarded them as pariahs.
Yeah, sure.

Who is the main responsible for a murder, Mr. Smith?

The murderer, or the one who fails to open his door to the victim trying to get away from the murderer?

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Globaloney Sandwich

Post by Scott Smith » 09 Oct 2002 11:50

Hi Roberto,

It seems from your reductionistic rambling above that you refuse to understand, and even prefer to distort my points, which at best means that you just don't get it. Moderator Hans wants me to be gentle with you, so unless you want to have a serious discussion it's time for you to give your keyboard a rest. But if there is anything I can do for you just let me know.
:wink:

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Globaloney Sandwich

Post by Roberto » 09 Oct 2002 12:21

Scott Smith wrote:Hi Roberto,

It seems from your reductionistic rambling above that you refuse to understand, and even prefer to distort my points, which at best means that you just don't get it.
As Smith cannot demonstrate a single distortion/refusal to understand (it's not as if anyone would miss something by failing to understand the ramblings of Mr. Smith, by the way), the above is just more of his customary blah-blah-blah.
Scott Smith wrote:Moderator Hans wants me to be gentle with you,
From what I know of Hans on the one hand and Smith on the other, my hunch is that the above is a gross misrepresentation of whatever suggestions Hans forwarded to Smith.
Scott Smith wrote:so unless you want to have a serious discussion
When you nod to Smith's nonsense, he considers the discussion "serious".

When you take his baloney apart until he's out of arguments, he invokes lack of "seriousness".

Poor jerk.
Scott Smith wrote:it's time for you to give your keyboard a rest.
As I have information to provide (and not repetitive propaganda rhetoric, like Smith), I don't think so at all.

But Smith should definitely get some rest. Even the fight for "Truth" is not worth staying up past 4 o'clock in the morning every day, my dear true believer.
Scott Smith wrote:But if there is anything I can do for you just let me know.
Yes, my good boy, there's something you can do for me. Just keep the bullshit coming. Every occasion you provide to expose the imbecility of "Revisionism" is welcome.

The Truth (“Wahrheit”, in German), as seen by Smith:

Image
Last edited by Roberto on 09 Oct 2002 20:49, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:48
Location: Germany

Re: Globaloney Sandwich

Post by Hans » 09 Oct 2002 12:49

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Hi Roberto,

It seems from your reductionistic rambling above that you refuse to understand, and even prefer to distort my points, which at best means that you just don't get it.
As Smith cannot demonstrate a single distortion/refusal to understand (it's not as if anyone would miss something by failing to understand the ramblings of Mr. Smith, by the way), the above is just more of his customary blah-blah-blah.
Roberto, given that this what the only sentence where Scott has really challenged you, isn't that response sufficient? I think it wouldn't have been nessecary to comment the rest and you could have deleted it. Thus, you would have kept your post shorter, compact and bether legible and therefore emphazised the actual point you where making.

Weniger ist manchmal mehr!

Cheers!

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Globaloney Sandwich

Post by Roberto » 09 Oct 2002 12:55

Hans wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Hi Roberto,

It seems from your reductionistic rambling above that you refuse to understand, and even prefer to distort my points, which at best means that you just don't get it.
As Smith cannot demonstrate a single distortion/refusal to understand (it's not as if anyone would miss something by failing to understand the ramblings of Mr. Smith, by the way), the above is just more of his customary blah-blah-blah.
Roberto, given that this what the only sentence where Scott has really challenged you, isn't that response sufficient? I think it wouldn't have been nessecary to comment the rest and you could have deleted it. Thus, you would have kept your post shorter, compact and bether legible and therefore emphazised the actual point you where making.

Weniger ist manchmal mehr!

Cheers!
You may be right.

It's just that I couldn't resist the temptation to fry Smith in his own sauce once more, especially as he was getting personal.

But I will take your suggestion into account in the future.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: Globaloney Sandwich

Post by Scott Smith » 09 Oct 2002 15:30

Roberto wrote:It's just that I couldn't resist the temptation to fry Smith in his own sauce once more, especially as he was getting personal.
Dream-on, Roberto. The bottom-line is that everything is "personal" if Roberto disagrees with it.

So, like I said, we can either discuss issues or engage in reductionism and provocation. Really, it is your choice because I am always the one offering the olive branch. But I guess olive trees just don't grow in Portugal...
:|

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Globaloney Sandwich

Post by Roberto » 09 Oct 2002 16:37

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:It's just that I couldn't resist the temptation to fry Smith in his own sauce once more, especially as he was getting personal.
Dream-on, Roberto. The bottom-line is that everything is "personal" if Roberto disagrees with it.

So, like I said, we can either discuss issues or engage in reductionism and provocation. Really, it is your choice because I am always the one offering the olive branch. But I guess olive trees just don't grow in Portugal...
:|
Chronically unable to gain a foothold with his nonsense, Smith is lamely complaining about my unwillingness to compromise.

Poor Smith.

The only “olive branch” I’ll accept, as Smith well knows, is Smith’s putting an end to his repetitive “Revisionist” ramblings.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 10 Oct 2002 08:30

David Thompson wrote:
Dan -- I think it had something to do with the last sentence in Mr. Mills' post.
The last sentence of my post did not excuse or exculpate Hitler, or Stalin, or anyone else. That is a twist that you put on it.

The last sentence of my post actually attacked the ideologically motivated one-sidedness of certain contributors to this forum, who make much of the very bad treatment accorded Soviet POWs accorded them by their German captors, while totally ignoring the fact the POWs were totally abandoned by their own government which, far from doing anything to help them or ameliorate their condition, wnet so far as to attack and kill them in the camps where they were being held.

The attitude of the Soviet Government may be contrasted with that of the Western Allies, which did everything in their power, via the Red Cross, to help their POWs in German hands. That, together with the German predisposition to treat Western prisoners better, ensured that very few of them died.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 10 Oct 2002 10:48

michael mills wrote:David Thompson wrote:
Dan -- I think it had something to do with the last sentence in Mr. Mills' post.
michael mills wrote:The last sentence of my post did not excuse or exculpate Hitler, or Stalin, or anyone else. That is a twist that you put on it.
I wouldn't be surprised if that twist had been intended. David and I got the message, and so did one of Mr. Mills' fellow "Revisionists".
michael mills wrote:The last sentence of my post actually attacked the ideologically motivated one-sidedness of certain contributors to this forum, who make much of the very bad treatment accorded Soviet POWs accorded them by their German captors, while totally ignoring the fact the POWs were totally abandoned by their own government which, far from doing anything to help them or ameliorate their condition, wnet so far as to attack and kill them in the camps where they were being held.
Cream cheese produced by an ideological crusader who, in the absence of windmills to charge against, frantically tries to build some.

First thing, the indifference of the Soviet government towards its soldiers in captivity has nothing to do with their treatment by the Germans and the enormous mortality resulting therefrom. Hitler wanted a no-holds-barred war of annihilation without regard for the rules of warfare, and there is no indication that any concern on the part of the Soviet government for the fate of its prisoners of war would have made him modify his policies any more than the Soviet offer of a bilateral adherence to the Hague Rules of Land Warfare did.

Second thing, this happens to be a Third Reich Forum. There is also one about the Soviet Union, where information about Stalin's policy towards those he considered "traitors" will be as much of interest as it is somewhat off-topic on this forum:

http://theforum.skalman.nu/viewforum.ph ... 5067166bf5

I nevertheless see no problem with Mr. Mills posting on this Third Reich Forum whatever information he has on the topic, as I have posted articles regarding the flight and expulsion of ethnic Germans from the eastern territories of Germany and Eastern Europe.

He should just keep his nonsense about the "ideologically motivated one-sidedness of certain contributors" to himself. The only ones who on this forum have clearly manifested such an "ideologically motivated one-sidedness" are the likes of Michael Mills.
michael mills wrote:The attitude of the Soviet Government may be contrasted with that of the Western Allies, which did everything in their power, via the Red Cross, to help their POWs in German hands. That, together with the German predisposition to treat Western prisoners better, ensured that very few of them died.
Said predisposition, which was also the reason why the Nazi government allowed such help to reach the prisoners of war in accordance with the provisions of the 1929 Geneva Convention, being the primary factor.

Within the context of a war of annihilation as proclaimed by Hitler, on the other hand, it is hard to imagine that it would have made much of a difference if the Soviet government had held a similar attitude.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 10 Oct 2002 17:26

Roberto wrote:Second thing, this happens to be a Third Reich Forum. There is also one about the Soviet Union, where information about Stalin's policy towards those he considered "traitors" will be as much of interest as it is somewhat off-topic on this forum:
Nice try, Counselor, but it has been noted that the treatment of prisoners-of-war is inextricably connected to reciprocity and how their own governments regard their captured comrades. The Soviets did not value their own POWs. You can't dodge that.
:monkee:

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 10 Oct 2002 17:33

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Second thing, this happens to be a Third Reich Forum. There is also one about the Soviet Union, where information about Stalin's policy towards those he considered "traitors" will be as much of interest as it is somewhat off-topic on this forum:
Scott Smith wrote:Nice try, Counselor, but it has been noted that the treatment of prisoners-of-war is inextricably connected to reciprocity and how their own governments regard their captured comrades.
It has been noted by Smith, which doesn't count.

From the point of view of international law, codified or customary, both aspects are perfectly irrelevant, as already explained.

Two quotes from the IMT's judgement at the Nuremberg Trial of German Major War Criminals will further illustrate this point:
The argument in defence of the charge with regard to the murder and ill-treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, that the U.S.S.R. was not a party to the Geneva Convention, is quite without foundation. On the 15th September 1941 Admiral Canaris protested against the regulations for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war signed by General Reinecke on the 8th September 1941. He then stated:

" The Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war is not binding in the relationship between Germany and the U.S.S.R. Therefore only the principles of general international law on the treatment of prisoners of war apply. Since the 18th century these have gradually been established along the lines that war captivity is neither revenge nor punishment, but solely protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of war from further participation in the war. This principle was developed in accordance with the view held by all armies that it is contrary to military tradition to kill or injure helpless people . . . The decrees for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war enclosed are based on a fundamentally different viewpoint."

This protest, which correctly stated the legal position, was ignored. The defendant Keitel made a note on this memorandum:

" The objections arise from the military concept of chivalrous warfare. This is the destruction of an ideology. Therefore I approve and back the measures."
Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/p ... #prisoners

Emphases are mine.
The Tribunal is of course bound by the Charter, in the definition which it gives both of war crimes and crimes against humanity. With respect to war crimes, however, as has already been pointed out, the crimes defined by Article 6, section (b), of the Charter were already recognised as war crimes under international law. They were covered by Articles 46, 50, 52, and 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907, and Articles 2, 3, 4, 46 and 51 of the Geneva Convention of 1929. That violations of these provisions constituted crimes for which the guilty individuals were punishable is too well settled to admit of argument.

But it is argued that the Hague Convention does not apply in this case, because of the " general participation " clause in Article 2 of the Hague Convention of 1907. That clause provided:

"The provisions contained in the regulations (Rules of Land Warfare referred to in Article 1 as well as in the present Convention do not apply except between contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention."
Several of the belligerents in the recent war were not parties to this Convention.

In the opinion of the Tribunal it is not necessary to decide this question. The rules of land warfare expressed in the Convention undoubtedly represented an advance over existing international law at the time of their adoption. But the Convention expressly stated that it was an attempt " to revise the general laws and customs of war," which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the Charter.
Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judlawre.htm

Emphasis is mine.
Last edited by Roberto on 10 Oct 2002 18:08, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 10 Oct 2002 18:01

Roberto wrote:From the point of view of international law, codified or customary, both aspects are perfectly irrelevant, as already explained.
International Law is as much an oxymoron as Soviet Justice.
:?

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”