About two thirds of the USSR’s 27 million casualties were civilians – that is, almost 10% of its prewar population. Had those percentages been applied to Nazi Germany, it would lost 8 million people – an order of magnitude than the 400,000 civilians it lost due to Allied strategic bombing, and the 600,000 who died during the expulsions of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe (the vast majority of which were carried out by local authorities, not the Red Army or the NKVD).
About 3.3 million out of 5.7 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody (compared to 15% of German POWs in the half-starved USSR, and low single digit figures for Allied POWs in Nazi Germany). Had the Soviets treated its 4.2 million German POWs as harshly, with a death rate of 60%, the German number of military dead would have risen from 5.3 million to around 7.3 million. That’s not far off the figure of 8.7 million Soviet military deaths (9.2 million taking into account unregistered militia in 1941).
It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest. If we count probabilities, assuming there was a 50% chance of Nazi victory over the USSR in 1941-42, and a 50% chance of Generalplan Ost being implemented in its full scale, that translates to around 200 million times 25% equals 50 million additional deaths. This means that in the average of all possible timelines, about 75 million Soviet citizens died, or 37.5% of its prewar population. That translates to around 30 million if these percentages are applied to Germany and its East European diaspora.
And yet for some people – for the most part, the most Rusophobic neocons and Cold Warriors, the more Nazi elements of the Alt Right, and deranged Poles and Balts who don’t quite realize what Hitler had in store for them – the Soviet rape of about 2 million women in Eastern Germany at the end of the war is supposed to be a really huge, defining war crime, even something that delegitimizes the overall Soviet victory.*
How many rapes is one death/murder “worth”? My intuition is that murder is quite a lot worse, perhaps by an order of magnitude if I had to quantify it, and I suspect that most people will agree. It just so happens that so do sentencing guidelines. The typical term for murder in the US is 30 years to life (which might functionally translate to an average of 50 years). The average term for rape is 10 years, of which about 5 are served. This is a differential of five. It also happens to be almost exactly the differential between the murder rate in the US (~5 cases / 100,000 anually) and the rate of rape and sexual assault (~30 / 100,000 annually, as per police records and self-victimization surveys). Let us then provisionally estimate that rape is on average 20% as “bad” as murder. (Note: I actually think it’s considerably less, because sentencing for murder is range constricted by biological ageing. And the homicide problem is usually considered to be worse than the sexual violence one, even though there are usually far fewer of them than there are rapes).
Therefore, let’s say 2 million rapes translates to 400,000 deaths. Compare this to 27 million Soviet civilian deaths (of which two thirds were civilians) in a war started by Nazi Germany, or the 75 million or so Soviet deaths across all timelines. Even assuming that the worst estimates of the Red Army rapes are accurate – they were still, at most, equivalent to far less than 1% of the Nazi crimes against Russia.
Now to be sure you can argue that not all “murders” are equal, especially in war. Direct genocide, like the gassings of Jews or the massacres of Belorussian villagers, seems to be worse than deaths incurred by incidental effects of war, such as bombings of industrial facilities or famine incurred due to the stresses of the war effort, which in turn are worse than military deaths, since society tends to consider soldiers as pretty much “fair game” (though it is questionable to what extent this can be applied to conscripts on the Eastern Front, who did not even get the theoretical possibility of opting out by applying for a “conscientious objector” status at the cost of their social reputation, as in the less “total” conflict of World War I). But there are many different types of rapes as well. There were traumatic gang rapes, to military brothels relying on considerable degrees of coercion, to women semi-voluntarily hooking up with one particular soldier in return for security, or just trading their bodies for food.
Furthermore, contrary to the myth of the “clean Wehrmacht” spread by retired Nazi generals and their wehraboo admirers after the war, there was plenty of rape amongst German soldiers in the USSR. For instance, here is a quote from historian Alexander Dyukov’s 2007 book “What the Soviet People Fought For”:
Rape continued, and acquired an organized character. From time to time “hunting groups” ventured out of Wehrmacht positions. “We ventured out to the village near Rozhdestvenno near Gatchina,” said Peter Schuber, a private who was at the Seversky airport, “We had orders to bring girls to the officers. We did the operation successfully, surrounding all the houses. We grabbed a truckload of girls. The officers held the girls all night, and gave them to us soldiers in the morning.”
In the large cities, permanent brothels were organized. This was standard Wehrmacht practice. “There were military brothels, called Puff,” recalls SS officer Avenir Benningsen, “They were present on almost all fronts. Girls from all Europe, all nationalities, gathered up from all camps. By the way, the two condoms regularly handed out to men and officers were indispensable posessions.” But whereas in the European countries the Wehrmacht brothels were staffed more or less voluntarily, in the USSR there were no such considerations. Girls and women were forcibly rounded up, in scenes seared into the memories of people undergoing the occupation. In Smolensk, for instance, women were dragged off by the arms, by the hair, dragged along the pavement, into the officers’ brothel in one of the hotels. Those who refused to remain there were shot.
After Red Army soldiers drove the Germans out of Kerch, they encoutered a terrible sight: “In the courtyard of the prison there was a shapeless heap of naked female bodies, horrifically mutilated by the fascists.”
So even if we are to tally sexual crimes completely separately, the rapes of the Wehrmacht carried an organized, long-term character – similar to the Japanese Army’s abuse of Chinese and Korean comfort women – whereas Red Army rapes happened in a concentrated orgy of violence in the last few months of the war. That fury in turn was fueled by a regrettable but very understandable hatred for the death and devastation the Germans had wreaked in the USSR, made all the more inexplicable by the overwhelming prosperity of the Germans relative to the ramshackle poverty of Soviet life.
Incidentally, soon after the war, as the follow-up to his “toast to the Russian people,” Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia, in which a similar number died). Why? Because the USSR was exporting grain to support its new Communist client states, including East Germany. (Functionally, Stalin agreed with the Nazis that German lives were worth more than Russian lives). This one event alone is by utilitarian metrics considerably more horrific than all the Red Army rapes in Germany.
The real “Soviet Story“: Stalin mutilates Russia. Hitler mutilates Russia. Stalin mutilates Hitler, then mutilates Russia some more. Russophobe ideologues conclude that Russia is as bad as Hitler (if not worse).
Just people who insist on questioning the lethality of Zyklon B or how many people the shower rooms in Auschwitz could accomodate tend to have motives that are suspect, to put it mildly, so it is a pretty good bet that anyone who consistently gives primacy to the Red Army rapes and looting in Germany when discussing the moral weightings of the USSR vs. Nazi Germany might sooner be looking to replay Hitler’s/Stalin’s joint genocide against Russia.
* I would note that there are questions about whether there actually were that many Red Army rapes in Germany; for instance, there are arguments that they are based on unrealistic extrapolations from a small sample of abortion statistics. I haven’t studied this issue in any depth myself and will assume that the conventional mass rape narrative is broadly correct. If this is not the case and there actually were much fewer rapes, that makes the main argument even stronger.
Wait till Frau Merkel unleashes her imported army of wretched Refuse from teeming shores against Russia. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
Incidentally, soon after the war, as the follow-up to his “toast to the Russian people,” Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia). Why? Because the USSR was exporting grain to support its new Communist client states, including East Germany. (Functionally, Stalin agreed with the Nazis that German lives were worth more than Russian lives). This one event alone is by utilitarian metrics considerably more horrific than all the Red Army rapes in Germany
I knew about the 1947-1948 famine but didn’t realize that the Soviets were actually exporting grain to Germany during the famine. That surprises me since I knew that the Soviets stripped the East German economy and Czechoslovak economies of their industrial infrastructure as part of the war reparations (which might explain why East Germany started out in 1950 so far behind the west). Why would they couple a generally harsh treatment of East Germany in 1945-1950 with grain exports?
You’re of course mostly factually right, but I don’t quite get the point of this post. My impression would be that an undifferentiated view of WW2 era Red army soldiers as a sort of Mongol horde of rapists is much less common now than it would have been 30 or 40 years ago. It’s true that very occasionally that view does still come up in mainstream publications, but does anybody with real influence consistently promote that view today (the only potentially important people on your list would be the “most russophobic neocons”, “deranged” Polish/Baltic nationalists and the Nazi segment of the alt-right are rather marginal)?
Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia). Why?
I don’t know where you got this idea that the famine of 1947 was caused by grain supplies to East Germany. I just hope it wasn’t SiP, because it’s not a good source of info about anything.
There were famines in many countries after the war. The one in the Netherlands is famous partly because Audry Hepburn experienced it as a kid.
It would have been surprising if there were no food shortages in the USSR then, after such an ordeal. If such a war befell the UK, there would have been a famine there too.
Another excellent book that kills the “clean Wehrmacht” myth is “Third Reich at War” by Richard Evans. He shows that the German practice of taking local women to serve in brothels or simple outright rape started already in Poland in late 1939. And Evans is no Germanophobe, far from it.
Anthony Beevor pushes that rubbish regularly, as does Max Hastings.
Maybe someone can correct me, but I think there was food rationing in the UK for quite a few years after the war.
The UK was on meat and sugar rations until well into the 1950s.
I don’t read their books, they’re mostly popular trash anyway (Max Hastings however is also quite anti-German and seems to regard WW1 imperial Germany as pretty much on the same level as Nazi Germany, if I understand correctly).
Anyway, at the risk of becoming persona non grata here, it seems undisputable to me that Red army soldiers did commit a substantial number of rapes in 1944/45 (exact numbers of course will never be known; in any case it seems clear though that this wasn’t some sort of official policy ordered from above, and it eventually did die down when disciplinary measures were taken. Probably it also wasn’t surprising, given the nature of the war in the East which had of course been started by Germany). Most people today care very little about that though, even in Germany (I certainly don’t care much). Alt-right Nazis are hardly representative.
I have trouble imagining that this was the case for Czechoslovakia, it wasn’t a defeated enemy state like e.g. Hungary after all. It only drifted completely into the Soviet orbit with the communist coup in early 1948.
Grain was being exported to East Germany and Poland. This was enabled by high grain collection quotas. If the quotas had been lower, there would have certainly been fewer Soviet deaths. But then fewer exports of course.
The Dutch famine of 1944-45!? Totally incomparable, except insofar as both were artificially created by totalitarian regimes. 20,000/10 million = 0.2% of the Dutch population due to a wartime blockade. In the 1947 Soviet famine, 500,000/100 million = 0.5% of the Russian population died in peacetime.
Yes Britain was on rations postwar, but it was a still a consumer paradise relative to the USSR.
Anatoly Karlin said:
“It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.”
No it’s not, and you have no proof.
“No it’s not, and you have no proof.”
You’re rather obsessive with your Holocaust denial and Nazi apologetics. It’s not like you’re going to persuade anybody who doesn’t already agree with you anyway.
you are wrong to claim stalin was exporting grain to newly socialist states, perhaps you read biased historians, in fact the answer is given by Beria, Stalin believed a war is near and was creating large reserves. Beria was also wrong claiming Stalin was wrongly building food deposits. Actually Churchill proposed such attack on USSR and such war could have taken place if the US would have accepted. Also guilty of many of the red army crimes were propagandists many of which were liquidated through the purges of the late 40s. Many soviet civilians died fighting as workers brigades or woman brigades and many died because the guerilas of the red army were using them as shields. certainly the axis did crimes against soviet civilians too of all types
Churchill was out of power in 1947/48.
The indoctrinated ‘German reader’ said:
“Probably it also wasn’t surprising, given the nature of the war in the East which had of course been started by Germany”.
No it wasn’t.
Germany’s attack on the USSR was pre-emptive / preventive and easily demonstrated as such.
see:
‘Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
LOL ROTFL
A. Karlin is straw-manning as usual.
In my whole over 40 year life as Pole in Poland, I have never met a Pole who cared even a bit about Russians raping German women at the end of the war .
(They cared about Russians raping polish women, and yes raping is eastern way of combating).
Those deranged Poles are anti Russian and equalize Bolshevik Russians with Nazi Germans because the Russians were even worse then Germans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD
It is estimated that Polish losses in the Ukrainian SSR were about 30%, while in the Belorussian SSR… the Polish minority was almost completely annihilated
So you do not need parallel dimension to see 30-90% genocide of a nation – 100% civilians.
It was done by Russians and the victims were Poles.
In 1939 allies from hell, Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia attacked Poland.
And Russians at once started another Polish operation to ethnically clear Russia of all Poles.
As did Germans, although significantly slower and milder (probably because the Germans were fighting on too many fronts.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939%E2%80%931946)
Genocide of Poles in Russia was stopped by German invasion.
After Russian victory Stalin decided to relocate Poles to occupied Poland instead of killing them. But it was done because Russians became afraid of American might and were afraid such a genocide would have force Americans to invade Russia.
Germans killed more Poles during World War II, but Russians killed more Poles by percentage.
Poles know what future Russians and Germans had for Poles:
Total Annihilation.
Germans were more successful by numbers.
Russians were more successful by percentage.
Furthermore Germans apologized and regret (even if not sincerely).
And Russians are proud of killing Polish and glorify war criminals equal or surpassing to Nazis.
That is the reason Poles are anti Russian. And not some bogus rape issue.
If we divide the percentage of the Soviet population killed during the war by the percentage of the British population killed, we’ll get a rough estimate of the difference in the severity of the two countries’ war-time experience. If we then multiply a measure of the severity of post-war British food rationing (e.g. decrease in kids’ heights) by the severity-of-war coefficient obtained in the previous exercise, half of Britain would probably go missing from our scenario. In other words, it seems likely to me that the USSR managed the hand it was dealt better than Britain did.
By the way, the Brits still had an empire then, most of which hasn’t been bombed during the war. They couldn’t import some meet and sugar from the colonies?
And I’ve never read anything about Soviet grain exports right after the war. Not saying it didn’t happen. Well, if this assertion comes from SiP, it probably didn’t.
If it did, I don’t know how much was exported.
How do I know about post-war British food rationing? Beatles’ biographies. They also grew up cold. There was a shortage of heating materials.
@Anatoly Karlin: Excellent post!
Indeed, I just have one question for you–what exactly is your source for the 75% figure?
Well, and anyone who’s seen 1950s Italian movies has an idea of how miserable Italy was then. Again, severity of the war compared to the USSR: low.
@Anatoly Karlin: Also, a bit off-topic, but what would the Soviet Union’s population have been in 1991 if it wasn’t for World War II and Stalinist collectivization and famines? Would 375 million (as opposed to 290 million) be a plausible estimate for this? Or is that a bit too high?
About the famine of 1947, see
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/famine/ellman1947.pdf
[…]
It very much depends on the kind of regime(s) that would have run Russia in one’s hypothetical scenario. If the revolution didn’t happen and Russia remained more conservative than the West, the current population would have been very high. If the tsars liberalized politically, culturally and in every other way, gradually surrendering power to the Duma, etc., the birth rate would have converged with those in the West. Spain and southern Italy aren’t core-European either, but they’re a part of the Western cultural system, so they have extremely low birth rates.
No, it’s not SiP, it’s even on the Wikipedia page about the famine, and a quick Google search confirms it (e.g. here). In fairness, however, it appears that while there were exports they were considerably lower than during the 1932-33 famine, and fell to near zero when the leadership began to notice people were starving.
Slovakia had joined with the German invasion of the USSR, but fair point, I may be misremembering. The Soviets definitely were stripping East Germany of its industrial resources between 1945-1950 though.
to continue the previous post
Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn’t that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?
Slovakia wasn’t very industrialized though…industry was concentrated mostly in what today is the Czech republic.
Maybe you’re right though, and the Soviets did dismantle some Czech industrial installations…I don’t really know, it just would surprise me. You’re certainly right about East Germany though.
Unlike the times of Mongol Conquests and other great invasions/wars that ancient reports are dubious and deaths are less than what historians find out, the World Wars had more accurate ways to calculate deaths and they had more accurate numbers in their reports. But then veiled interests and propaganda at that time and now are even more blatant than in ancient times, with numbers being inflated or diminished.
.
Take the Rape of Berlin, for example. Its numbers showed up pretty recently and only taking account the passages of one hospital counting abortions and victims of rape, using that as basis for dubious calculations to reach the 2 million number.
.
Or the Holodomor that accounts only ukrainian lands, sometimes ignoring the effects of famine and confiscation in other places inside Russia. Most important, the belief that the most brutal confiscations were straight out enforced instead of a consequence of farmers that were secretly getting rid of most of their grains ahead of time or some of them even destroying it and killing livestock just to not let it get into officers’ hands.
.
Even the deaths by the secret service in disclosed documents do not mirror the exaggerate numbers gave by mainstream sources.
.
There’s no doubt that the Soviet Union in war time, given proper research and calculations, is still a system that killed millions unjustly directly or indirectly, but mainstream media likes to inflate numbers to give an extra indignation and make sure people knows how horrible the system is. In fact, no one in World War II is exempt of a large number of deaths (again, be it direct or indirect), even victims like China where its own soldiers would raze villages and take the opportunity to throw more blame on japanese that were already condemned for their own confirmed mass killings against chinese people.
I didn’t know that.
When one calls oneself the good guys, in this case the Soviet Union, and then these deeds occur then obviously one is going to be called out on this. One can come up will kinds of statistics to say that it is not very important, but in the end it did happen and 2 million rapes is simply a gigantic number that cannot be ignored.
I also have ask, they are having those immortal brigade marches in Russia where people show pictures of their ww2 ancestors, in light of so many Russian soldiers being rapists has it not occurred to these people that a lot of those they are honoring are rapists.
It was quite a major event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
One of the reasons why Churchill (who took a rather cold-hearted attitude towards the famine, since he didn’t much care for Indians anyway) isn’t that popular in India.
@Glossy: I am talking about a Russian regime which would have pursued large-scale industrialization but one which would have also been capitalist and which wouldn’t have been willing to cause the deaths of large numbers of its own people. (As for democracy, such a Russian regime might or might not have been democratic.)
There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia as much as possible, even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin’s treatment of foreigners was worse than Hitler’s. Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism, while Russia hasn’t. Also, while Stalin wasn’t as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn’t a bad man that’s a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue).
At the end of the day its all about dissing nationalism and promoting liberalism and internationalism.
The only people who still take “Suvorov” seriously are (1) people who haven’t read anything about the Eastern Front outside Internet forums and (2) Nazis.
As someone whose website is a Holocaust “debate” forum I suppose you fit the bill perfectly.
But it was done because Russians became afraid of American might and were afraid such a genocide would have force Americans to invade Russia.
You’re hysterical. The only thing that prevented the US from starting WWIII with the USSR was the nuclear deterrent.
The only reason why you’re not flooded with Muslims and Africans now is that the USSR protected you from the liberalism that leads to that.
Poland allied with Nazi Germany itself. It got a part of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis invaded it. This was Poland’s own equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
The main reason Poles hate Russia so much is that a long time ago Russia took away Poland’s empire.
There was a centuries-long struggle to unite the region. Poland was winning this struggle for a while and then it lost it to Russia. Poland could have been the entire thing that Russia later became – it could have filled that same geographical space, played that same superpower role – but that didn’t happen. And not because you were too nice, but because you tried to get everything and failed.
They hate and resent the Germans so much that they are fine with honoring their rapist grandfathers and great-grandfathers. I might feel the same way if I were Russian, but I’m not and I don’t.
Russians would have done the same and worse to all of Germany, and all of western and central Europe, if they had not been so severely damaged by the Germans and then deterred and faced-off by the US.
Also, while Stalin wasn’t as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn’t a bad man that’s a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue).
I’m a Bukharin fan myself, but I would agree with you that Trotsky and Stalin both sort of sucked, and in the last analysis Stalin was probably better for the Soviet Union than Trotsky would have been, even if he was more personally vicious.
With Trotsky I would expect comparable famines (b/c of the push to rapid collectivization / industrialization) plus another global war.
Stalin loved Russians and self identified as a Russian. My understanding is that he is still fairly popular in contemporary Russia and Putin is regarded as very pro Stalin even while he (Putin) has heaped criticism on the more cosmopolitan pre Stalin Bolsheviks.
This also doesn’t mesh with your anti Ukraine position: nobody did more to clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism than did Stalin. He starved 7 million of them to death.
Those things are reasons to be anti-Soviet, if anything. Communism wasn’t a cakewalk least of all for Russians themselves.
nope, it’s just that acknowledging the numerous official condemnations of Stalinism would entail having to distinguish between Russian and Soviet, and make it so much harder to Russophobically ramble on about them half-Mongol mongrels while pretending to be rational.
Yes, unfortunately it is true. Britain imported wheat from India so that bread need not be rationed in Britain. After the war, it was impossible to justify this action, and bread was rationed. A million Indians had died of starvation.
All combatants in WWII committed war crimes. It is pointless to try to excuse these crimes by saying the Nazis did worse, even to the point of computing how many rapes equal one murder. We did what we did. Let us be honest about our countries’ crimes, as well as those of our enemies, in the hope that we will learn never to fight each other again.
In fairness, however, it appears that while there were exports they were considerably lower than during the 1932-33 famine, and fell to near zero when the leadership began to notice people were starving.
Which supports the argument that the nature of the USSR changed fundamentally in the mid-30s. That’s why there were no more artificial famines, no more churches blown up, no more social liberaism, etc. after that point. I’m assuming that the famine of 1947 was not artificial.
wehraboo admirers
There is only one AK.
Excellent post!
Britain actually had a famine on their watch
Cue Irish partisans.
This also doesn’t mesh with your anti Ukraine position
Ukrainians are Russians, they just don’t know it.
“It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.”
No it’s not, and you have no proof.<<
How about "Hitler's Table Talk" for evidence. From the mouth of the devil himself. The document is considered an authentic account of Hitler's after dinner musings. He lays out quite specifically what his intentions for the east – all the way to the Volga – were. As per the document, Hitler intended to do precisely what Karlin says he was going to do. And, if anything, Hitler was a man of his word.
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/HTableTalk.pdf
it’s more than that-the Germans have agreed to exterminate themselves.
First of all, the Polish don’t hate Russia. They, along
with the people in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lthuania,
and Ukraine, distrust Russia, and can you blame them?
Russia, because of its size, has been a destabilizing factor
in European politics for at least 300 years, always meddling
in other nations’ politics (and failing, France being the latest
example). Basically, the sense in Poland is that nothing good
comes from the East – the Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Turks,
and then the Russians (although the fact that the Russians
were ruled by Germans like Catherine the Great is a mitigating
circumstance). The Katyn massacre during WW II in which
20,000 of the Polish intelligentsia (university graduates,
professors, lawyers, doctors, incl. film director Andrzej Wajda’s
father) were executed by the Soviets is the latest example.
The hate seems to come more from the Russian nationalists on
this forum like Karlin himself who never misses a chance to
make a nasty comment about Poland (or Ukraine or the Balts).
None of this is necessary. The Russians should recognize that the Polish
and the Russians are blood relatives, and the fact that Russia is finally
ruled by Russians is a good omen. Many famous Russians have Polish
ancestry. Need I mention Glinka, Malevich (Malewicz), Tsiolkovski
(Ciołkowski), Stravinsky (Strawiński) who in the 1920s visited Warsaw
several times seeking Polish citizenship and actually spoke some Polish,
the mathematician Lobachevsky (Łobaczewski), ballet dancer Nijinsky
(Niżyński), Shostakovich (Szostakowicz), etc. Conversely, names ending
in -ow, -ew, and -in are quite common in Poland. More than 10,000
Russians live in Poland, they love it there, and more are coming due to
the labor shortage.
Help me out, I can’t find the relevant passages.
And bread rationing didn’t even begin until after the war in Britain.
Do these women honestly look like they are in fear of being raped? Of course this could be highly choreographed.
The rapes lasted for three days after victory. After that, Soviet soldiers were ordered to behave.
Regarding Poland’s imperial past: The Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth can be understood as an early version of
the United States. It was huge (on the Lithuanian side the
border ran 50 miles from Moscow), stretched basically
from the Baltic to the Black Sea. It was a highly decentralized
federal republic like the U.S. It was multicultural – by 1550
80% of the world’s Jews (i.e., about 90% of the Ashkenazi
Jews) lived in the Commonwealth (Res Publica or Rzeczpospolita),
after they were expelled from England, France, Italy, German
states, etc. It was expressly patterned after the Roman Republic.
For example, Poland had an early version of Habeas Corpus
several hundred years before England. It wasn’t perfect but
perfection is not available this side of paradise. One basic problem
was that Poland was surrounded by autocratic powers, and not
protected by two oceans. It was a democracy that refused to have
a standing army (magnates had their own little armies) while the
monarchy was weak by design. Pacifism was a strong undercurrent
due to the Arian influence, so in a sense it was a utopian project
that was bound to fail. The culture just wasn’t there to promote
conquest, like the conquest of Siberia, for what is Siberia if not
a Russian colony?
I think the Polish are good at working with people, and as
result make good managers. Coach Mike Krzyzewski at Duke
would be a good example. I think this is what attracted many
people originally to the idea of the Commonwealth – a more
humane alternative to Russia or Prussia. I recommend a book
by the Polish Nobel laureate Czesław Miłosz entitled Native
Realm (1959). He lived through WW I, then in interbellum Poland,
then through WW II, and finally communism. He writes that
the Polish typically exhibit moral restraint in times of war and
stress in general, perhaps because of their Catholic upbringing.
The Catholic Hapsburgs were not perfect but their rule was more
humane than that of the Lutheran Prussians or Orthodox Russians.
For over 100 years Poland was divided among those three powers,
and could make comparisons. That’s why there even is some residual
nostalgia after the Hapsburg-ruled Central Europe
Malevich (Malewicz) was a Ukrainian of Polish descent, not a Russian of Polish descent. He was from Ukraine and was primarily Ukrainian-speaking.
This may be a bit of an exaggeration, though the reality is bad enough.
Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated, another 15% sent to Siberia. (so 65%-75% removed). 75% of Belarussians and 65% Ukrainians were to be removed. No food aid was the be sent to Siberia, to there would be starvation there until a “natural” self-sustaining population of 40 million or so would remain.
Usual idiocy.
If the Nazis had won and all their plans were fulfilled by, say, 1955, someone like glossy would say – Nazi Germany has changed fundamentally. No more Jews being killed, no more Slavs being killed or expelled. And no more war. It’s actually a very nice place.
Great post, right on the mark… Congrats!
Well according to most sources that allege they happen they lasted for weeks and it was not until barracks were erected that they stopped happening. Can you give me a credible source to show they only lasted three days because that is the first time I have ever herd they only lasted three days.
This could easily be proven of debunked using a dna tests(unless you believe in Todd Akin’s theory). So why not someone try using that?
(1) Stalin loved everyone (when convenient).
I explained the roots of modern Russia’s unfortunate Stalinophilia here: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/tribal-stalinism/
(2) You seem to be under the impression that Russian nationalists are anti-Ukrainian psychopaths. This is incorrect. To the extent that we view Russians and Ukrainians as one people – and it is a central plank of our memeplex – we consider crimes against “them” to be crimes against us. There are certainly a few exceptions, and the conflict has brought out some of the worst sentiments of both sides, but this does not invalidate the general point.
While Stalin did clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism – that is, made it haram like Russian nationalism was from 1918 – he continued promoting a separate Ukrainian identity (a much larger share of books published in Ukraine in the 1930s were in Ukrainian than even during 1920s). At the same time, the famines infused that identity with a not unjustified persecution complex. Stalin was arguably even worse for long-term Russian unity than the Old Bolsheviks.
If you are human and not a bot, some of your own ancestors were rapists and murderers. Perhaps you should kill yourself to atone for this fact.
LOL at “primarily Ukrainian-speaking” Malevich. He was a Pole who spoke Russian 95% of the time and LARPed as a Ukrainian for a couple of weeks when he was bored.
Nobody got suspicious reading about “SS officer Avenir Benningsen”?
I doubt the “famine of 1947” actually qualifies as such. With some of the muh millions brigade saying 0.5 million, others 1 million or 1.5 million, I’m going to get in there with 0.
Worth mentioning that the death rate was plenty high among those German POWs who were captured earlier in the war. Once their numbers became enormous and their usefulness apparent, it decreased.
I have to assume that the “average of all possible timelines” calculations are (very good) satire.
Because those people laid down their lives to protect their families ( and hence their descendants ) from a military power which pulverized 25+ million people ( most of them civilians ), and did so in inhumane ways, to put it mildly. I know that today’s eurocommies demand that an upstanding citizen must crywank himself to sleep every night over the plight of some other peoples, but I’m sure you’re acquainted with HBD and realize that eurocommie philosophy is thankfully confined to a small slice of our globe.
According to Wikipedia, he was Stirltiz.
Khruschev seemed to be extremely concerned with this nonexistent famine. He wrote to Stalin requesting help, and mentioned it several times later, for example in his memoirs, but in around 1960 or 1961 he also mentioned it to a Chinese delegation, even going into gruesome details like cases of cannibalism. It was in the context of the then raging Chinese famine, and he offered his help to the Chinese delegation, who turned it down and denied that there was a famine in China at the time.
It’s usually difficult to estimate casualties of a famine, because the victims tend to be mostly children and the elderly, both of whom have usually already elevated, but, in the first half of the 20th century, rapidly decreasing mortality rates. Childbirths also tend to decrease during famine (and sometimes already ahead of it), which makes it even more difficult.
For example estimates for the 1933 famine range between 0 and 10 million for Ukraine alone (based on different assumptions) with a most likely mean around 3-4 million using statistical methods alone (a crucial distinction, since we have non-statistical evidence that there was a serious famine at the time, so the number of victims cannot have been zero).
There is a big difference here between being a rapist and protecting ones families. If you and the others here think for one moment that this for one moment excuses the fact that some family member was a mass rapist and that it is ok to still praise then you are the one that has a view that is confined to a small slice.
You seem to fail to understand the concept that I am not walking around with a sign saying that they are heroes. Those people on the other hand are behaving as if they were angels when in fact know that that person is rapist should make one be ashamed.
But it’s unreasonable to suppose that these people know or even suspect that their grandpas or great-grandpas were rapists. The fact that statistically there must be a considerable number (but probably still a minority) among them who were rapists doesn’t change that.
According to Wikipedia, it was 2.1 million, though they mention in a footnote that while it was initially estimated lower, this is the consensus among most historians, and there are some considerably higher estimates, too:
How much of the Red Army actually marched on Berlin? And how many of them were rapists; all, most, or just some? Were the rapes confined to Germany, or did they happen in, for example, Poland, as well? Was it systematic, as per the stories of the Nazis above, or chaotic? For all the studies of the war, this particular phenomenon seems to have very little objective research available.
This is an excellent post. In response to German Reader: I’ve noticed in the US, especially since the Russophobic propaganda campaign of the past few years, there is very much a tendency to equate Hitler with Stalin, and, by extension, Nazi Germany with the USSR. The mass rape meme is commonly used as evidence of such. So AK’s point is very relevant, and well beyond the parties he mentions.
Some or all of these Khrushchev references, if authentic, might originate in confusion with the 1932-33 famine, or in his panicky reactions influenced by knowledge thereof. I agree with your general remarks on the difficulty of counting or even defining excess deaths.
He was a Pole born in some village outside Ukraine; such Poles were generally assimilated to their surroundings and Ukrainian-speaking. His father worked in the sugar-processing industry and they moved around rural Ukraine. Malevich probably spoke Russian most of the time after he left Ukraine but not growing up. Rural Ukraine was about as Russian-speaking as Poland at that time.
This statistic, 40% survival rate Soviet POW vs. 85% German, looks even worse when you consider that the USSR had won the war. Most of those Soviet POW who survived did so not due to any mercy on part of Germans but because they were liberated by the advancing Soviet Army. Had Germany prevailed, mortality rate among the Soviet POW would’ve been 90% ir more.
IHR has interesting quotes (from mainstream sources) on the dynamics of the POW conundrum on the Eastfront:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/teplyakov.html
Everybody agrees that Sov treatment of Axis POWs got better as war got better for thre REds, I’m sure many here think Conquest and Tolstoy are/were part of the world CIA-Nazi conspiracy that rules the world even today. Even to me, it makes Hitler sound shockingly humanitarian.
Stalin’s Order No. 270.
If … “instead of organizing resistance to the enemy, some Red Army men prefer to surrender, they shall be destroyed by all possible means, both ground-based and from the air, whereas the families of the Red Army men who have been taken prisoner shall be deprived of the state allowance [that is, rations] and relief.”
The commanders and political officers … “who surrender to the enemy shall be considered malicious deserters, whose families are liable to be arrested [just] as the families of deserters who have violated the oath and betrayed their Motherland.”
Yeah, and its you who’s equating them. People march to commemorate those who protected them from lovely ordeals in the Buchenwald. Nobody ‘s marching to commemorate Germans getting raped. If that triggers you, then so be it.
This article reviews the book “Berlin: The Downfall, 1945” by Antony Beevor.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-09-24/news/0209240344_1_raped-soviet-archives-red-army
Churchill proposed such attack on USSR in 1945. The plan was denominated “Operation Unthinkable”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
I am not equating them, they WERE rapists there is no dispute and people are celebrating them. If you and the others here have no problem with their parents or grand parents being rapists then go ahead and do so openly. Go ahead say the following: “I have no problem with rapists in my family”, don’t come with your cowardly excuses, say it or condemn it, but don’t weasel yourself out of this.
You are going to have to be more specific here, who is saying this, the neocon propaganda is mostly about how Putin kills journalists, hacks elections and forbids gay pride. Since the (((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they are not going to raise this as an issue. The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that are absolutely opposed to neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.
I know, but I don’t think there ever was a serious chance of that being implemented. There was no way the British and Americans could have defeated the Red army in open battle, and besides much of the US and UK public in 1945 was still quite pro-Soviet.
werent the Georgians the least deported people in the ussr?
I don’t really believe anybody in the US and UK cares about German women raped by the Red army or uses that as a prominent argument against Russia. I’ve always had the impression that the predominant attitude towards dubious actions against German civilians during and after WW2 is “They got exactly what they deserved” (that is except in Germany itself, obviously). You can see this even in recent accounts, e.g. in Timothy Snyder’s “Bloodlands” whose ultimate chapter has justification of the mass expulsions of Germans after the end of the war as a prominent theme (and Snyder after all is a prominent critic of Putin’s Russia).
It’s true however that some people in the West are still pushing the “Stalin’s Soviet Union just as bad or even worse than Nazi Germany” narrative, e.g. many American conservatives still throw around Robert Conquest’s estimates of many millions killed by Soviet repression – estimates which have long been disproven and been shown to be much too high. That’s mostly unconnected to the issue of rape in 1944/45 though.
It ought to be pointed out that Germans were expelled from precisely those regions who had voted for the Nazis most strongly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933#/media/File:NSDAP_Wahl_1933.svg
There is no justification for raping and murdering people, particularly civilians, and certainly many non-Nazis were expelled alongside their Nazi neighbors. But of all the tragedies of the second world war, German regions with strong Nazi support being turned into Russian and Polish ones are among the least non-just.
I’m not interested in having a discussion about Germany’s lost Eastern territories (and you needn’t worry, I’m not in favour of war with Poland for getting them back). In any case, I can understand the argument that the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe was a precondition for the peace Europe has enjoyed since 1945, and a logical consequence of the way the Nazis had used German minorities for their project. I regard Poland’s historical claims to many of the territories they got as laughable, but that probably was the price to be paid for Germany’s aggression and crimes. In any case, the issue is long settled and irrelevant today.
What irritated me about Snyder’s book, was not so much the argument itself, but his tone and vehemence. But if it makes you happy, I was even more irritated by his treatment of figures like Jakub Berman in post-war Poland…there was little indication that these were quite unpleasant figures who in some cases had members of Armia Krajowa persecuted and executed. Instead there was a lengthy discussion of how they were afraid of Stalin’s antisemitism. Apparently Snyder had a very specific audience in mind.
Would ‘goofy’ be more benign than ‘psychopath’ (it’s really just a matter of degree, eh)? How can two separate nationalities be considered ‘one people’? I’ve never been quite able to perform the mental gymnastics needed to understand such a concept. In my way of thinking, the Russian/Ukrainian situation is quite comparable t0 the Czech/Slovak one (nobody would call these two neighborly peoples as being one, now in the 21st century?). Both nations shared a common history during medieval times, pre-modern times and even Soviet times, but there still existed enough differences to form separate nations in the 20th century. In fact, they experienced an amicable divorce some 25 years ago and have since led friendly and productive lives as neighbors.
Why can’t this be the case between Ukraine and Russia?
‘Let my people go’ Anatoly!
No. This is completely incomparable.
(1) There was a pact signed by Germany/USSR, no such pact signed by Poland/Germany
(2) Poland acted without agreement with Germany, USSR acted with agreement with Germany
(3) Poland was not coordinating action with Germany, USSR coordinated military actions with Germany.
(4) Czechoslovakia proposed to Poland first to solve the border questions, no such proposals from Poland to USSR
In other words, this is the most stupid soviet propaganda. Moreover, Poland had no non-aggression pact with Czechoslovakia, while we had non-aggression pact with USSR.
The whole Oder Neisse border was so arbitrary. Had the Oder river not existed would the Elbe have been the new border, or if the Oder was 150 miles east would that have been the border? Originally there was no Neisse adjunct and much of Silesia would have stayed German, with Breslau on the border.
Can’t remember where but I read about Polish territorial demands/hopes from a defeated Germany from during the war and they were much more modest.
Intresting question, in July 1945 when the Soviet occupation troops took over the western portion of what became East Germany (including cities like Leipzig and Magdeburg) from the British and Americans, two months after the fighting was over, how did they behave? I ask this because this was a case where the passions and feelings of revenge should have died down by then.
This is the most stupid polish propaganda. Poland had a non-aggression pact with Germany, an observation which disposes of all your points at once.
Question, the figure of about 20 million Soviet civilian deaths that AK references. What were their direct causes (German mistreatment, destruction of food infrastructure etc, massacres?) And have their been controversies about whether that number is too high or too low?
Also, a survival rate of 85% of German prisoners of the Soviets. Did the Maschke comission come up with a similar number? IIRC their finding was a higher death rate.
That’s pretty much the way I see it. And the people who paid for these crimes were exactly those who voted for the Nazis in the first place. The non-Nazi voting Germans in Bavaria and the Rhineland weren’t cleared off their territory.
Basically – the most hardcore pro-Nazi regions ceased to exist as German territories.
The next pro-Nazi tier of territories were forced to live under the Communists for 40 years.
Areas that didn’t vote for Nazis had nice lives as BRD.
Of course it was ordered from above, otherwise the same thing would have happened in Austria, Hungary and Romania, the inhabitants of all of which had participated in the invasion of the USSR.
Expelling these people from their homes was a poor way of demonstrating the unfounded nature of the fear of invasion which caused a somewhat higher percentage of them to vote DNVP and then NSDAP in the first place. There would be more honesty and dignity in simply saying “Vae victis.” But then nobody expects honesty or dignity from the partisans of a cause espoused by vermin like “Timati” Snyder.
Basically, most regions that had lots of rural protestant voters were big Nazi support areas which fit the eastern territories pretty well. Catholic areas were mostly in the west.
I don’t think the territory of the GDR was more pro-Nazi on the whole than many West German territories…like Lower Saxony (Hitler was naturalized in Braunschweig in 1932 which was already Nazi-dominated) or notoriously antisemitic Franconia. You’re however right the territories beyond the Oder were strongly pro-Nazi (also quite backwards in their general social structure, with all those large landowners).
Anyway, there is little point to discussing these matters today imo. Sorry if my previous post came across as unfriendly.
I actually think there were quite a lot of rapes committed by Red army soldiers at least in Hungary as well which was also regarded as a defeated enemy state by the Soviets (Romania probably much less so because they switched sides). I also seem to recall that some Yugoslav communist (Milovan Djilas) complained to the Soviets about rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Yugoslavia, and similar in Poland.
I’ve never heard of a convincing case that those rapes were ordered from above (instead of being tolerated, which seems to have been Stalin’s attitude for some time). It’s not like rape is an uncommon phenomenon in war after all, if you don’t take disciplinary measures against it, many soldiers will do it. All the more so in a war like WW2 on the Eastern front where soldiers were brutalized and had to live with permanent expectation of their own death (iirc Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin were about as high as American losses in the entire war).
Interesting. The basic assumption of the WW2 liberal-democracy foundation myth is that Nazism was an ‘evilness spiral’, which started off with small stuff, but became inevitably more crazy and evil and would have murdered half the world had it not been stopped. I knew that mainstream zionists shared this assumption, but I hadn’t realized that Russian nationalists did too.
I’m no expert, but I tend more to the view that Nazi crimes were a product of the war, similar in principle – though not scale! – to allied war crimes, and that, had they won, they would have calmed down, much like the SU calmed down after the 1930s. I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern Europe wouldn’t have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages these had over liberal democracy). A lot depends, I suppose, on the willingness of Nazis who knew Hitler was a colossal whackjob to actually do something about it.
What do contemporary German nationalists think about Germany’s borders? Do they want to regain Germany’s lost territories even though Poles are also white? Are German Neo Nazis pro Russia and pro Putin like American Neo Nazis are?
I think that’s overly optimistic. It would probably have been true for imperial Germany or for some “normal” German military dictatorship, but I see no reason why the Nazis would have stopped with their extermination project if they had won. After all they pursued it during the war even though it was obviously quite counter-productive.
Well, I suppose there are some fringe characters who fantasise about getting those territories back (there are some genuine Nazis around in Germany even today after all). But that’s a marginal position. I don’t think the average AfD voter for example cares about it. What’s the point in getting agitated about territories that were lost a lifetime ago, when many cities in present-day Germany will soon have non-German majorities? And what’s the point in caring about what some long-dead Red army soldier did in Berlin in 1945, when there are lots of Arab and African rapists around today who were invited by our own government?
I don’t know what German neo-Nazis think about Russia. The somewhat-nationalist opposition around the AfD though is more pro-Russian than the mainstream in a “We don’t want unnecessary conflict with Russia, but mutually beneficial relations” sort of way.
Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin – 70 000 (killed)
American losses in the entire war – 400 000
Ok, looks like I was wrong. It was still a lot more extreme than what American troops faced in the European theatre during WW2 (Hürtgenwald notwithstanding).
A. Karlin:
I suggest it should be put in normal wording, instead of mildly, because, everyone‘s motives are a fair object of suspicion.
Examples:
(i) Why did my family fight against Nazi Germany? Young / poorly educated, therefore easily manipulated? Hey, Bulgarians avoided major confrontation with both Germany and USSR, + saved their Jews.
(ii) Why do I raise a question such as (i)? Maybe I hold some personal grudge against a family member for something entirely different?
(iii) Why do heads of allegedly free nations raise voices against “historical revision” («ревизия истории» in the words of Putin) as a threat to the civilized world, when revision is an essential part of study, including study of history? What’s this, a voice of freedom, or of Nazi-like Dark Ages? Suspicious, quite suspicious.
THis is the most stupid comment ever.
We had “non-aggression acts signed with both Germany and USSR.
This act was not about cooperation, but about denouncing aggression in mutual relationships.
In contrast, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was about how to divide the spoils of war.
There is no similarity between alliance pacts, and non-aggression pacts. Only Soviet propagandists can make such errors, while convieniently forgetting about Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact.
Except Germans actually started to implement their plans already during the war. Kidnapping the children, expelling people, importing new settlers… I do not think any allies, including soviets, were kidnapping children, selecting which one had favourable racial characteristics, and sending “the unworthy” ones to perish in camps.
Also, some of them was not really new. there were some fringe ultra-nationalists in Germany who agitated for expulsion of all Poles from Greater Poland area, for example.
Here is the full text of the non-aggression pact:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk01.asp
What’s in there which is comparable to the secret addendum to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?
Also, remember that Hitler DID actually proposed alliance against USSR, and Poland refused.
Such an alliance would have been equivalent to Polish annexation by Germany, unlike a German-Soviet pact. The difference is one of geography, not morality.
Not according to Bohdan Krawchenko:
https://archive.org/stream/socialchangenati00kraw/socialchangenati00kraw_djvu.txt
In the realm of film production, things were even more bleak during this same period of time:
Actually, soviets did kidnap people. For example the cousin of my grandfather was kidnapped and taken to a forced labor camp in Siberia. She was about to buy some bread when Soviet soldiers happened to be there collecting people for forced labor. She wasn’t even allowed to bring proper clothes with her.
If you noticed I gave that as a probability.
Also I do not think there is any unified Russian nationalist position on a topic as specific as Hitler’s post-war plans.
Okay, I was using these figures.
That’s including the Pacific theatre
The statistical graphs you relied on seem to corroborate what Krawchenko wrote. By about 1928 both the amount of separate themed books and the sheer volumes of books printed in Ukraine dropped precipitously, till about 1946 (1927 being a boon year for Ukrainian printed books) .
Ivanko, in his second graph, however, shows that the peak year was about 1937, even though underneath a few sentences he clearly states 1927???…
This corresponds to the new approach relating to the new nationalities policy instigated in 1933-34, and continued throughout the war period and later. One might ask, who was that interested in reading any books during the famine of 1932-33, repressions of intellectuals and sheer wartime losses during WW2? Ivanko clearly points out that much of the written fair in Ukraine was political propaganda type books, not books of more common interest genres including ‘detective, fiction, historical, art’.
In evolutionary terms the whole point of warfare is to crush your enemies (kill or enslave them) and take their women.
I see no reason to condemn either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union for their conduct on the Eastern Front here–except for Stalin starving an additional half million of his own people in order to prop up postwar client states.
The Nazis deserve credit for a grand and daring vision of expansion, though of course they bit off more than they could chew.
The Soviets were less ambitious, but in addition to scoring some pussy they solved their primary security challenge and carted off a lot of valuable physical and human capital.
If anything America and Britain should be condemned for squandering our blood and treasure for no gain at all.
Which are the the first ones likely to be?
{ I haven’t studied this issue in any depth myself and will assume that the conventional mass rape narrative is broadly correct. }
Karlin:
You say you haven’t studied this issue and assume that the …...’mass rape narrative is broadly correct’ in this article, yet in 2013 you wrote another article debunking the ‘mass rape narrative’: looks like you did quite a bit of studying of the subject in the previous article.
[Translation: The Red Army “Rape of Germany” was Invented by Goebbels]
http://akarlin.com/2013/05/red-army-rape-myth/
Explanation please.
All this is interesting but frankly I don’t know enough
to make an informed judgment about Malevich
(Malewicz)
So, you are saying “I will try resolve my conflicts with you using words, not force” is equivalent to “I will join you in killing your neighbour”? Nice logic.
Once again, Poland had non-aggression pacts with both USSR and Germany. Such pacts are not the same as alliance. Poland was allied with France.
Taking over Zaolzie was also different, because Poland took for example Bogumin, which was wanted by Germany (i.e. action was not coordinated and was in fact move AGAINST Germany), while Soviets and Germans divided their spoils ahead (and Soviets were helping Germans during the invasion).
You mean, your cousin was a child, who was kidnapped, beaten for speaking Russian and raised as another nationality? It’s not about simply capturing people from the streets and sending them off for slave labour. I am specifically talking about kidnapping children (as in Lebensborn), selecting those who were “aryan looking” and raising them as Germans, while sending the rest to camps, where most of them died.
OT, concerning the de-Germanification of German cities, at least according to stats, most of the non-Germans are at least other Europeans (Croats, Greeks, Italians, Poles, Rumanians etc), which is a big difference then London or Paris. Of course Merkel is helping to make things even more diverse.
Re: Zaolzie (Cieszyn Silesia) I’ve known many Czechs,
and this was such a minor matter in Polish-Czech relations
that it virtually never comes up in conversation. If anything,
the Czechs feel a bit embarrassed that Warsaw was completely
destroyed during the Warsaw Uprising of August 1944 whereas
Prague hardly suffered any damage during the war. For example,
Kundera talks about it in the early part of his great novel The Unbearable
Lightness of Being. By the way, Ewa Farna, a famous Polish-Czech
singer grew up in Zaolzie in a Polish family but now she spends
most of her time in Poland, but she is equally fluent in Polish and Czech.
With the Oder-Neisse border, Poland regained roughly the borders
it had around 1025 AD (we can quarrel about the details here but
that’s not the point), and is now able to enjoy a new closeness to
Czechia and Lusatia (what remains of Polabian Slavs in eastern
Germany). No people are closer linguistically (and genetically) than
the Czechs, Poles, and Lusatians (northern Lusatians speak a language
very close to Polish), all being western Slavs. The Czechs could speak
Czech and the Poles Polish, and they would understand perhaps 70% of
what’s being said. With spoken Russian the level of comprehension by
a Pole is perhaps 30%, with spoken Ukrainian maybe 40%. Reading levels
of comprehension are perhaps higher by 10%. Moreover, Poland owes
the fact that it was accepted into western Christendom to Bohemia, so that’s
another reason for closeness between the two countries
I think that your ‘mathematicism’ (did I make that up? I mean the logical parallel of scientism) is one of the most obvious weaknesses in your work. The entire concept of probability has no relevance whatsoever to non-repeatable events.
I read it in multiple sources, and everywhere he referred to 1946-47. Apparently Khrushchev was more concerned about this famine than the earlier one – perhaps he figured the 1933 famine was a natural consequence of collectivization and so probably in his view a necessary sacrifice, but no such justification could be given in 1947, especially after people have already suffered so badly during the war.
In any event, Khrushchev is not the only source, so his mental instability cannot be a good explanation here. Stalin was not The Devil, but many bad things happened under his watch even in his later years.
Sure.
First, I did not write that article. It was a translation of a Komsomolskaya Pravda transcript of a discussion between a historian and a journalist performed by the user “Moscow Exile,” which was published at my (now defunct) Russian Spectrum media translations website. From the post meta:
Moreover, I even linked that piece at the very bottom of this post. See the hyperlink in “If this is not the case and there actually were much fewer rapes, that makes the main argument even stronger.” (Yes, I’m aware the hyperlink is broken. The Unz software automatically converts all my akarlin.com links to unz.com/akarlin ones, nothing I can do about it.)
Problem: I don’t consider reading one (or a few) articles about a subject to be studying it “in any depth.”
Why not?
This is standard in philosophical work about existential risks, for instance.
Example: What’s the bigger danger, global nuclear war or a large meteorite strike? The former has a 10% chance of happening in the next century and will kill a billion people, so its expected cost is 100 million lives. A larger meteorike strike will kill 10 billion people, but has a one in a million chance of happening; expected cost is 10,000 people. Nuclear war should therefore be a more pressing concern. (Above figures for illustrative purposes only, and there are many more additional considerations, but it gets the main point across).
Can’t see why you can’t apply it to historical what-if’s.
He was simply concerned about the German prisoners, because unlike Stalin, he understood that under certain circumstances soldiers had little other options than to surrender, so he still considered German POWs of valuable racial stock. He was willing to care for Untermenschen if in return the Untermenschen cared for Germans.
When comparing POW casualties, circumstances need to be taken into account. The Germans planned huge encirclement battles, but didn’t plan how to feed the prisoners which must result (if successful) from such battles. This smacks of basically intentional genocide. On the other hand, it would’ve been possible to feed them by requisitioning food from the civilian population (the Germans had every right to do so), which probably would’ve resulted in more civilian deaths. I think we have to understand that the Germans didn’t think starving enemy civilians or POWs to death was a war crime – since in the First World War the allies illegally (at least, the Germans had thought it was illegal) foodstuffs were not let through the blockade, resulting in a famine in Germany, so the Germans thought that then starving civilians to death must be permissible. I don’t think they were totally unjustified, at least to an extent. Germany had food shortages (British civilians ate better than German civilians throughout the war, and the British starved to death a couple million Bengalis to do that…), and so why should they further restrict German rations only to feed Soviet POWs or civilians, when the Soviets refused to care for German POWs? In any event, German logistics were already overstretched, so feeding them from Germany or other parts of Europe was all but impossible.
On the other hand, treatment of Soviet POWs improved after they realized they needed more workers. But, their usefulness was still limited, because they were less trained and less disciplined than German workers. While German POWs were more useful to the Soviets: they were highly disciplined and reliable with better training than Soviet workers, so actually they were more valuable workers than Soviet workers themselves. This means the Soviets were highly incentivized to keep their POWs well-fed.
There is the issue of the very small percentage of Germans who survived captivity after being taken prisoner at Stalingrad. The issue is that they were already almost starved and/or frozen to death, and the Soviets initially underestimated the size of the German force caught in the pocket. They had no means of transportation (the trucks were needed elsewhere), so it was very difficult to get the prisoners to the nearest working train stations, usually they did it on foot. Many died already there, and frankly, I cannot see how anything better could be expected of the Soviets. Then the often very long train journey to POW camps followed, and the majority didn’t survive to reach the camps. Again, probably it could’ve been better organized, but realistically, it was very difficult and so unlikely of the Soviets to do so. At the camps, conditions weren’t that bad – as already per above, Germans were valuable workers, and so worth saving, but it was already too late for many.
There were actually similar considerations for the German treatment of Soviet POWs in the encirclement battles. Most Soviet prisoners fell into German hands already exhausted, underfed, thirsty, and even giving them water was difficult to organize. They had to be taken to camps or train stations on foot, in the exhausting heat, with a shortage of personnel to guard them, so it wasn’t exactly easy to care for them. Not that the Germans cared much, but still.
The first graph measures total book production.
The second graph measures book variety (quantity of different titles).
Quantity: More Russian books in early 1920s, though from a very low base, then Ukrainian ones overtake them Ukrainization started from the mid-20s: http://zhenziyou.livejournal.com/39918.html
The books published in the 1930s were simpler on average, but they were still predominantly – even more so than in the late 20s – Ukrainian.
Diversity of material: As proxied by the second graph. Again, much higher for the Russian language, until Ukrainization began. But the new pattern established then was preserved in the 1930s under Stalin, even though diversity fell for both languages.
Hitler was a highly unusual dictator. His vision was a grandiose utopia of a huge Germanic empire from the Rhein (or a bit to the west of the Rhein) to the Ural mountains. It was to be populated exclusively by Germans, so they needed to get rid of the rest. Because the Slavs would presumably resent being deported from their ancestral homelands, killing them or starving large numbers of them to death was always an obvious solution, but the Nazis didn’t think much about it until 1941.
During wartime extreme solutions are also more likely and easier to implement. In peacetime, it’s more difficult – we cannot be sure, what the Germans would’ve done after victory. It’s even more difficult to imagine what they’d have done after Hitler died, which should’ve happened at one point in the 1950s or so. (I think it’s still not sure if he really had Parkinson’s or just a combination of some other diseases, stress, insomnia, etc.)
The holocaust was a bit different in that it always seemed realistic to get rid of Jews without murdering each one of them. However, as the war went on, it became slowly realistic to kill all of them. At the same time, Hitler thought (not totally without justification, but reality was way more complex of course) that it was the Jews who pushed the US to war with Germany. Therefore, he wanted to use European Jews as hostages against the US Jews. However, after the US (in his mind, US Jews) started to ratchet up their efforts against him (Lend Lease, the immediate and seamless extension of Lend Lease to the USSR, etc.), he started to turn the screws ever more on his hostages, starting to murder some of them in 1941 (some sporadic mass murder had happened before already), and finally deciding on killing all of them probably in December 1941. (By that time, almost a million had already been killed.)
Exterminating the Slavs would’ve been extremely difficult in wartime, and it’s questionable if they would’ve done that in peacetime when journalists and people move more freely, but who knows? Until the early 1930s, probably very few people thought that a regime could easily survive collectivization and a mass famine of its own making that the Soviet regime caused in the 1930s and actually remain stable or even stronger than before. But that’s what happened.
Oh, and regarding civilian deaths. Of course Stalin’s “scorched earth” tactics played some role here, since very little grain (or anything else) was left in the occupied western territories, so a famine was bound to happen. Why should the Germans care more for Soviet civilians than their “own” authorities?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany
Germans were already running trials in 1942 like Aktion Zamość.
Sorry, I should have been more specific, I hear this from people on the other end of the megaphones, i.e. the normies to which I’m exposed during my brief visits to the US (I only spend a few weeks a year there). In my specific case, it’s mostly East Coast liberals.
I don’t pay much attention to the US propaganda machine, so I can’t name any specific sources. But, there seems to be a consensus formed between neocons, libtards, and cuckservatives vis a vis Russia. Among the ridiculous things I’ve heard are, “Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler” (whatever that even means) and “most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians.” This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people. Where they come up with it, who knows?
The neocons are monsters who care only about world domination, and the submission of their subjects. To that end, they don’t care about anyone raped or killed, even their own (((people))), if it furthers their goals. It’s no problem for them to use this as a cudgel with which to beat on Russia. Perhaps you are confusing them with yourself, you think they have principals or that they stand for something. Just look at Ukraine, where Jewish Neocons and Nazis stand, quite literally, hand-in-hand.
Now you are going to have be a bit more specific, who are you talking about here?
It seems to me there’s been a sea change in the US over the past few years and perhaps you’re missing it. Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest opponents. Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping up in propaganda directed at liberals. And, of course, most of the Cold Warrior conservatives have never changed their views, so they are essentially in cahoots. The neocons backed Clinton for President after all.
Americans are particularly susceptible to propaganda, which is, admittedly, all-consuming and very effective. Do they really, deep down, actually care about German women raped during WW2? Most likely not, but they do to the extent that they are told to care about it and can use it for moral equivalency purposes. As for Snyder, “Bloodlands” came out pretty early on in the Ukraine crisis, before the anti-Russia campaign was in full gear. It took a little while for Jews to get on board with being on the same side as the Nazis.
Well, of course I’ve noticed that, it’s hard to miss how hysterical US liberals have become over Russia, especially so since Russia allegedly “stole” their victory in the last election. I’d actually agree that demonization of Russia in Western media has reached a pretty bizarre (and highly dangerous imo) level by now. I just don’t see that the issue of rapes committed by Red army soldiers in 1944/45 plays a significant role in this. The only non-Germans interested in that issue are marginal alt-rightish types with Nazi sympathies, that is people whose influence is limited to dark corners of the internet. Neither you nor AK have provided any evidence that it’s an important component of mainstream Western antipathy towards Russia.
“Stalin responsible for more deaths than Hitler” is false but not ridiculously so. Hitler beat Stalin but about 3 million people but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.
A lot of college educated Russians with high IQs believe nonsense also, and sometimes even about their immediate neighbor, never mind about a place on the other side of the world.
In the case of Stalin – not millions.
http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
“…In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for “counterrevolutionary crimes”) in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people… during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people“.
Of course it’s possible to start to count “victims of famine”. But in this case, Stalin will be a great humanist, in comparison with the rulers of the British Empire.
“A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”
(ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII — начало XX в.) Книга 2)
Remember Mahatma Gandhi: “Hitlerism and Churchillism are in fact the same thing”
I’m interested in the method of accounting. Whose deaths are we are talking about here? Do, for example, German soldiers during WW2 go into the Hitler column, or the Stalin column? In light of the fact that the person making this case was not only an American, but a Jew, I told him that were the German soldiers’ deaths Stalin’s responsibility, then he would have to explain why that paints Stalin in a bad light.
Are you speaking of absolute numbers, or percentages of populations?
She was 17 or 18 (and not my cousin, but my grandfather’s). No, she was not raised as another national, but she was just snatched from the street, put on a truck, and off to Siberia. She was not beaten or raped for a racial utopia, just for being there (and being Hungarian)… So yes, it is different from what you had in mind, but I would still consider it kidnapping or enslaving if you prefer.
{They hate and resent the Germans so much that they are fine with honoring their rapist grandfathers and great-grandfathers. I might feel the same way if I were Russian, but I’m not and I don’t.}
They are honoring grandfathers and great-grandfathers who saved their ethnos – Slavic peoples – from extermination at the hands of the Nazi genocidal invaders. The Red Army did not enter Germany to rape: yeah, rape is a terrible crime and it should not have happened. But Nazi German men did far, far, far worse to Slavic peoples: no need to re-list all their crimes here.
One more thing: although it does not excuse the crimes against the German women, let us not forget that most of those same young women were lining up streets in Berlin only 3-4 years prior to cheer the SS mass-murderers on their way to Soviet Union to murder, rape, destroy, burn, kill, starve, …..
Those women knew their men were invading a foreign country.
Those women knew their men were going there to exterminate Slavs.
{Russians would have done the same and worse to all of Germany, and all of western and central Europe, if they had not been so severely damaged by the Germans and then deterred and faced-off by the US.}
Another anti-Russian/anti-Soviet lie.
In fact Russians/Soviets were very forgiving of the Germans, considering what Germans had done to them and what they were planning to do, if Nazis won: extermination of all Soviet people – overwhelmingly Slavs – West of the Urals.
When the Red Army entered Germany it was around 15 million strong.
Soviet war time production was at its peak.
Those Red Army troops were battle-tough from years of fighting the best military force in the world of the day. By the time Soviets entered Germany, the mighty Wehrmacht was reduced to 14-15 year old boys and senior citizens who were thrown at the Red Army steamroller flooding into Germany. (they were of course brushed aside).
The Red Army could have raised (East) Germany to the ground if they wanted to: nothing and nobody could stop them. A 1,000 Desdens.
btw: Russians supposedly are fine honoring rapists.
Are people in England and US fine honoring their Air Force crews for deliberately fire-bombing German civilian targets and cooking civilians to death, including children, as they did in Dresden?
Are people in US fine honoring US Air Force crews who firebombed Tokyo and burnt to death anywhere from 100K to 200K of Tokyo’s civilians?
How about the USAF air crews which bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
My understanding is that men who did those bombings are officially honorable military men who served their country.
This is a very awkward topic as i understand both sides.
The German attack forced the Bolsheviks to change their policy towards ethnic Russians – what would the Bolsheviks have done to the Russians over time if the Germans hadn’t attacked?
I think it’s possible to guess what they would have done by what is happening in the West today – some people want a world of 85 IQ slave cattle so there’s no competition.
So what was the best out of three terrible options?
1) German attack and victory
2) Bolshevik victory (no war and eventual genetic mutilation of the ethnic Russians)
3) German attack weakening Bolsheviks but not winning
To me the correct analogy is to an autoimmune disease where the body attacks itself because of an infection – where the Bolsheviks were the infection.
I think Offenbach already has close to 60% inhabitants mit Migrationshintergrund. Now the definition for Migrationshintergrund is pretty extensive (I suppose I would qualify for it), and it’s true, there are of course many Europeans (Italians, Poles, people from the former Yugoslavia and the former USSR etc.) included in this. But still, the trend is clear…by current trends Germany will have about 7 million Muslims in 2030, and they will mostly be regionally concentrated in parts of the former West Germany. The entire Rhine-Main area is going to be pretty bad imo, and West German cities (plus Berlin which will be a total slum) in general.
642 thousands? Interesting. Because victims of “Polish action” before WW2 are 111 thousand Poles (And Russians; Polosh historians tend to forget, that ethnic Russian with Polish names, spouses of Poles and friends of Poles were executed too). So, 1/6 of executions would be Poles? In addition, the estimated number of Poles who were killed (in executions, or died in gulags, or in transport to gulags) is at least 150.000. 320.000 were deported. Obviously, you cannot count just people executed – in initial years of Kolyma gulag, mortality was well above 80%. The number of deported, arrested etc in 1939-1945 is at least 800.000, and some historians are claiming numbers as high as 1.8 milion. The interesting fact is that NKVD data claimed only 320.000 people – seems that families of people deported, who were deported as well, were not counted in official NKVD stats!
Basically this data claims that Poles were massively overrepresented. Hard to believe that. Just as it is hard to believe that data.
The good news is that both the quality and quantity of books published in the Ukrainian language today are increasing quite rapidly. The bookseller ‘Book Ye’ seems to be Ukraine’s answer to the very successful American conglomerate ‘Barnes & Noble’ and hosts physical stores in many a Ukrainian city. Their website shows that the problems that Ivanko alluded to, regarding a paucity of books covering common interest items, is quickly being addressed. Notice the different various categories of books listed on the left side of the website (detective books, ‘noir thrillers’ have always been a favorite of mine). http://book-ye.com.ua/shop/
This website is a perfect setting for bibliophiles and offers a perfect chat place and a place for reviewing many new Ukrainian language books: http://bukvoid.com.ua/
Given the right environment, it appears that ‘ProjectUkraine’ is chugging along full steam ahead!
With the impressive total of 50K monthly visits apiece.
https://www.similarweb.com/website/bukvoid.com.ua?competitors=book-ye.com.ua
My blog gets similar numbers, LOL.
Russia’s leading dedicated bookseller, Labirint.ru: 13M.
https://www.similarweb.com/website/labirint.ru
Couple of more dedicated book sellers with 1M visits each. Biggest Ukrainian bookseller, bookclub.ua (500K visits), has a primarily Russian language interface, and most of its front page books also seem to be in Russian.
Actually, of the 24 advertised books listed on the front cover of ‘bookclub.ua’ 14 were Ukrainian language books! I don’t think that it would have been as high 10 years ago, and thus points to the growing interest in Ukrainian language books. It’ll be interesting to see just how much the margin will widen in another 10 years (as long as any unnatural ‘regathering’ or ‘triune’ projects aren’t imposed on the rest of Ukraine)? 🙂
From wiki.
One reason for the high excess mortality of 1943–45 was a clash between soaring population levels and a shortage of land in Bengal, and a longstanding history of stagnant agricultural productivity in India. Bengal was very densely populated.[F] Moreover, according to census figures, its population had been increasing at an accelerating rate: in ten-year periods, the rate of growth started at 2.8% from 1911 to 1921, then increased to 7.3% from 1921 to 1931, and soared to 20.3% from 1931 to 1941. Bengal’s population rose by 43% (from 42.1 million to 60.3 million) between 1901 and 1941, while India’s population as a whole increased by 37% over the same period.
Britain wasn’t importing rice in huge quantities from Bengal and much of its merchant fleet was at the bottom of the Atlantic. The grain came from North America.
The Britophobia is almost as silly as the Russophobia.
Snyder’s numbers seem rather realistic:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/
All in all, the Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million.
Absolute numbers. The Irish potato famine with 1 million victims killed about 20% or so of the Irish population. In contrast, the 3-4 million famine victims in Ukraine were “only” about 10% of that Republic’s population, and the 3+ million victims in Russia those years was a smaller percentage.* The million or so who were shot were a smaller % still.
*Though about a million people died in the Kuban region of southern Russia – I don’t have time to look up that region’s total population in 1932 but if it was smaller than Ireland’s than that region might have been worse in relative numbers, too.
Snyder:
“In all, 682,691 people were killed during the Great Terror, to which might be added a few hundred thousand more Soviet citizens shot in smaller actions.”
I personally know of people such as kulaks who were shot and buried in a mass grave, whose murders probably weren’t recorded in central archives.
Once can include artificial famines also, of course. you are correct that these were worse in India. I was Eurocentric in my comment.
Note to German_reader:
I am NOT trolling.
FFS think about it…if your country had won the war your eastern frontier would be at the Ural Mountains (why Hitler wanted to stop there I do not understand) and there’d be 200 million Germans today.
What’s not to like?
And from the Russian perspective, in addiction to the delight of victory, what could be more humiliating to the enemy than raping their women en masse? And certainly a nice little perk for long suffering Red Army soldiers.
Me,I blame the Jews.
Everybody who mentions this seems to be conflating Russia with the Soviet Union, especially that fat Baby Boomer sack of shit, Rush Limbaugh.
Liberals were traditionally sympathetic to the Soviet Union because it was Communist and because liberals always reflexively ally with their own country’s enemies as part of their metapolitical modus operandi. Liberals are completely opposed to post-Soviet, nationalist Russia because it is the lone superpower standing athwart the advance of globalism. This shouldn’t be hard to understand.
The whole fictitious “Russia hacked the election” meme is not just about delegitimizing the Trump presidency. These globalists actually want a pretext for going to war with Russia, so from their perspective they are killing to birds with one stone.
Rush Limbaugh is a stupid sack of shit.
Your inference is correct, but unfortunately your premise is wrong. Try reversing it.
One problem with mathematicsism is that it is essentially a a confidence trick giving a false sense of accuracy and specificity to arguments that are actually speculative (if not actually wrong). If your numbers are made up, what you do with them is made up too. The entire comical history of economics since Fisher and Keynes turned it from a wissenschaft into a pseudoscience is an illustration of this.
More fundamentally, though, what you are attempting here is just an epistemological FAIL.. Individual events and objects do not have mathematical probabilities, full stop. Case probability and class probability are two different things. You learn nothing from trying to import tools from the one to the other.
Well, if Wikipedia says so, then it must be true, eh?
This is one of the more intellectually squalid Karlin pieces. (And that’s saying something!)
There are a host of problems with it, but one basic point is that there is a basic difference between the mass murders attributed to Soviets and those attributed to the Nazis.
Forensic evidence. There is forensic evidence for the former but precious little for the latter. If, tomorrow, while digging up some land to build a new shopping mall somewhere in Eastern Europe, they happen on a mass grave from a WW2 atrocity, it is a cinch bet that it will turn out to be a Soviet atrocity. I’m sure you could offer 10-1 odds and it would be a winning bet nonetheless. That is either because the Germans were much better at disposing of bodies or that they simply didn’t murder as many people. The reader may choose the explanation.
Well, this is just typical cringeworthy stuff, where Karlin doesn’t even know the parameters of the debate.
Holocaust revisionists do not question the lethality of Zyklon B. You can gas people to death with it. The problem lies more with the disposal of the bodies. Nobody has described a procedure that makes any sense or is feasible technically. The question is how millions of people could be murdered with Zyklon B, and the bodies so perfectly disposed of that there is ZERO forensic evidence.
Anyway, it is actually the opposite of what Karlin is claiming. It is the people who do NOT question this whose motives are suspect. All of the incentives in place are that way. There are Holocaust denial laws in over a dozen countries now. Nobody ever goes to prison for saying that they believe the official story. Karlin is talking bizarro nonsense that is 180 degrees away from the reality of the situation.
“The real “Soviet Story“: Stalin mutilates Russia. Hitler mutilates Russia. Stalin mutilates Hitler, then mutilates Russia some more. Russophobe ideologues conclude that Russia is as bad as Hitler (if not worse).”
The Soviet Union was vomited onto the planet in 1917. Stalin didn’t take full power until 1928. During those eleven years missing from your recap, Russia was certainly being viciously mutilated. Why skip them? Not, I hope, because it was Jews doing the mutilating and Christians enduring the mutilation.
Short example of what I mean. If I roll a fair die multiple times, the average of my results will converge to 3.5. Hence the ‘expected’ result is 3.5. However, if I roll a dice one time and ask you to guess what I’m going to roll you won’t, unless you are a nitwit, say 3.5. Now that’s the case where we actually can give a mathematical probability to each possible result. In your cases, you can’t even do that, so saying the ‘expected’ result of nuclear war is _____ is a double form of nonsense.
So that’s what Phillip Giraldi sounds like in real life.
Actually, mass graves are still being found in Poland. The last one was soviet atrocity, true, but before that we were usually discovering German site crimes.
I noticed a Bershidsky column claiming that recently revealed Soviet archives show WW2 casualties to be 42 million, not the generally accepted 27 million. Leaving aside the ideological nonsense not worthy of discussion, any comments on the validity of this claim?
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-10/a-message-to-putin-from-42-million-dead
There is also another thing, statistical evidence. We don’t know how many Poles lived in Poland in 1939. The censuses are:
1921 more than 25.5 million (almost 18 million Poles).
1931 Almost 32 millions (almost 22 milion Poles),
1946 Almost 24 millions – almost no data on division per nationality, part of them were Germans, Ukrainians and so on, some of them later moved from Poland to other countries – a lot of “Poles” were Silesians, Germans declared to be Poles by authorities, some of them were then deported to Germany. This census is a bit controversial, because a lot of people were on the move.
Between 1945/50 4 million Germans were deported from Poland, while 4.4 Poles moved in from what become USSR
1950 About 25 millions
before 1955 second wave of Poles “returning” from USSR (about 250 thousand people)
1960 ABout 29.7 millions
1970 About 32.6 millions
1974 about 33.6 millions
1978 about 35 millions
So, we have gain of 4 million ethnic Poles 1921/1931 (part of that probably due to creatively counting “dual languages” and “tutejsi” as Poles. between 1950/1960 – gain of more than 4 million Poles. Between 1960 and 1970 – gain of almost 3 million Poles, with already falling fertility (my father had brother and three sisters, my grandfather was one of the seven IIRC, i have only one sister). Simple extrapolation means that in 1941 there should be 26 million ethnic Poles, and in 1951 29-30 million.
The estimates are saying about 1-3 million ethnic Poles murdered during the war. Personally I think 1.5-2 million ethnic Poles are the most probable.
Excellent point, re war crimes.
I might add that in the immediate post war period it has been speculated* that the US/UK accidentally deliberately killed some hundreds of thousands of German POW’s by starvation/exposure.
* can’t recall title of the book.
The number 642 980 are a result of researches of historian Victor Zemskov. They are rougly confirmed by other historians (including А.Roginskiy from “Memorial”). The personal opinion of Snyder does not matter.
But if even to take opinion of Snyder for truth, it is impossible to count “millions” of killed by Stalin
It maybe so. However considerable part of “political” convict were the real criminals, and can not be considered the “victims of terror”. For this, general estimation of number of victims of repressions will not change
Even if numbers of raped German women were true and I am sure it is just a hoax , after what Germany did to my country they clearly got away easy. Regarding Poland and Baltic states, they are playing with fire and so does every country including Germany that participating in bear batting along Russian borders. They clearly did not learn previous lessons.
It is an absolute nonsense
Take the ‘Direct genocide, like the gassings of Jews’ out of the equation and you will find out that the only genocide was perpetrated against the Russians beginning with 1914 (when there were no Nazis and Hitler was just a private) onward. The real figures are ‘debatable’ only because decent people cannot really comprehend the magnitude of the evil (to which they associated themselves by commission or omission) unleashed upon the petty sinners Russians were in their ‘barbarity’.
In 1932 in Ukraine 782 000 were born and 668 000 died, in 1933 – 359 000 were born and 1309 000 died (data from Центральное управление народохозяйственного учета Госплана СССР). 1309 000 – 668 000 = 641 000?
Still, the reason we have war is because we’ve developed ‘rules’ for war. If everything was ‘on the table’ we’d have a lot fewer people contemplate it at all.
Russians meddled in French elections? Are you sure? Have you checked the names and nationalities of the people who were the major meddlers? A hint – they were not from Russian Federation.
Also, on a point of Russia being a “destabilizing factor in European politics for at least 300 years,” could you enlighten us where Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania belong to some 200 hundred years ago and how independent these countries were? Also, how come that the alleged “meddler” had been involved in pushing out France, Britain, Poland, Germany from her own Russian territory? For a starter, you could read Leo Tolstoy’ “The Sebastopol Sketches.” And if you intend, like some passionate Israel-firster, to defend the above powers’ aggressive interventions and meddling into Russian affairs (remember The Congress of Vienna, 1815?) by bringing in realpolitiks and other “historically convincing” factors, then what was the point of your post?
“Suvorov” is taken seriously by many that do not fall into your slick categories. I’ll grant that your type does not like “Suvorov” and I can quite understand why.
The last time Russia was pushing out Poles from Russian territory was in XVII century.
IN 1919-1921 war Russia was (arguably) an agressor and Polish forces never reached Russian territory. Unless, of course, you count Kiev as Russian.
Unless, of course, you count Kiev as Russian.
You just had to open that back up, didn’t you?
Kindly read the book entitled Icebreaker, which explains the why if the invasion of the Soviet Union. The reasons given make the German invasion much, MUCH, more compelling than the USA invasions of various countries over the last 100 odd years or so. HdC
Clarification: a natural death rate for years that preceded famine 1932-1933 in Ucraine – 524 000 persons. In 1932 in Ukraine 668 000 died, in 1933 – 1309 000 died
Then number of victims of famine in Ucraine roghly
(1309 000 – 524 000)+( 668 000 – 524 000) = 831 000
You are correct. My Polish friends who lived in Poland during the war described the Germans as being very polite, asking them to stay indoors until the troops moved through their area.
Of course, there was little sympathy for the jewish Bolshevik communist commissars who ruled over them. Quite often, they were “outed” to the Germans. All Polish people (gentiles) HATED the jewish Bolsheviks who ruled over them and had no problem in informing the Germans where they were at. Life under German occupation was preferable to life under jewish Bolshevik communism. Of course, that all changed when Roosevelt gave Poland to the communists.
It’s based on sources.
So now you know more than demographers and historians? You’ve figured it out.
You do realize that many births and deaths were not registered, which is why actual scholars give ranges in the 3-4 million. This reminds me of your claim of under 700,000 executed (because no execution went unregistered in central archives, right?)
Here’s a decent source, one of very many:
http://www.melgrosh.unimelb.edu.au/documents/SGW-UkranianFamine_mortality.pdf
Some relevant bits:
“There is however a problem with the current registration data on deaths regarding
their reliability and completeness. We know from a comparison of the survival rates
from the 1926 to the 1939 or 1937 censuses, that a much higher proportion of the
population died (or disappeared) between these censuses, than is indicated by the
mortality registrations, and there has been considerable discussion about this level of
unregistered mortality. ”
Summary:
“The registration data indicate that Ukraine experienced a massive famine in 1931-3
that accounted for a minimum of 1.8 million excess deaths and population loss
(including birth losses) of 2.7 million. Depending upon the estimations made
concerning unregistered mortality and natality, these figures could be increased to a
level of 2.8 million to a maximum of 4.8 million excess deaths and to 3.7 million to a
maximum of 6.7 million population losses (including birth losses). These figures
would indicate that this was the largest recorded famine loss of its time, only to be
exceeded by the famine of the Great Leap Forward in China, 1958-61.”
Deaths within the Ukrainian SSR were uneven. Cities, populated with a lot of Russians and Jews, were fed and their denizens didn’t starve. The countryside where the ethnic Ukrainians lived was hit especially hard (although Russians and Jews living in the countryside were just as likely to die as were their Ukrainian neighbors).
The problem wasn’t individual German soldiers, who were often decent, but the German administration which did kill millions of Poles.
The conversations were mostly transcribed in the evenings between July 1941 and November 1944 (the greater part to September 1942) at his two Eastern headquarters, Rastenburg (Wolfschanze) in East Prussia and later at Winnitza (Werwolf) in the Ukraine, while the invasion of Russia was in progress.
His future “Eastern Empire” was the central topic and there’s no doubt what part the Slavs would play in it.
His plan to demolish Moscow and St Petersburg:
Later in the text he admits that the invasion is having more problems than anticipated:
As usual, Anatoly is making many good points.
I have also read that the US military had an organised rape fest in Germany. That interests me because they were the only participants who had suffered almost nothing in the war in Europe (and only service people in the Pacific and Asia), and had exemplary treatment when captive by the Germans.
Don’t know if there is a scholarly treatise on it, but there should be, and it is mentioned anecdotally by many US and other writers (e.g. le Carre).
Norman Mailer as one who mentions it, in the course of the centre of his novel An American Dream where his protagonist (clearly based on himself) rapes a German woman, maid, in Noo Yawk, just for being German.
Other mentions are many.
I have a book by the British CO of a PoW camp in the SE of England near the end of the war, it is clear that the Geneva Convention violations were out of order and out of control, but the author just thinks ‘jolly good show, old chap.’
Am knowing that German treatment of USSR prisoners was atrocious, but the first time I encountered a tale of it, in Jersey Kozinski’s Painted Bird, I am later to find that his book is all a fabrication.
Not to say that I think the depiction of the terrible mistreatment of USSR PoWs is far from the truth, but the fact that the novel (he was claiming it to be all based on fact) was mainly a lie opened my eyes a little.
As the final point, I will mentioning that the continuation of chattel slavery under Macarthur was devised by our bureaucracy, which largely remained in place. The reason was to maintain a supply of whores from the undercastes to cater to the US forces. Wouldn’t want a nice girl to be involved.
Our Showa Emperor was a war crim., Macarthur really was the white Shogun, stylish figure, but the US occupation did and does nothing good.
Ha, I forget one thing, the US army was to suppnrting indepence for the Ryukyuu kingdom (Okinawa), which would have been just, it never had direct fealty to feudal Japan. Parts had been invaded.
So, those US army officers were very wise and informed, even if they failed.
Okinawans I meet always are to separatimg themselves by speech amd reference, from main islands of Japan. They almost elected a governor to support those goals (her policies truly miraculous and to be cheap), but the base of voters who are having holiday houses there is now too big, I would suspecting that it was also an outright cheat.
To be honest, there is discrepancy between stories of my relatives living in western Poland and eastern Poland. Those in the west considered Germans to be evil incarnated and were genuinely thankful for the Soviet “liberation” in 1944/45. In contrast, my grandmother from the east, who lived through the Soviet occupation 1939/41 said Germans were brutal, but one knew what to do to minimize the chances of being killed. In contrast, with Soviets in 1939/41, she said people were clueless, because arrests seem to be completely random and not dependent on people’s behavior at all.
Once again, the stories told from people in the western Poland were quite different; also, there is a thing that relatives from the west lived in the cities, while my grandmother from the east lived in a countryside.
Probably that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses
It’s a “controversial” book and probably not be taken seriously (though the Rheinwiesen pow camps seem to have been quite unpleasant).
Personally one issue I’d be really interested in, is the crimes committed by French colonial troops in Italy and south-western Germany. But that really seems to be a taboo issue nowadays.
November 21st, 2015 Fascists Running America Endorse Nazism
America didn’t eliminate the scourge of fascism in WW II. It shifted its headquarters from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/11/21/fascists-running-america-endorse-nazism#more40892
May 8, 2017 We Are at the Mercy of a Corporate Ruling Class
On June 4, 2003, Moyers gave a speech at the “Take Back America” conference. In it, Moyers defined what he considered Karl Rove’s influence on George W. Bush’s administration. Moyers asserted that, from his reading of Rove, the mid-to-late 19th century was to Rove a “cherished period of American history.”
https://youtu.be/pCL5EQQet74
I’m sure it happened Che, but for the most part, the German girls were starving, and would offer up their services for some food to keep their families from starving to death- if the occupying enemies were from the West.
It was a nice way for the dog-face GIs to get some of that German poontang. Something that they otherwise would never have gotten close to in a million years.
But the German girls would have rather died than have a grunting Red Army Bolshevik Mongol orc on top of them. And that I suspect is the underlying theme/motivation of this whole disgusting defense of the notorious sub-human Red Army rapists.
as someone once said, most men go though life in quiet desperation. They pine for things they can never achieve because of their crushing, hopeless mediocrity. They l0ng for girls who would not give them the time of day, and especially Nordic or German types, who’re often blond and beautiful, something from their dreams. But they always get repudiated and scorned, because most men, and especially the betas and omega men out there, (who are legion) simply don’t tweak that hamster, and so they live in bitter frustration and sullen rancor. Eventually hating the world and the object of their scorn; the beautiful (especially blond) girl who rebuffs their ‘charms’ every time.
and it is these frustrated beta and omega men (incels ; ) who become apologists for rape and rapists. They understand you see. They sympathize with the motivation to impose though raw physical strength and violence what these haughty women refuse them. It’s always viscerally disgusting to me to see it laid out and barefaced in all its drooling, boorish envy, but it is what it is.
I am having a third comment. Anyone who has seen it will be touched by the early photo of Solzhenitsyn as a Zek.
The anger and frustation, they are touching one’s heart from the frame.
He was an earlier USSR PoW.
The British later were so compliant, that they sent all capured USRR soidiers back. It is obvious that almost none of those were to find the relative tropical paradise described by Solzhenitzin.
My wife’s (blonde, blue-eyed) Polish mother spent her early childhood in western Ukraine/eastern Poland during the German occupation, before her family were deported to Russia. One of her few memories were of a German soldier who kept giving her candy; according to her parents, he had been homesick and she reminded him of his own daughter.
I want to correcting my USRR to USSR, but it is to take too much time.
What bullshit. Remnant forms of fascism remain in places, I am very grateful for the great education (seriously) that I was granted by the Singaporean form.
” It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest. ”
Alas not to me.
Pity no source is given.
As to the number of German civilians killed by stupid RAF and later USAF bombing, the most stupid Dresden, the number two million is well known.
Zyklon B for killing humans, ineffective, as any expert knows.
Even killing lice took one and a half hour.
Brothels, yes, they are described in diaries of German soldiers.
German POW’s in Russian hands, did they exist ?
Germans fighting on the east fron knew quite well that if they fell into Russian hands they would be killed, often after torture.
Rudel, for example, did anything not to fall into Russian hands, after he had landed behind Russian lines, to help another crew, who had crash landed, could not start, wheels sunk into mud.
The fact that he ran this risk does show, I think, how Germans trusted Russians to follow Geneva Convention, writing this I wonder if the USSR had ever signed these conventions.
As to Russian POW in German hands, yes, many persished.
In the beginning of the war they in large numbers fell into German hands, the resources for giving them food and shelter so far away from Germany simply did not exist.
In any case, as far as I know, Germany never followed USA practice with Japanese: ‘my boys do not take prisoners’.
Okinawa, 7.000 Americans killed, 100.000 Japanese soldiers, and 40.000 Japanese civilians.
Hans-Ulrich Rudel, ´Mein Kriegstagebuch, Aufzeichnungen eines Stukafliegers’, 1983, 2006 Dresden
Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970
On how Russian officers treated Russian soldiers:
V.L. Kondratjev, ‘De schande van Rzjev’, 1997 Amsterdam (Iskupit krovju, Znamka, december 1991)
The translation of schande is ‘shame’.
Mark R. Peattie, ‘Nan’yõ, The Rise and Fall of the Japanese in Micronesia, 1885 – 1945’, Honolulu, 1988, 1992
USA genocide on civilians.
Flame throwers used galore on Japanese:
John Toland, ‘Gods of War’, New York 1985
Then there was Russian propagandist Elja Ehrenburg, who wrote in leaftlets
Tötet, tötet, tötet, kill, kill, kill.
And kill they did
Cajus Bekker, ‘Flucht übers Meer, Ostsee Deutsches Schicksal 1945’, 1964, 1999, Augsburg
“These globalists actually want a pretext for going to war with Russia, so from their perspective they are killing to birds with one stone.”
Why would the globalists who get rich from the masses risk nuclear war, have hundreds of millions of people die or be wounded, and place the entire human species at risk from nuclear fallout?
Seriously, just stop.
Rurik,
Thanks. I must sleep soon.
I think the quote is closer to
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.
from memory, I always try to post from that or experience. Have no recall of who is supposed to have said it, maybe TS Eliot?
Thx for am interesting rebuttal, the land of nod is calling to me now.
No, the current best estimates for the number of people killed by Allied bombing in Germany are somewhere between 300 000 and 400 000 (have forgotten the exact numbers, it’s explained in detail in Richard Overy’s excellent “The bombing war: Europe 1939-1945”). The bombing of Dresden probably killed about 25 000-30 000.
IOW, all you have is childish name calling.
We’re talking about an alleged ‘6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
Let’s get down to business, show us the excavated huge mass graves that are alleged.
Tell us how the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers supposedly worked.
Why do the aerial photos of Auschwitz from the period NOT show what is alleged they should be showing?
The ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
http://codoh.com
No name calling, level playing field debate here:
http://forum.codoh.com
U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:
” The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history.”
Congressional Record, appendix, v.95, sec.14, 6/15/49
The ‘holocaust’ narrative doesn’t hold up to scrutiny so the usual enemies of free speech call for more censorship of the internet.
What a comical load of garbage this is. Everything that happened to Russians during World War 2 was deserved. When Russians chose Communism, they declared war against the human race. It was right and good at the time to kill every single communist and communist sympathizer in Eurasia. And that is still the right policy today. Communists have no right to exist and they should all be rounded up and lawfully and humanely euthanized. \o
It’s useless nowadays for such a small entities like Okinawa to be independent, it would be a toy country. They would be like Scotland in ways it has so much time being together with (and living off from) Japan that independence would value nothing for them at any means. Besides, there’s always the chinese looming on.
So where’s the quotes that say Hitler intended to kill “75% of the Soviet population”.
I’m waiting.
I suppose you mean German actions against illegal, non-uniforned combatants, aka: terrorists.
Non-uniformed combatants were illegal under international law, executions of such occurred by the Allies and Axis powers.
Is that all you have?
As much as reports and numbers appear, it becomes even more clear nobody in WWII is a saint. The germans were brutal in many ways their advances towards the east against slavs. If they would treat POWs and citizens favorably, they would do so only because there would be some benefit behind these actions.
The same for the soviet careless and incompetent strategies and also the counterattack towards germans and german sympathisers, be them former or not. They were also brutal and commited lots of crimes.
Poland was also a dodgy, but small player in all that. Even if they were one of the most offended victims by both parties during the war, they also carry some deaths and war crimes during and after, also promoting some “polish heroes” that commited crimes against germans and slavs.
Japan wanted to mow dow Asia to have it under their command, China being the main victim. But then, chinese soldiers would also cause atrocities not only to japanese, but to their own nationals by pillaging villages and blaming the japanese for that.
America and Great Britain also have their fare share of direct and indirect attrocities in war regions. And the list goes on and on for all countries directly involved in fighting.
WWII was just hell, the most violent war and with the most deaths ever. You can find skeletons in everybody’s closets. And the funny thing is how people, anti-semite or not, complains about the constant reminding of Holocaust and all the hypocritical ad nauseum apologetic strategy to earn respect, but are keen to totally victimize their own countries and buy all negative propaganda towards germans, russians, anyone who has preyed on someone related, expecting their own share of reparations instead of seeking a common ground where bygones are bygones, looking at each other crimes and trying to find a way to forge a relationship that refrains from pitting one against the other in the future.
It’s a shame they didn’t stay on them permanently. A study (I read about this decades ago, so interested readers will have to do their own research here) has shown that during WWII, while Denmark was under meat rationing, the health of the population actually went up.
Your capabilities in word smithing say more about you than you realize. Here is some history going way back when the idea came state side.
Jul 29, 2013 The Origins of the American Public Education System Horace Mann & the Prussian Model of Obedience
In the 1830’s, American Lawmaker Horace Mann visited Prussia and researched its education methodology. He was infatuated with the emperor’s method of eliminating free thought from his subjects and designed an education system for Massachusetts directly based on these concepts. The movement then quickly spread nationally.
https://youtu.be/HZp7eVJNJuw
Russians did not “choose” communism. It was imposed on them by outside forces–the Jewish Bolsheviks, who were ruthless in their imposition of communism on the masses and the abolishing of religion and private property rights (except for themselves)…
Stalin’s purpose was to get all of Europe, make it communist, just in 1948 the USA got the picture, and began help also.
The emperor failded, Bismarck hated opposition and criticism
Emil Ludwig, ‘Bismarck, Geschichte eines Kämpfers’, Berlin 1927
There hardly was any rationing in Denmark, Von Ribbentrop is said to have daily sent a plane there for food.
Stalin dropped communist agents by parachute behind the German lines, to indoctrinate Russians and organise resistance.
Are escaped lunatics allowed to write here ?
As usual with your kind, you think that it’s fine if Germans bomb the civilians in Poland, USSR, Serbia, but it’s a damn crime if those subhumans dare to do the same to Germans?
It says an awful lot for Ron Unz and his moderators that your comment was allowed to be made public. It’s certainly “hate speech”, which I feel (as Unz obviously does) should be Constitutionally protected. You have the right to your opinion.
I don’t quite know where to start with a critique; I am actually rather shocked by your words. Every single sentence is either factually false or morally repugnant. I especially jumped at this one: “When Russians chose Communism, they declared war against the human race.” There have been historical questions raised as to whether the “Russians chose Communism”; many think, rather, that the “October Revolution” is better described as a coup d’etat carried out by a minority with the help of certain outside forces. (Please note that I have not placed dog-whistle diacritical marks around either “a minority” or “outside forces”; the Germans would certainly be among the latter.)
Actually I did already discuss on unz.com and elsewhere, I have quoted links showing new mass graves found here and there after WW2, this grave holding 100 bodies, this 200 bodies… I have shown the photos of the mass graves near the concentration camps, testimonies etc. Nothing changed even a slight bit in the denier’s narrative. So I guess I won’t discuss with you, because I know from experience that you most likely don’t care about the evidence.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16657363
Indeed, when one, after reading
Christopher R. Browning, ‘Ordinary Men, Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland’, 1992, 2001, London
finds out how the confessions, on which the whole story is based, were obtained, one does hardly believe one sentence in the book..
The same for the confession of the Auschwitz commander about the gas chambers he ‘do it yourself’ built.
Next to the professional crematoria.
A joke ?
Nicholas Bethel, ´Das letzte Geheimnis, Die Auslieferung russischer Fluchtlinge an die Sovjets durch die Allierten 1944-47’, 1975 Frankfurt am Main, ( The last secret. Forcible repatriation to Russia 1944-7, London, 1974)
Those that had fought on the German side against Stalin, to a certain death.
Indeed, numbers are going down all the time.
I can recommend reading
Victor Klemperer, ‘I will bear witness, A diary of the Nazi years, 1942-1945’, New York 1999
This jew was never deported, wusste nicht, and describes, as he and his wife survived, the Dresden bombing.
Heinz Leiwig, ´Deutschland Stunde Null, Historische Luftaufnahmen 1945’, Stuttgart 2005
1945 air photographs of a devastated country.
Or
Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970
Just after the capitulation het travelled though most of Germany, you can also find there the rape stories, by USA soldiers too, how hospitals got so many cases that they refused to treat rape victims, and how German POW’s were left to die in Eisenhower’s camps.
What do you mean, occupation troops after WWI, during the occupation of the Ruhr area in 1924 or so, or the occupation after WWII ?
” But the German girls would have rather died than have a grunting Red Army Bolshevik Mongol orc on top of them. ”
If this had been the case then German hospitals would not have been forced to stop treating rape victims.
Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008
Hitler knew quite well that Stalin would attack Germany
I know of Klemperer’s diary…it’s not relevant to the question of how many were killed in Dresden. I actually regard what the RAF did in late 1944/early 1945 as absolutely excessive. But numbers of several hundred thousand killed in Dresden aren’t credible.
With Pentagon knowledge McArthur and associates were bribed by the president of the Philippines for enormous sums.
John Toland, ‘Gods of War’, New York 1985
Table Talk is considered to be a complete fabrication.
Pure propaganda.
Table Talk is considered to be a complete fabrication.
this has been the policy of the allies and the mantra that I have marinated in the US since even before I was born, and certainly has only reached a crescendo today to the point of snuff porn on the big screen
and all I did was substitute Russian with German and Communist with Nazi.
yet I hear almost zero condemnation for the hatred and vituperation heaped upon the German people every day by Hollywood and academia and assorted commie sympathizers even here at Unz, right here on this thread!
If hatred of Nazis is to be tolerated, then equal hatred towards the original murderous, genocidal scumfucks; the Bolsheviks- certainly must be lauded and indeed, applauded.
The Eisenhower De Gaulle murder of about a million German POW’s by starvation:
James Bacque, ´Der geplante Tod, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in amerikanischen und französischen Lagern 1945 – 1946, Frankfurt/M, 1989, 1994 (Other losses, Toronto, 1989)
Confirmation:
Paul Bonnecarrère, ´Par le sang versé, La Legion étrangère en Indochine’ , Paris, 1968, 2006
and
Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970
whatever. The Germans were only too helpful in creating the Soviet regime in the first place. Granted it made perfect sense at the time, but it was their own chickens coming home to roost. I mean when you help put in a regime calling for worldwide revolution…
Karlin: “(compared to 15% of German POWs in the half-starved USSR, and low single digit figures for Allied POWs in Nazi Germany).”
False. About one third of the German POWs died in Soviet captivity.
How many out of those 90.000 Germans captured in the battle of Stalingrad ever came home? Less than 6.000.
The majority of German pows were taken towards the end of the war, had the bulk of them, as it happened to Soviet pows, been taken early in the war, mortality woulda been even worse.
Why don’t you enlighten us as to how the Stalinist regime had a BIG HAND in the deaths of so many of their own pows? Not only during the war, but after too, when the pows were sent back to good uncle Stalin.
“A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year — June 1941-June 1942 — when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin. …
Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:
Full article – Stalin’s War Against His Own Troops
The Tragic Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War in German Captivity
By Yuri Teplyakov
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html
yeah, that’s also BS. My German girlfriend from years ago told me that in the movies Germans are always bad.
all that’s missing from this thread are the Russia-philes chest-bumping over how many orc babies were born to terrorized and traumatized German girls, who considered abortion (and suicide) a mortal sin.
I’ve actually ‘seen’ (read) ultra-nationalist Russians bragging about that. As if violent rape at the threat of murder was something to boast about.
But then that all goes to my original point that for some men; rape (of especially German girls) is completely understandable and even laudable. In this, our Russia-philes find comradeship with the American and S. African Negro and Swedish Arab.
maybe the sex dolls with get realistic enough so that these brothers in spirit will find some less troublesome outlet for their boasting and manliness.
I wrote a few long comments above, where I discussed this statistic, too. Since nobody can be expected to read through that many comments, let me copy the relevant passages, including a paragraph on the German treatment of Soviet prisoners in 1941:
There is the issue of the very small percentage of Germans who survived captivity after being taken prisoner at Stalingrad. The issue is that they were already almost starved and/or frozen to death, and the Soviets initially underestimated the size of the German force caught in the pocket. They had no means of transportation (the trucks were needed elsewhere), so it was very difficult to get the prisoners to the nearest working train stations, usually they did it on foot. Many died already there, and frankly, I cannot see how anything better could be expected of the Soviets. Then the often very long train journey to POW camps followed, and the majority didn’t survive to reach the camps. Again, probably it could’ve been better organized, but realistically, it was very difficult and so unlikely of the Soviets to do so. At the camps, conditions weren’t that bad – as already per above, Germans were valuable workers, and so worth saving, but it was already too late for many.
There were actually similar considerations for the German treatment of Soviet POWs in the encirclement battles. Most Soviet prisoners fell into German hands already exhausted, underfed, thirsty, and even giving them water was difficult to organize. They had to be taken to camps or train stations on foot, in the exhausting heat, with a shortage of personnel to guard them, so it wasn’t exactly easy to care for them. Not that the Germans cared much, but still.
That is, the author tries to use demographic interpolation to prove covert (unfixed in documents) deaths of millions of people.
This approach offers great opportunities to expose covert repression during the demographic transition.
In the future, probably political passions calmed, and it will be possible to find out who is right in the number of victims of hunger .
At this moment, the more likely that Western historians exaggerated the number of victims of famine for political purposes (as they definitely made with the number of victims of Stalin’s terror) and the number of registered deaths gives a correct assessment.
isn’t that what I just said?
Germany has been under military (and psychological) occupation since 1945
any suggestion that they are not born of an evil people who must live with the scourage of their congenital evil for all eternity or at least until they are blended out of existence, is the kosher mantra of the day, and the year, and for posterity…
good itz to see your victims suffer under their netherworldly vengeful OT god of hatred and wrath
and there are lots and lots of wannabe rapists who say ‘hell yea!’
The discussion seems to be hijacked.
Karlin: ‘I would note that there are questions about whether there actually were that many Red Army rapes in Germany’
Sure there are, and it comes from the usual propagandists, since the matter has been more than well established, unlike, say, the holohoax, which you clearly believe in. Also, your claim that there was an organized mass rape campaign by the Germans in the Soviet U. is laughable.
Let’s get something straight. There is NO freedom of inquiry in Russia, those who claim otherwise are lying. The same is pretty much true for the West btw.
British hitorian Antony Beevor addresses several of these points;
By banning my book, Russia is deluding itself about its past
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/05/banning-book-russia-past-holocaust-red-army-antony-beevor
British historian Anthony Beevor on the state of affairs concerning criminalization of free WW2 historical inquiry in modern Russia!
Yes, overrun by crazies.
(1) Not the first time I’m seeing the 42 million figure. The methodology is bad, e.g. extrapolating WW2 casualties based on 1941 fertility levels (which is of course unrealistic since fertility plummets during wartime).
(2) The entire point of his article is illogical:
The Jews lost 1/3 of their global population in WW2. By Bershidsky’s logic, Israel should be the most pacifistic country on the planet.
Well, maybe second to Paraguay.
The topic is education here. Feb 17, 2012 The American Way? Our Connection To Nazi Germany
Don’t let the title fool you. This video is actually about how government-run schooling contributed to the rise of socialism, imperialism and eventually fascism in Germany between the 1890s and 1940s.
https://youtu.be/okPnDZ1Txlo
How is the Russian Army’s appointment with destruction on the mountains of Israel coming along?
The US and GB like to portray themselves as the real heroes and “good guys” of Ww2 with really no public criticism of unflattering facts.
Most of the Russians’ ancestor veterans likely died long before the march to Berlin, anyhow. Are they somehow guilty of those crimes still?
I’m afraid Anatoly’s premise is sound. At least from where I sit. Statistics and probability, both of which use combinatorics, were largely developed to address questions deemed to have unwieldy answers if attempted solely through prose. It can be done, but it would be stupid. And confusing.
The intuitive understanding of “there is a 60% chance of showers tomorrow” is rather straightforward, and does not require the lengthy and redundant “Based on the sample of data analysed, the hypothesis that the outcome tomorrow of a large set of simulations, given current conditions and parameters, are likely 6 times out of 10 on the average to be wet than not” . And no one brings 0.6 of an umbrella to deal with the probability!
One could even write an entire essay on the chance of rainfall tomorrow and craft a species of odyssey, replete with images of rainy days from the past heralded by a swarm of sparrows. Is that the proposal?
Individual events do not have mathematical probabilities? Of course, they do. Which is the very reason to call them ‘probable’. They may not be driven by a deterministic system of equations as in Physics (even there, many phenomena are only observed in the statistical sense), but they are estimated through the use of statistics.
The entire comical history of economics since Fisher and Keynes turned it from a wissenschaft into a pseudoscience is an illustration of this.
Implicit in that sweeping statement is that you are in possession of economic truth. You’ve probably (excuse the word) not read Keynes, at least not seriously. Read The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, How to Organise a Wave of Prosperity, National Self-Sufficiency, Proposals for An International Currency Union, Proposals for the Reconstruction of Europe, Reparations and Inter-Allied Debt, Social Consequences of Changes in the Value of Money, etc, and tell me if you honestly think the man was writing without the deep wisdom which can only come from a systematic pursuit of knowledge or wissenschaft. I’ve read all of them and continue to refer and re-read for there is so much to understand and it never fails to impress me, how even more relevant it is today than at any other time. You will come away with a very different understanding than the all too common frivolity directed at Keynes by the obviously cloddish liquidationists of failed yesteryears, as also those of today’s.
You will need to square that with hundreds of civilians in former Soviet republics who said the Nazis shot babies and the elderly, some of whom couldn’t even walk to trenches to be shot because they were so old. Those are “terrorists”?
I think that that’s more you opinion. It had well known publishers in various languages and the English version had an introduction by Hugh Trevor-Roper who certainly saw it as genuine. It seems entirely likely that Borman took down Hitler’s monologues for posterity while he was delivering them.
But I can understand why a lot of people don’t like it.
Hitler on his Dutch and Flemish Troops: (241) “…. we have the magnificent conduct of the Flemish on the Eastern front. The Flamands have indeed shown themselves on the Eastern front to be more pro-German and more ruthless than the Dutch legionaries.
Further, we know from criminology that if you hate ten rapes in a town, it’s more likely you have one repeat offender as opposed to ten one-off rapists. So even if 2 million rapes occurred, it does not translate to 2 million rapists.
So for any individual veteran, the likelihood they were a rapist is low.
Well, yes, when I wrote, “Leaving aside the ideological nonsense not worthy of discussion”, that’s what I meant. I was just interested in the statistical claim, and was curious on what data it was based.
Those are Krivosheev’s figures. Rüdiger Overmans posits as many as a third, since he suspects that some Wehrmacht MIA were in fact POWs, but says that’s the high end estimate.
In any case – certainly lower than 2/3.
I remember reading claims that the overall mortality of the British people in WW1 and WW2 was actually much lower than peacetime in spite of combat deaths, due to better health from meat and sugar rationing.
Okay, I’m too lazy to clean up this thread, but I’ve banned Old Ez, Wally, and Rurik for negative value added comments.
Please be advised that there are many other places on the internet where you can discuss the holohoax and your various genocidal fantasies.
I am not banning L.K. since he has a history of normal commenting on this blog, but do count this as a warning.
I guess a MIA will usually turn out to be either a KIA or a POW in reality. Of course I can imagine other scenarios, but my bet is that in most cases of MIA it is in fact one of these two.
MIA is a category that only exists because military high commands are not omniscient about the fates of their troops.
But there’s no way for discerning what proportion of MIA would in reality be KIA or POWs. And the distinction is probably not very meaningful here anyway; if I understand correctly, people like Overmans argue, it’s possible Germans captured by the Soviets died/were killed shortly after their capture, so they were never registered as pows in the Soviet records. It seems unlikely there can ever be any certainty about this.
Could you provide some link or links that support what you are saying? It’s not determinant or anything but I did a quick google search: https://www.google.es/search?q=German+atrocity+ww2+mass+grave+found+Poland
Most of what comes up is not mass graves resulting from atrocities committed by Germans.
In any case, in terms of the numbers being bandied about about how many millions of people the Nazis murdered, the vast majority of it allegedly happened in gas chambers. I’m pretty certain my point stands on that. There is simply no forensic evidence of anybody being gassed to death.
That’s idiotic, have you never heard of Babi Yar and the like? You denialists are so silly with your fixation on gas chambers…even if you could somehow explain them away (which you can’t), you have no argument about the million or so Jews shot by the Einsatzgruppen in 1941. Or for that matter, about the villages destroyed by the Germans in Belarus or the civilians killed in Warsaw in 1944.
And perhaps also rationing of alcohol.
It is not my opinion, I have the book, accepted it as truth.
Forgot where is was debunked.
Well known publishers etc. alas means nothing, I discovered.
The arbiter of truth in history is consistency, very difficult to lie consistently, impossible to control all publications.
So it is widely doubted if Hess knew the Scottish count where he intended to land in the dark at a runway with lights.
Hess met the count at the Olympic games in 1936:
Robert Rhodes James, ‘CHIPS, The Diaries of Sir Henry Channon’, London 1967
The Einsatzgruppen, weird that the super secret activities of these murderers were recorded and distributed in 100 copies.
Babi Jar, those that visited the site were unable to comprehend how what is supposed to have happened there could have happened there.
You must know about the horrors the USA liberators discovered in Bergen Belsen.
That these horrors were caused by allied warfare, no transport possible from early januari 1945 on, is explained by jew Gould in
Wim Kayzer, ‘Een Schitterend Ongeluk, Wim Kayzer ontmoet Oliver Sacks, Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Toulmin, Daniel C. Dennett, Rupert Sheldrake en Freeman Dyson’, 1993 Amsterdam
Belsen was liberated by the British. And no one has ever claimed that Belsen was a death camp like Treblinka or Sobibor, so it’s irrelevant to the question of genocide by gas chambers.
J.K.Zawodny, ‘Nothing but honour, The Story of the Warsaw Uprising, 1944’, London 1978
Indeed, great story, Stalin refused the allies to do anything, Roosevelt and Churchill accepted.
All three in all probability were happy that non communist leaders died.
Israel Shahak, ‘Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Weight of Three Thousand Years’, 1994, 2002, London, Sobibor survivor, weird, how many survived death camps, whatever they are supposed to have been.
Auschwitz, for example, was a big industrial center:
Neufeld and Berenbaum, editors ‘The bombing of Auschwitz’, 2000, New York
From 1941 there is some anecdotal evidence that the Soviets at least occasionally killed captive German soldiers in fantastically horrible ways, like torturing and mutilating them until they died. There must have been many more cases of simply shooting surrendering Germans, especially when the Soviets were in strategic retreat and more often than not had to flee after taking captives. How often is difficult to say, the Germans at the time (i.e. during the war, up until 1945) certainly believed it to be widespread.
Later on, when the Germans were in strategic retreat, they rarely found such corpses of German soldiers, since they rarely captured recently abandoned Soviet positions. Moreover, I suspect that such killings were more frequent when the troops were on the move, i.e. either when they were fleeing (1941) or when they were attacking and the Germans were fleeing (1943-45), and I guess most MIA were lost when the German front was collapsing. Overmans probably thinks that the Soviets killed a very large number of Germans surrendering during Soviet offensives when they didn’t want to stop to look after prisoners and instead wanted to go on. The area was later controlled by the Soviets anyway and so nobody could find it out on the German side.
None of this changes the fact that German forces killed more than 200 000 civilians in Warsaw and reduced the city to rubble.
I also don’t quite see why Churchill at least should have been happy about anti-communists being crushed in Poland, after all the British did fight the communists in Greece. And the western air forces did try to support the Warsaw rising with weapons drops etc.
I knew a man who served on a German destroy during WWII. His sister, who lived in Berlin, was gang-raped by several Red Army soldiers, causing her life-long emotional instability. One can never justify such an atrocity. On the other hand, this sort of thing is not without historical precedence(cf-the Punic Wars and the punishment meted out to Carthage by Rome).
Unfortunately, when one considers the suffering that was inflicted upon the Russians by the Wehrmacht this only serves as yet another example of the old saying “What goes around, comes around.”
Where is freedom of inquiry, or even of expression ?
In France, Netherland and Germany the six million gas chamber story is prescribed by law.
In Germany and France the Armenian genocide is prescribed by law.
In Turkey assserting the Armenian genocide is forbidden by law.
Just try to quote from
Kai S. Schreyber (Hrsg.), ´Warum wir ADOLF HITLER wählten, Jungwähler von 1933/38 berichten’, 2001 Kiel
where Germans still living in the 80ties, who voted for Hitler, see 1938 as the happiest year in their lives.
Beevor is a fool of a historian, his calculations for the rapes comes from a simple, small sample from a hospital in Berlin that considered all babies born from russian fathers as product of rape. Then he used this same sample on all soviet controlled areas for all alleged ages that were attacked by soviet soldiers, from children to elderly woman. The result was the 2 million number.
And despite people like Ilya Ehrenburg or others like him goading soldier to go killing germans unhingedly, their words weren’t the rule to follow or some encouragement getting into soviet soldiers. There are also reports of rapes in soviet controlled areas where rapists were denounced and executed, even in the alleged period Stalin “allowed” those rapes. There aren’t concise reports proving he gave the permission to overlook rape (although it doesn’t mean he would care if some officers didn’t take action on rape charges by german women).
.
Rapes did happen, but not in the numbers Beevor defended. He plays the same exaggerated agenda over soviet issues as people like Suvorov or Solzhenitsyn. And also seems to defend the same apologetic agenda people denounces Holocaust for, but at the same time use it to victimize their own countries and relatives, using any measures to demand others to pay reparations or prostrate in shame (without looking their own crimes back in the war).
I have no doubt that this did happen quite often. I remember seeing a BBC documentary about the Eastern front from the late 1990s, and they interviewed some elderly Russian woman who had been with the NKVD during the war. She spoke quite openly about how her unit tortured captured Wehrmacht soldiers for information and then shot them.
Seems impossible to quantify this though.
Anecdotal
Janusz Piekalkiewicz, ‘Die alte Tante und der Storch, Bildreport Ju 52 und Fi 156’, Stuttgart 2006
The horrors of Germans shot down near or over Russian lines, in the reconnaisance plane nicknamed Storch, seem very real.
Really horrible is
Alfred M. de Zayas, ´Die Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle, Dokumentation allierter Kriegsverbrechen im Zweiten Weltkrieg’ , 1979, 2001, München
Zayas was a UN human rights expert.
And how does one square that with the many Hiwis, Hilfs Willige, Russian civilians cooperating with the German troops ?
Hilfs Willige, willing to help.
For a detailed description on how the Red Armies tried to kill as many civilian refugees as possible:
Cajus Bekker, ‘Flucht übers Meer, Ostsee Deutsches Schicksal 1945’, 1964, 1999, Augsburg
“the average of all possible timelines”
In all my years I have never seen a more bogus assumption created out of whole cloth for any argument, anywhere.
What utter rubbish. Worse yet, using this to attempt some mathematics supporting a relativistic moralism between atrocities is the height of hubris.
Pure sophistry.
A pox on your house and your children. Fie! Away with you.
Still too many crazies.
I personally think that such atrocities are part of the human condition. Which is why it’s always best to avoid wars altogether, whenever possible.
These crimes are understandable, but they are still crimes. The perpetrators are all dead or will be dead very soon, no reason to re-litigate history, except it’s best to find out the facts, wherever possible, to form the best understanding of what happened.
Hitler may have thought the Russians inferior, and been worse than Stalin, but the Germans were better than the Russians in Stalin’s opinion–he was entranced by German technology and enthused over a German coffee machine he had acquired. Stalin wanted Germans alive to teach Russians work discipline–how to be as effective as Germans. At the close of the war, German men expected to be taken East.
My impression from a number of accounts of females of all ages who were there at the time is that German females were raped and then routinely murdered by Soviet soldiers, and rape went with murder to a greater extent than you admit. Killing them was never policy, but weren’t Soviet soldiers at one point issued official encouragement (in their paybooks I think) to rape German women?
A strange country where the government could openly issue such pronouncements, but it had a history for the Soviets, as in constant rape of ” former persons” by Russian “class ally” criminals (Urkas) in the Gulag camps, which were apparently a deliberate tool of policy.
Russian rape is 500% more inhumane than German rape. Thus why the difference in attention.
It’s like how when a migrant rapes a European, it’s a lot worse than your average everyday local rape by several degrees.
There are multiplication modifiers depending on who is raping what.
Rape 101 my friend (or the politically correct Surprise Sex 101)
It’s interesting that this is the Russian perspective, because it’s a perfect mirror to our perspective, whereby our nuclear weapons were the only thing keeping the Red hordes (considering potential Warsaw pact numerical superiority) from sweeping to the Rhine and precipitating a communist take-over of Western Europe, hence our support and training of “stay-behind” anticommunist guerillas all over NATO.
I guess Russians looked at our bombing of Japan as evidence of our will to go to the extreme, while we thought our not threatening anyone with nuclear destruction between ’45 and ’49 should have demonstrated to the world our lack of aggressive intentions. But, after all, Truman was in power then and not so unsympathetic to the communists as later Presidents would be.
I totally agree with that…that’s something that bothers me about large parts of the US public, they have a very sanitized view of war, with their troops always being spotless, incorruptible heroes. Things are very different in reality, people who would be totally harmless in civil life become used to violence and give in to a desire for retaliation and vengeance when their comrades are killed etc. I have no illusions about myself in this regard, I’m certain that under the right circumstances I’d be fine with torturing and killing enemies, even feel good about it. If I had been a Red army soldier in Berlin in 1945, I might well have done some raping as well. So preventing situations where such an escalation of violence is bound to happen, is above all a political question. Political and media elites who talk about war as if it could ever be some clean, morally unproblematic business are acting irresponsibly.
Also agree, there’s little point to re-litigating history, it’s tiresome and hardly illuminating.
Is there really any evidence for this? It’s often claimed that Ilya Ehrenburg did something like this (“break the pride of the German woman”), but at least in regard to him it seems to be totally a post-war myth, dating back to 1950s West Germany and anti-communist propaganda. Ehrenburg certainly denied ever having made such statements and no evidence to the contrary seems to exist.
Is it actually possible that there still aren’t any good academic studies about this subject?
It’s idiots like you who drive the EU Superstate Agenda.
Trevor-Roper’s authority on that sort of thing is somewhat suspect, he made a heck of a floater on the “Hitler Diaries”: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/jan/27/guardianobituaries.booksobituaries and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Diaries .
I have no opinion on Table-Talk; five minutes casual search seems to show a quorum of historians thinks them genuine, though there are some doubts both of their authenticity and of their relevance (the latter voiced by Speer, according to wiki).
“We did what we did”
Don’t you see, you continue doing it, you vile evil basterds!!
“in the hope that we will learn never to fight each other again.”
Yes, the only thing which matters is you spit not fight each other (meaning whites) again. Never-mind spreading death, destruction, suffering, and instigating “fights” among others, most preferably non-whites.
Yes, you have learnt your lesson quite well.
Ah, if only I could get to see scum like you kicking and screaming at the gates of hell. What a sight it will be to behold.
Sorry but this is a bit too simplistic a dismissal of (Wally’s point of) Suvorov’s thesis that the Russians were preparing an attack on Germany once Germany would be bogged down in the west.
I understand why this might be a thesis supported by a nazi apologist but not why that would constitute a requirement for accepting it. Suvorov’s point is about Stalin’s machinations more than about Hitler’s, and his thesis is completely consistent with Stalin’s criminal personality. As a matter of fact, anyone claiming Stalin wasn’t trying to attack Germany would rather have to explain this glaring inconsistency between his distrust of everyone and his complete trust in Hitler.
And while you’re at it, why not provide some of these famous eastern front references; hopefully they’re not written by Soviet sycophants east or west.
Also agree, there’s little point to re-litigating history, it’s tiresome and hardly illuminating.
I don’t think this is incorrect, we need to go over the facts time and again.
I find threads like this illuminating and you put quite a bit of time into the effort so that counts for something.
I agree with you about the US public, but I think that what you say applies to most nations and groups.
I think that many of the commenters here are exceptions to the rules, but maybe I flatter myself.
Chill down, dude. Why is there so much craziness here today? It’s unusually high.
What an asshole reaction to a reasonable comment. Also really annoying how many people are now commenting here as “Anonymous”, is it really too much asked that you choose some name and stick to it?
I suppose WW2 topics will always be like that. It’s apparently still a very raw and emotional subject for many people. And it attracts all the Holocaust deniers and other freaks.
This is an unhinged, cruel math that serves no purpose.
Yes, to some extent it’s just human nature…but I have to say I find US perceptions about war quite dangerous. The US may be the only country where the 2nd world war is unequivocally seen as a total success story, whereas for pretty much everyone else involved it was a disaster (even the British lost their empire, being humiliated by the Japanese in Southeast Asia, and became a 2nd rate power because of the war, with food rationing lasting into the 1950s). Russia of course has a WW2 victory cult as well, but my impression is that there it’s tempered by memory of the immense human sacrifices required for victory. The US also lacks the experience of WW1 as a total catastrophe where the rush to war in 1914 didn’t solve anything, but destroyed the old world and created the preconditions for even greater horrors. So you have all those mediocre intellects in US media and politics always going on about “Munich”, totally neglecting other, maybe more relevant parts of the 20th century (like the July crisis – or indeed the Cuban missile crisis when a generation of statesmen that probably was more responsible than the ones today averted catastrophe). I know that there are many thoughtful Americans who realize this, but sadly their influence seems to be limited.
I have to agree with you there. He got that one wrong. However HTT has such an obsessive evil and in some ways inspired nature, that taken as a whole, I can only see one person originating these monologues.
In Brigitte Hamman’s excellent book “Hitler’s Vienna, The Portrait of a Tyrant as a Young Man” https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Vienna-Portrait-Tyrant-Paperbacks/dp/1848852770/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494625540&sr=8-1&keywords=hitler%27s+vienna he would read mountains of literature and make very long speeches to the bored and confused semi down and outs at the men’s hostal where he lived.
In the final analysis you have to read it and make up your own mind. https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-Talk-1941-1944/dp/1929631669/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
I agree with you. Each commenter needs a handle.
One anon that I exchanged comments with stated that he wanted the comment examined without reference to who made it.
I can see a little merit to what he said, but I like more questions and back and forth.
I have thought about what you said about my commenting style, and while I disagree with your assessment, I keep it in mind.
Going by the number of posts, you guys sure are enjoying this macabre debate 🙂
Indeed, it is all quite amusing to read up on more confirmation of the psychopathy of the white race.
Nothing has changed except that you fellows have learnt that hands-on mass murder of weaker non-white peoples, and/or a divide and war policy, is much more fun. You even get to make a whole lot of bucks selling instruments of death and destruction to everyone.
White skins, black hearts!
For those of you with a conscience, how does it feel to be a minority amongst your own?
Given all this, the bad guys just happen to be __. Defies logic!
Sorry, but I can’t keep focus on the issue. Both Germany & Russia (Germany more, but in Russia things are not that cozy, too) are threatened by invading Asiatic & African swarms- any you waste your energies on past and, from contemporary standpoint, irrelevant issues. Millions of Ethiopians, Arabs, Turks, Chinese, … simply won’t care about your bitter & passe squabble. For them, you all are repulsive YT.
You can’t speak for me, I’ve been to Babi Yar, and what you say is rubbish. Unless you mean that it’s incomprehensible that humans could have done this to other humans.
I think I may have been he; I remember we had an interesting discussion a while back but not the discussion itself. I see your point in reference to long conversations, and I also see that anonymous commenting can encourage annoying “throwaway” type remarks, though you see these from regular commenters too. I initially thought as well that anonymity would prevent the kind of vituperative silliness you get when talking to some people, not so sure about that now.
RSDB
It’s obvious that Stalin would’ve attacked at some point. It’s pretty much mainstream and uncontroversial, see for example Evans. But Suvorov’s thesis goes further than that, he says Stalin wanted to attack in the summer or perhaps fall of 1941, so Hitler preempted him by a few weeks or months. That’s almost surely wrong.
The Montrose Air Station Heritage Centre – the world’s oldest surviving military airfield and the only independent former RAF base- puts the number at 380,000 deaths caused by RAF bombing during WWII, nearly all German Civilians. See http://rafmontrose.org.uk/
Other sources put it higher.
With American and other bombing, 800,000 to 1 million plus seems reasonable.
If you are ever in Scotland, I would advise you to visit Montrose Air Station. It is run by an independent Trust and has a refreshingly honest attitude. It is also very important historically – it was the place where the vast majority of WWI British pilots learned to fly.
iirc Stalin badly miscalculated because he expected the war in the west to be a long, drawn-out affair like WW1 had been (as did pretty much everybody else, who would have expected France to fall in six weeks?). Presumably the plan would have been to wait for an advantageous situation, with both Germany and the western powers weakened, and then intervene. That probably was the rationale behind Molotov-Ribbentropp. Of course it turned out very differently.
I’d also assume some sort of clash between Germany and the Soviet Union would have happened at some point, maybe in 1942, or later. But it’s clear imo that the claim the German attack in June 1941 preempted Soviet plans by days or weeks makes no sense and is false (as apparently even some German soldiers thought at the time, my grandfather mentioned having spoken to one who had seen Soviet trains just beyond the border, with shipments bound for German-occupied Poland as agreed under Molotov-Ribbentropp, and apparently regarded this as an argument against the preemptive strike claim).
What is the philosophical achievement in using moral relativism to justify the conflation of power with authority?
Surely anyone hoping to justify Hitler in terms of anything Stalin did is guilty of a less effective variant of the same thing, and a douchenozzle. But doing whatever you want because you won is the abdication of humanity, it’s behaving like an animal, and animals don’t analyze statistics.
The vast majority of collaborators weren’t Russian, so first be clear on that point. Second, many collaborators did so because they believed the Nazis would grant them independence, which happened in exactly 0% of cases. Most collaborators got wise with time and turned their attention to preparing for the Soviet counterattack, if not actively opposing the Nazis directly.
Typical “joke” from Ukraine:
Q: What did Hitler accomplish in three years that Stalin couldn’t accomplish in thirty?
A: He made Ukrainians desire Soviet rule.
Thanks for the recommendation…I doubt I’ll be visiting Scotland soon, but if I do, I’ll keep it in mind…even though I understand little of the technical details, I find aviation history quite interesting.
380 000 or so is in the range of the numbers cited in Overy’s book (that would also include deaths by US attacks as well however) which I’d highly recommend to anyone interested in WW2 bombing in Europe, it really includes everything (also discusses neglected issues like German bombing in the Soviet Union, or bombing by and against Italy).
Eustace Tilley (not):
There is some evidence that cardiovascular problems decreased in Holland with the population’s near-starvation diets in World War II. But the supporting epidemiological evidence is somewhat uncertain.
The lesson to be taken from this article of A. Karlin:
Germany is the only country that lost a war in which it inflicted larger losses on its enemies while suffering smaller losses at the hands of the victors? And this is because enemies of Germany and subsequent victors, Soviet Union in particular, had higher moral and legal standards and thus scrupulously obeyed all convention how to conduct the war in most humanitarian way. They could kill more Germans but their higher moral standards did not permit them. With one hand tied behind their backs they managed to defeat evil Germany while suffering great losses themselves because justice and possibly God was on their side. Jesus was right: The meek shall inherit the earths. Oh, they already did.
It seems inconceivable that the US with its huge recently ethnic German population would be involved in any such crime. And I can recall being told by an aristocratic German of his benign treatment at Wilton Park where apparently an effort was made to teach young German officers about democracy. True, my father came out of a German POW camp having lost 40 per cent of his pre-war bodyweight but I don’t recall any calls for or references to revenge
Re-“Suvorov.” An email I once wrote in a discussion about this. I might expand it into a post at some point because this nonsense needs to die.
In the meantime, I highly recommend Chris Bellamy’s Absolute War, in particular Chapter 5 (WHO PLANNED TO ATTACK WHOM, AND HOW?) which does away with this myth quite comprehensively.
What I mean is 100 thousand people expelled from eastern Poland to make room for German colonists. Even Hitler knew when war was lost. And yet you still fight it 72 years after capitulation.
“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation”
Famous quote from Walden by the New England essayist
Henry David Thoreau
“german_reader”, aka, typical Nestbeschmutzer,
You know what? The biggest problem with Germany is that it is full of assholes like you.
As a friend from East Germany said, dejected at what Germany has become, if this is it, good riddance!
One will note that no other nationality does what Germans do;
Not even the Japanese are anywhere near as self-loathing as Germans have become prone to.
The Russians even defend their version of ‘history’ with laws and so do the Jews.
Anyway, please do enlighten us and explain why the so called holocaust must be defended in Germany and other countries with fines and prison terms?
Why does the Russian government need laws to shield the ‘great patriotic myth’, er , war, from scrutiny? Why does the Russian government still keep hundreds of thousands of secret files under lock and key, what are they hiding?
“even victims like China where its own soldiers would raze villages and take the opportunity to throw more blame on japanese that were already condemned for their own confirmed mass killings against chinese people.”
Can you substantiate claim?
Was that the Nationalists or the PLA? (Such behavior is totally out of character with the PLA).
Anecdotal evidence??
There is hard evidence , including many forensic studies.
Since day one of Barbarossa, the Soviets executed POWs, including wounded ones.
The murder of German pows did not include only NS party members, officers or Waffen SS personnel, but anyone who got captured. Hungarian, Italian and Rumanian pows were oftentimes executed as well.
Very droll and apt, utu. You’re usually much more heavy handed. You’re much better when you’re satirical . Keep up you the good work !
A whole German division surrendered to my uncle’s batalion in Italy. I seriously doubt such a surrender would occur without knowing the nature of the opponent.
The German-Russian relations on the other hand were aparently horrible. No German wanted to be taken as POW by Russians, which, I guess, meant starvation and a long march through deadly winter cold
Allied bombings killed 68,778 civilians in France. Does this number scales up to the number of killed Germans by bombings. One would think that French civilians unlike German civilians were not the actual targets of the bombings. It would be interesting to compare the number of sorties and the tonnage of bombs dropped on France and Germany during WWII. The reason I bring it up is because I suspect that unlike French politicians and historians (*) German ones have a motive to keep reducing the actual losses. 900,000 might be too low.
During the WWI German authorities were reducing the official tolls for the morale sake and after the war they amplified this process further particularly after the EU project went underway. However still in DDR, when Americans and British were official enemies of Germans, there was more talk about Allied bombings and often in their media they referred to them as terrorist bombings and they did not contest David Irving number of the dead in Dresden (**). After the reunification British and German historian got together and reduced the number fourfold and in press whenever Dresden is talked about nowadays it is mandatory to always mention Coventry providing that the number of killed (568) in Coventry is never uttered. I think Germans and Germany can be refereed to as GIMO (G In Name Only). What a bunch of cucks. Exemplified here by German_reader.
(*) Hilarious Vichy Propaganda: Mickey bombing France
(**) It is interesting that already in 1961, only 16 years after the war, there was a movie about Dresden bombing “Tonight a City Will Die” made in Poland out of all place. The movie gave a very sympathetic and compassionate portrait of German suffering. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054835/ This was possible partly because those who inflicted that suffering were Americans and British and not Soviets. It must be stressed out that British and American bad conscience and German Cuckhood would never let a similar movie to be made in the West.
Ahem, I actually did state that I regard the RAF’s actions at least in late 1944/early 1945 as excessive; there’s no way imo those attacks can be regarded as militarily necessary, and I’m actually annoyed at how they are sometimes commemorated in modern Germany. However there isn’t much point in getting agitated about those long-ago events. Apart from that, you and others here make a fundamental mistake: Just because I acknowledge the crimes committed by Germans during the Nazi era, doesn’t mean I accept the “lessons” (multiculturalism, “antiracism” in the sense of openness to endless, ever-increasing non-European immigration) supposedly drawn from that undeniable historical reality.
And I can assure you I’m not into cuckoldry porn, so please don’t call me a “cuck”.
What is nonsense is what you are peddling, Karlin.
People like you who hate Resun’s work, would like him to have been the only Russian to advance such a thesis. Far from it.
An incomplete list of such Russian historians/researchers:
Besides former Soviet intelligence officer ,Vladimir Bogdanovich Resun(Viktor Suvorow), Russian historian Dr. Mikhail Meltiukhov, V. A. Nevezhin, Colonel V. D. Danilov, Igor Bunich, Boris Sokolov, L.N.Neshinsky, Irina. V. Pavlova, V. L. Doroshenko, M.Solonin, Constantine Pleshakov, Dr.Alexander Pronin, Prof. Dr. Maria Litowskaja, Colonel Kiselev, Dr. Dschangir Nadschafow, faculty director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, etc.
Since the 1990s, many Western/European historians have reached similar conclusions. Americans, such as Prof. Albert Weeks, Richard Raack, John Mosier, R.H.S. Stolfi. German and Austrian historians such as Dr.Joachim Hoffmann, Ernst Topitsch, Ernst Nolte, Dr.Werner Maser, Lothar Rühl, Fritz Becker, Dr.Walter Post, Dr.Max Klüver, Wolfgang Strauss, Heinz Magenheimer, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, French scholars such as Stéphane Courtois, François Furet, Polish Bogdan Musial etc.
As D.W.Michaels wrote:
Since the 1990s, with the partial opening of Soviet archives(closed again), many Russian historians have refined the evidence for Stalin’s agressive aims.
So, if Suvorov’s thesis is so wrong, why is it the Russian government needs a law meting out prison terms in order to protect their version?
Why do they keep hundreds of thousands of secret documents from the era under lock and key?
Well, it is because Suvorov is right and the official version of the so called great patriotic war is a FRAUD.
A cuck I don’t know, but a Nestbeschmutzer on the other hand… that is a given!
Noticed you had no comeback to the simple and logical questions I put to you, other than your idiotic ‘lol’.
You are pathetic.
Eisenhower, who was himself of German descent, said “In my personal reactions, as the months of conflict wore on, I grew constantly more bitter against the Germans.” This was several years after the war, in Crusade in Europe. Most German-Americans were not recent immigrants and I don’t see that their reactions would have been all that different.
Nevertheless the book appears to be very exaggerated. See this review, from whence the Ike quote: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/22/specials/ambrose-atrocities.html .
Here is another book, pub. 2015, by a former high-ranking officer in the former East-German army, Bernd Schwipper, confirming again Suvorov’s thesis is correct.
In his book “Deutschland im Visier Stalins: Der Weg der Roten Armee in den europäischen Krieg und der Aufmarsch der Wehrmacht 1941 – Eine vergleichende Studie anhand russischer Dokumente” (Germany in Stalin’s gunsight) published in 2015, Schwipper shows that in the period between the defeat of Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union in the fall of 1939 and operation Barbarossa the Red Army not only conducted a number of wars of aggression but was also preparing a major offensive against Germany and the rest of Europe that was about to be launched when the German army attacked the SU in late June 1941 .
Schwipper is fluent in Russian and studied the Soviet files in the Russian archives in great detail.
https://www.amazon.de/Deutschland-Visier-Stalins-europ%C3%A4ischen-vergleichende/dp/3806112495
That’s where i’m at too. Where are all these people–any of these people–making some sort of equivalence claim based on these rapes?
The equivalence claim Hilter/Stalin that I hear is always based on Stalin’s overall record including the police state, the induced famines, the Gulag, invasions of other nations and his part in bringing on the War. Most of that record is suffering inflicted on the Russians themselves.
The truth is that most people’s attitude toward the mass rapes is–I think–roughly “Unfortunate, but a lot of really bad shit happened–way worse than this. If you survived the war, count your blessings and move on.” Of course, that’s not to denigrate anyone’s personal experience. If a German woman, or Russian woman hates Russians or Germans because of rape, or a German, Russian, Brit, French, Dutch, Czech, Ukrainian, Balt, Polack, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Malay, Filipino … hates this or that sort of people because of nasty stuff that happened to them or their family, hey I get it. That’s human nature. War is hell.
I don’t think I’ve ever written anything that would indicate I’m in favour of Holocaust deniers being fined or jailed. I’m actually very much against free speech restrictions. However your “logic” (“The Holocaust has become sacralized in western discourse, and people denying it are even punished by law in some countries…that must mean it’s a hoax, upheld only by the threat of punishment!”) isn’t very convincing imo.
First you have to pull the heads of our leadership off of FDR’s lap.
Good luck… it’s been 72 years.
Adi and Joe merit the asterisk more than Roger Maris did. As Derb pointed out on his recent podcast, Lenin is the 20th-century champion, perhaps all-time, when you take into account the number of innings played.
Yes, in wars men get killed and women get raped. This
has been going on for thousands of years. Nothing new
here, except the level of atrocities. The point is how to
prevent it in the future.
I want to recommend two books by the Austrian economist
Leopold Kohr who is famous for the adage, “Size is the root
of all evil.”
(1) The overdeveloped nations – The diseconomies of scale
(2) The Breakdown of nations
Even reading the list of his “Kohr Principles” is enlightening
as well as amusing. Basically, the point is that it’s well-established
that the optimal population size for a country is 10-15 million
people. Anything beyond this number will cause countries to become less
well governed. Hence nations like Switzerland or Czechia should be
applauded for being small (and Czechia voluntarily became
smaller! That took guts). Conversely it’s obvious to any American
that due to its population explosion the U.S. is on the verge of
becoming ungovernable (by democratic means). Hence using
Kohr’s model, it is large countries that are a danger to their own
populations (since they tend to devolve into oligarchies) and to the
world. Empires and colonies are a 19th-century meme and should be
consigned to the dustbin of history. Individuals from large countries
often grate on one’s nerves because they tend to suffer from delusions
of grandeur. This is probably a task for the 22nd century but very large
countries are large because they are holding on to their ill-gotten gains.
Britain, France, and Germany, to their credit, relinquished their
massive overseas empires. But the U.S. is still holding on to Alaska,
Hawaii, Samoa, etc. Russia – holding on to its colonies like Siberia and
Kaliningrad Oblast’ . Han Chinese cling to their ill-gotten gains like Tibet,
and some provinces in China. I’m not optimistic about the pace of progress
in this area but we’ll have no choice – we’ll be forced to become more humble
by the environmental disaster we’re inflicting on our planet (e.g., China
overfishing the oceans). The meek shall indeed inherit the earth
Not to mention what the black “American” troops did, like the dad of Emmet Till (whose execution was notable enough to be noted by Ezra Pound who was in the same military prison).
And a lot of the rapists eager to jump on German girls were – guess who – blacks.
I believe that “diseconomies of scale” bear a certain resemblance to Heidegger’s explanation for the horrors of WWII. The managerial techniques developed for running huge industrial economies were applied to warcraft, resulting in a psychological dislocation between actions and their effects.
Was told by an old Townsville Qld. resident, that during the American occupation from 1942- 1944, he never saw a Black American soldier armed with a weapon.
Rakes, shovels, mattocks was all they were allowed.
The entire narrative of the Second World War is bulls—t. The idea that the German Army would behave in a relatively exemplary fashion in, say, France, and transform into a band of raping and murdering fanatics in the Soviet Union is quite a fanciful one.
There is overwhelming evidence that Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike against gigantic, superior forces staging for an invasion of Europe on the western frontiers of the Soviet Union in the spring/summer of 1941. And it is important to include that it was a desperate strike against all odds, not a well crafted Hitlerian plan to conquer “lebensraum” or any other discredited fable. The Wehrmacht was not at all prepared for a sustained war of attrition- and much less a winter war against the Soviet Union- and Hitler knew this (as he candidly admitted to Marshal Mannerheim in the surreptitious audio recordings made in the rail carriage). But he also knew that had the Soviet Army overrun the Romanian oil fields (and the largest and most powerful army in the world- the Soviet 9th Rifle Corps- was perched on the Romanian border in June of 1941) that Germany- and Europe- would have been finished in a few weeks.
There is no doubt that fighting on the Eastern Front was vicious and barbaric, unimaginable for those involved in the relatively civilized warfare on the Western Front (at least until the RAF began the deliberate terror bombing of civilian targets).
However, as a narrative, the “Great Patriotic War” is more credible – and palpable – than the “GI Joe saved the world” narrative, if only because the Red Army essentially won the ground war against Germany. The Anglo-American invasions of Italy and Normandy, along with the dash across France were all ancillary to the gigantic Soviet offensives. Whether the outcome of the war was a desirable one or not is another matter.
It’s well known that the USSR didn’t sign the Geneva Convention. It was used as to legitimize ill treatment in the Russenlagers such as refusing to allow the Red Cross to give Russian POWs care packages with food.
American POWs housed nearby reported the difference in conditions and sometimes tried to throw food over the fence.
I’ll accept that the Germans had many more Soviet POWs than they knew what to do with at first. And food was hard to come by at times. But there were clearly some circumstances in which Russian POWs were denied basic needs unnecessarily.
The book “the taste of war” Collinghan details these issues and argues Hitler invaded the Soviet Union to alleviate and prevent food shortages above all other reasons. Not sure how correct that is but food supply was a big problem. Most Soviet troops had forage for their meals because the Red Army could not always provide their rations.
As best I understand, the court historians have, over recent years, increasingly emphasized the importance of the Einsatzgruppen activities, due to increasing doubts about the gas chamber side of the story. There is even talk of the “Holocaust by bullets” in order to de-emphasize the holy gas chamber.
However, there does not seem to be forensic evidence that corresponds to the scale of killing by shootings that is claimed.
This is a problem, but there is a way round it. Special Operation #1005. The current state of the narrative is that the SS revisited all the killing sites and dug up the bodies and disposed of them — while the Wehrmacht was retreating back towards Germany. A rearguard action. This is called Sonderaktion 1005, Special Operation #1005.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderaktion_1005
I would encourage anybody to read the above and realize that this is currently a part of the canonical Holocaust Establishment narrative. Read that. Do you seriously believe that this happened?
Wow! My feelings and thoughts I haven’t articulated yet. Thanks for bringing up Leopold Kohr.
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth – Yes, if there is anything left after the Godzillas (USA, Russia, China, India) are done with it.
I wonder what would Leopold Kohr say about Israel? Small? Big? Dangerous to other countries and earth?
You’re right, this is utterly laughable. Even the wikipedia article reads like a bad cartoon. “Bone crushing machines,” “secret photographs” of supposedly disinterred (but non-rotten, non-emaciated) corpses, and the very supposition that Hitler, by the narrative’s lights a monster of unimaginable cruelty, would even give a flying fig about hiding the evidence of his massacres while he was fighting a desperate retreat on the Eastern front—no rational person can take this seriously.
argues Hitler invaded the Soviet Union to alleviate and prevent food shortages above all other reasons.
Nonsense. Germany had all occupied Europe working for them. There was food rationing since 1939 but the amount available were very comfortable. It was going down the hill later but not before the attack on Russia.
I actually did state that I regard the RAF’s actions at least in late 1944/early 1945 as excessive
Do you think that RAF actions in 1940 during the Battle of Britain when were excessive/justified? I mean this one:
It took Hitler 13 days to respond to Churchill’s provocations. So you see before London Blitz there was Berlin Blitz. A very successful operation that made Hitler to change tactics from the one that was winning him the Battle of Britain to the one that lost it for Germany.
It was the British who started intentionally bombing civilians first. And don’t tell me about Warsaw 1939 and Rotterdam 1949 (And Wielun 1939 probably was a mistake.).These were the front cites thus bombing them was justified and not a war crime. The defenders were responsible for the outcome.
I have heard from two lefty voices, an academic friend and a black activist on the radio, about how gratuitous Holocaust educational units crowd school programs at too young an age and to the exclusion of essentials like our own civil war. The speakers here are not what you would call deniers.
Right now Jewish philanthropy has such a glut of unearned money that there are actually articles and discussions on what should be done with it — and nobody is ever going to say “no” to one more Holocaust lecture, presentation, or museum.
But by all means, name for me one other historical event where the discussion of it will get you jailed amid international mass media condemnation and the loss of all your respectable friends.
It’s not like they let us have our own memorials. PR chainsawed a monument to Christian victims of the Gulag, topless, like the executions in Alphaville that confound moral outrage with cheap media titillation, and were either undiscussed or celebrated in the West. KMFDM made it an album cover. Warren Beatty’s “Reds” criticized revolutionary leaders for not being tough enough on Christians. In the Trumpening a major undiscussed issue was the massive spike in racist anti-white violence, which is either terrifying and real or nothing to see here, depending where you get your news. Besides the fact that these hucksters are thoroughly debunked laughable con artists depending on totalitarianism, they have meanwhile created a situation that guarantees their defeat. People will publicly pretend to support them to appear respectable but, in the face of media-censored violence, will quietly and permanently convert.
For once I must agree with you. Dubious is also the so-called Generalplan Ost.
David Irving believes they are genuine:
If I may follow up on my previous post, my conclusion
is that war is essentially boring. It’s been tried so many
times with the same predictably distressing results that
hopefully humanity is now outgrowing war, and leaving
it behind the way adults outgrow adolescence.
I’d venture to say that the exploration of outer space is
also increasingly seen as boring. The Moon or Mars are
about as interesting as the Sahara desert. Sure, lower
gravity can be fun for awhile but that’s about it. Science
fiction which in the 1950s was mostly about the excitement
of exploration has by now devolved into fantasy. No ETs on
the horizon! Plummeting enrollments in physics in the developed
world show that unlike 100 years ago people no longer find
the physical Universe very interesting. And, indeed, the Large
Hadron Collider hasn’t found any extra dimensions or anything
really new (the Higgs wasn’t new). Moreover, bases on the Moon
or Mars are extremely expensive to build and maintain. At least
in the U.S., we need to spend huge amounts of money to counteract
entropy (and wars are basically giant entropy generating machines).
The infrastructure is decaying before our very eyes.
So what’s left? I think we’re seeing a quantum leap in human
consciousness that started in the 1960s-70s. The exploration of inner
space is now seen as more interesting than the exploration of outer space.
More people are exploring higher states of consciousness, Kundalini
awakening, and the process of enlightenment itself. Psychedelics are
coming back via microdosing techniques to minimize the chance of
“bad trips,” etc. IMHO that’s where the future lies
So a couple books out of thousands of WW2 books (some of which are scholarly) prove that Operation Barbossa was a defensive war? Well gosh you’ve figured it all out
The Katyn massacre? 4500 Polish service personnel, officers and soldiers. The established fact.
Meddling in elections,”France being the latest example”?. Says it all of where you coming from.
Göring in 1939 scrapped the prototype of a German four engined long distance bomber.
The Luftwaffe was supposed to just support the army, the Stuka.
Britain from 1937 on, maybe even earlier, began developing long range bombers.
The theory that by bombing the enemy in his own country one could force him to capitulation.
The strategy completely failed.
The official post WWII study in GB on the effects of the bombing came to the conclusion that the damage to Germany was equal to the damage to GB itself.
The art of war, economically seen, is, with little cost to yourself cause much cost to the enemy.
The RAF scientific bombing expert, Zuckermann, is of the opinion that the damage caused by British bombing to GB itself greatly exceeded the damage inflicted on Germany.
Solly Zuckermann, ‘From Apes to Warlords, an autobiography, 1904- 46’, London 1988
Official records in Russian archives.
Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008
On top of that, the Russian army that was to attack Germany just three weeks after Hitler attacked Russsia, was still in the preparatory stage, this to a large extent explains the early German successes.
Troops were still in transit, staffs separated from the troops, weapons and munitions no yet in the right places, the planning of transport on most single line Russian railways was a disaster.
Also, to their surprise, the advancing German troops discovered many new airfields, with concrete runways.
During the whole war GB and Germany used grass runways.
For the real Hitler I recommend
Otto Wagener, ‘Hitler aus nächster Nähe, Aufzeichnungen eines Vertrauten 1929-1932, Hrsg. Henry A. Turner’, 1987, Kiel, ISBN 3-88741-129-3
About Bormann, Hitler called him Bohrmann, bohren in german is drilling, Bormann was drilling all the time at Hitler’s residence in S Germany
Jochen von Lang, ‘The Secretary, Martin Bormann: The man who manipulated Hitler’, 1981, Athens, Ohio
Then there is
Traudl Junge, with Melissa Müller, ‘Until the final hour’, London, 2004
Hitler is described as a good employer, I suppose therefore Müller wrote a long introduction to make sure anyone knows how evil he was.
Junge was the youngest Hitler secretary.
You are aware that Luftwaffe started terror bombing of civilians BEFORE allies started their bombing campaign, aren’t you?
Also, the idea that Wehrmacht would behave differently in areas considered civilised, in contrast to areas which in propaganda would be presented as inhabited by vicious, subhuman barbarians is not that different. After all, there was also difference in occupation laws. How many villages were razed to the ground in France? Because there was about 800 such villages within modern-day Poland. How many French were expelled and forced to lived in “french camps” similar to Polenlagers? Because Germans expelled about 2.5 million Poles. How many French intellectuals, teachers and lawyers and so on, were killed in intelligenzaktions? Because in Poland 50 thousands were shot, and similar number perished in camps.
Or maybe you think that the idea that German occupation in the east would be far more brutal is preposterous?
8 Mass graves and three smaller discovered in SObibór (2012):
https://www.wprost.pl/kraj/324688/Odkryto-masowe-groby-w-Sobiborze-250-tys-ofiar-hitlerowskiej-zbrodni.html
Mass graves discovered in Przemyśl (probably with prisoners of the Stalag) 2014:
http://www.fakt.pl/wydarzenia/polska/odkrycie-w-przemyslu-masowe-groby-wiezniow-hitlerowskich-na-polach/cwkp68t
Those are the very first hits when I google for mass graves hitlerite crimes discovered post 2000 (in Polish)
“hitorian” Beevor is mistaken. His books freely are for sale in Russia http://www.labirint.ru/books/479416/
(as well as books of Rezun/Suvorov)
It is all going along to certain logic over time as to regard to rewriting true Ww2 history which is not very complicated unlike what it is according to Souvorov and similar alt history writers. Firstly it was about contribution who did more to defeat Nazis with majority in the West now thinking it was USA. Now it is about Soviet Union preparation to somehow attack Germany and the whole Europe despite obvious defensive posture of the Soviet army and true historical events. If to let this trend to continue in 100 years the new “truth ” will be that USSR attacked peceful Germany. People pay too much attention to what Souvorov and other like him write despite their opuses being of the same value those which claim that Egyptian pyramids were built by aliens. Those writers have to make living somehow and being who they are they are writing on their level for certain segment of public similar to those who believe in UFO and building pyramids alliens. Ah and this thread went off the rails
No need to be confused as to why, German, although that’s a good take from where I sit. We’ve not been touched in a destructive way by a foreign military in 200 years, aside from (9/11). And so we have no accurate perspective. We can’t imagine what the destruction of whole cities even mean. Sure, you see the rubble on TV, rubble WE created, by the way, but TV does it all no justice. Imagine a Manhattan that looks like Mosul or Rakka. Imagine no water, no electricity and oh, the sewers are backing up. It’s hideous to have that befall you. If Russian and American forces ever clash for real, killing Russian on their soil, Putin’s going to see what he can do to make it real for US, too. His new forces have been cataloged in great detail here lately, he’s turned things around in interesting ways as regards missiles, less emphasis on surface Navy and counting more on those, air defense and SLBMs as terrifying as ours. And they routinely sail our coast.
That said, I really wish they wouldn’t getting into it. Like all the others, NOT necessary.
I wish all those hitorians to have interesting hitory on Patriarshih.
You should read
Günter Grass, ‘Beim Häuten der Zwiebel’, München 2008
Grass was a POW in USA hands, doing work in a USA military camp.
Every now and then the USA Education Officer came, to lecture about bad Nazism, racism.
Grass and others, they spoke english, then asked if he could not spend his time better in educating white USA soldiers, how they treated blacks.
In 1942, which was was when the regular rape hunts in the Gulag were stopped.
Re: Suvarov
Germany’s Declaration of War Against the United States – December 11, 1941
You’ve disappointed me. Writing about whom you’ve banned or not banned just positions you as a petulant crybaby. If Ron Unz can tolerate comments that he not only disagrees with but he clearly considers absurd then surely you shouldn’t be interfering with Old Ez doing his internet IQ face plant, Wally’s consistent cause should be argued on its merits or failings not weakly banned and to be sure, Rurik has a long history of contributing some terrific and mostly fair minded comments on many, many articles. Ban Rurik? The site would be the poorer for it.
Which part of “free speech” is the most difficult for you to understand?
After all, there was also difference in occupation laws.
If Poland surrendered the story probably would have been different. But Polish government evacuated itself to France and England leaving Poland and its population at Germany’s mercy.
Complete nonsense. Even Russian estimates are much higher than the official registered death total. No significant modern researcher either in the West or in Russia takes the official death register as the actual number of victims. This is something you personally do.
There is nothing to rewrite, it all has been written.
Roosevelt was brought into politics in 1932 to wage war, Hitler never wanted war.
Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946
Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., ‘Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, A critical examination of the foreign policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and its aftermath’, Caldwell, Idaho, 1953
A J P Taylor, ‘The Origins of the Second World War’, 1961, 1967, Londen
From NBC News:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/german-military-faces-overhaul-wake-far-right-scandals-n758246
Ilja was not reading the signs of the time.
In 1939 Stalin exchanged his jewish minister of foreign affairs for Molotov.
And, to top it all off, Vlad P. is said to be a germanophile.
How could they have stayed ?
They deliberately provoked the German attack, after choosing the British side.
Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford
It took me a long time to find out why they chose sides, it was because all Polish divisions took place after wars in which Poland had been neutral.
Comte Jean Szembek, Ancien sous-secrétaire d’État aux Affaires étrangères de Pologne, ‘Journal, 1933 – 1939’, Paris 1952
The Soviets were equal opportunity rapists, and did not limit themselves to Germans. For example, they raped Danish women in the liberation of Bornholm. But then, Americans were equally indiscriminate: thousands of French women were raped by GIs during the Normandy invasion. War turns men into animals.
Can’t speak to the accuracy of the book-for or against-as I have never read it. I can say though that a number of years ago I was watching a documentary on the war in the Pacific Theater. An ex-GI was interviewed. During the interview he recounted how, on occasion, they would capture Jap soldiers who decided not to commit suicide. Somewhat laconically, he said that when his unit had too many prisoners “We’d shoot ’em.” I recall bolting out of my seat and exclaiming “Jeezus, how did the censors let this one (the interview) slip through the cracks?”
We shot Jap prisoners and I have no doubt we shot German prisoners.
“War is hell”, said WT Sherman (who reduced Georgia to a burnt cinder).
Provoked German attack because we refused to give you part of our lands without a fight? Typical thinking for your kind.
I recall reading elsewhere that the numbers of “repatriated” Russians was in the hundreds of thousands (200K?). More like a “dreckische kleine geheimnis” (“dirty little secret”)–little known to the American public to this day.
Bravo!
I actually don’t disagree with that, iirc that’s pretty much how it’s presented in Overy’s book as well.
The estimate of 2 million is way to low. All accounts show rape was ubiquitous and casual.
Russians raped emaciated Jewish concentration camp inmates when they libererated Neustadt-Glewe.
Russians raped female Russian labor camp inmates when they liberated them.
All accounts show Russians raped any women they could get their hands on.
Well, yes, I know Ehrenburg wrote articles exhorting Red army soldiers to kill German soldiers, but that’s quite different from calling for the rape of German women.
What do you mean with “regular rape hunts in the Gulag”?
Several years ago I spoke with a guy who had been a member of some infamous unit (Butchers Brigade sounds familiar, but it’s been years since I’ve seen the guy, so I ‘m not sure) who recalled throwing Japanese soldiers out of an airplane without parachutes. He felt rather guilty about some of the young ones but was generally proud of his unit’s activities and felt that the Japs deserved it because of their own cruelty. He described other ways of killing captured Japanese, and claimed they made necklaces out of Japanese soldiers’ teeth.
Yes, of course they don’t mention how that Franco A. managed to pass as a “Syrian” refugee for a whole year, despite speaking not a single word of Arabic. Could give people the “wrong” impression about Germany’s wonderful asylum system.
Van der Leyen is a stupid b**ch, totally incompetent like every Christian Democrat.
We are talking different things. Hitler never wanted war with USA quite naturally. Why would he want to fight nation which lies across those wide water spaces. On the other hand it was stated by him from the start that his plans for living space were about Russia. Cannot interpret it any other way and his directives to troops just before the start of Barbarossa regarding leaving all human considerations behind and treat Russians as underhumans is also there for all to see.
The dispute was over the obviously German city of Danzig, and German access to E Prussia over land.
All that was asked was a stretch of land maybe a kilometre wide and maybe fifty kilometres long, for a motorway and double railway.
Nicholas Bethel, ´Das letzte Geheimnis, Die Auslieferung russischer Fluchtlinge an die Sovjets durch die Allierten 1944-47’, 1975 Frankfurt am Main, ( The last secret. Forcible repatriation to Russia 1944-7, London, 1974)
Three million, is my recolllection, not only to the USSR, but also to Yougoslavia, where on arrival all were shot immediately:
Milovan Djilas, ‘Wartime. With Tito and the Partisans’, London, 1980
Perry Pierik, ‘Hitler’s Lebensraum, De geestelijke wortels van de veroveringsveldtocht naar het Oosten’, Soesterberg, 1999
A very unconvincing book.
My idea is that he never wanted anything but close economic cooperation, as existed with the USSR until Hitler attacked.
The Kommissare order, to kill al communist political leaders, indeed was given.
German troops refused to carry it out, some commanders shredded the order immediately.
Who knows about how Germany was in a state of civil war from the capitulation in 1918, communists against nationalists, can understand the order.
The civil unrest ended when Hitler threw all socialist and communist leaders in concentration camps.
Arthur Koestler describes quite well communist agitation, on Komintern orders, in France and Spain, he himself participated.
Forgot which of the following books:
Arthur Koestler, ‘Arrow in the blue, an autobiography’, London 1954
Arthur Koestler, ‘The invisible writing, an autobiography’, London 1954
Arthur Koestler, ‘Scum of the earth’, London, 1941
Hitler never wanted any war.
But in order to be able to restore the pre 1914 Germany he had to give the impression that he would, if necessary, go to war.
Poland, on British, and maybe also Roosevelt’s orders, called his bluff.
Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford
A very naive man, Overy.
He had no idea, seems to me, what he wrote in:
Richard Overy, ‘Interrogations, the Nazi elite in Allied hands, 1945’, London 2001
The verbatim interrogation of Von Ribbentrop already demonstrates the Neurenberg farce.
Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970
‘my boys do not take (Japanese) prisoners’
Why do you think Roosevelt diplomatically recognised the USSR in 1933 ?
Why did Samuel Untermeyer, who led the WJC Congress in Amsterdam in 1933, where jews declared war on Hitler Germany, travel several times to Moscow ?
Why did Davies, USA ambassador in Moscow, a nephew of anti German Morgenthau, refuse to see the Stalin trials against political opponents, as show ?
Kennan explained it several times to Davies.
Then why cross the Vistula? Why in fact push all the way to the Bug River?
Well, the Sonderaktion 1005 narrative is a necessary contrivance to explain how they killed over a million people and there is no corresponding forensic evidence. It is laughable, of course.
However, to anybody who understands how gassings in a real gas chamber work, like Fred Leuchter, the entire gas chamber narrative is about as laughable.
What we have with all this is that there is a Holocaust Establishment that tells these stories that are prima facie ludicrous, technically impossible really, and then they demand that people express belief in this — on pain of imprisonment even.
No. The dispute was not about Danzig, but about Pomerania and Polish access to Sea. The conditions were enraging and sounded like an ultimatum given to an already defeated state: the “referendum”, were German military settlers and clerks would be allowed to vote, while Polish settlers/clerks and Poles born there after 1919 would not be allowed to vote; Poland also was to join the Axis. The area with question counted one million people (18.8% German). There was also this ominous (translated from POlish text) “the economic damages after the 1918 have to be recognised and recompensated”. Simply, the demands could not be accepted by any sovereign state, unless it was already defeated.
Obviously, no one in Poland had any doubts about German intentions; already Pilsudski stated that Gdańsk is a probe of Polish/German relations and when Hitler will demand Gdańsk, it will mean the war is inevitable. Moreover, Poland had no trust in Hitler’s promises. Just a bit more than year ago, Hitler stated that he has absolutely no territorial demands wrt Poland. Everyone also saw how easily he broke every promise he made before. Hence, it was obvious that Hitler promising “just give us Danzig and a ex-territorial line through Poland and then we will become good neighbours” (enraging in itself) actually meant “for few months, and then I will make another demands”.
Remember also than up until 1934 German army was practically non-existant and POland would easily reach Oder or even Berlin without much effort. After that, every year changed the balance in point of Germany. The idea proposed by some revanchists, that “Poland wanted war with Germany” (sometimes supported by some fake quotes) is absurd. Only in march 1939 Poland started to hastily sketch the war plans with Germany, and those were strictly defensive.
You have no idea on POlish politics. Poland would fight against Hitler even without Britis guarantees.
Just think. Imagine the year is 1917, USA joins the war and gives Germany and ultimatum: give up Greater Poland to a newborn Poland, and give Poland a strip of land to access the Sea, while referendums would be carried over Pomerania and Upper Silesia. German authorities, including civil authorities, would have to be withdrawn, and neither them or their families would have right to vote. Every German settled there or born after 1890 would have no right to vote, while Poles who were expelled by Prussians would have right to vote. Given that Germany had no chances to win the war, woudl you say such demands were reasonable and would you advise that Germany should accept such demands?
Note also saying “Hitler did not want to go to war” when in fact it was Hitler who invaded Poland, and without that invasion there would not be war, is utterly illogical.
Search the thread above. I gave two links to recent discoveries in Sobibór and Treblinka.
Also, Leuchter is laughing stock. His line of argumentation causes facepalms with everyone who actually tried to read something about Holocaust.
An argument from incredulity is not an argument. Nor is an insistence that evidence doesn’t exist a legitimate treatment of the body of evidence that does in fact exist.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence and your denial doesn’t change that.
Rape also explains why so many Russians resemble the Mongols.
AK: Banned.
Rape by the “Mongols” could also have been the only way to improve the genetic lineage in your degenerate family. But I guess your momma is too ugly to attract the attention even from Mongol rapists.
“All that was asked was a stretch of land maybe a kilometre wide and maybe fifty kilometres long, for a motorway and double railway.”
Remember München 29 Sep ‘38? The “peace in our time” settlement that bloodlessly awarded Czech Sudetenland to Nazi Germany? What happened six months later Jilles? When – contrary to his promises – Hitler invaded and occupied the rest of Czechoslavakia 15 March ‘39?
Gee. Do you think Poles (Brits, French and everyone else for that matter) realized they couldn’t trust a congenital liar?
“This [bombing] was probably not intentional, as it was in defiance of Hitler’s strict instructions that central London should not be attacked.”
Tell us, utu, did the Führer call Winnie and tell him it was a mistake? Did he court-martial the Luftwaffe pilots for disobeying orders?
“So you see before London Blitz there was Berlin Blitz.”
And before the Berlin Blitz the London [mistaken] Blitz?
“It took Hitler 13 days to respond to Churchill’s provocations.”
Was the prior bombing of central London also a “provocation”? You are desperate!
“It was the British who started intentionally bombing civilians first.”
The ‘they did it first’ defense’? Really? Guernica 26 Apr ‘37? But wait! Who invented indiscriminate bombing of civilians? Turn back the clock.
Liège 6 August 1914? Antwerp 25 August ‘14 and 2 September ‘14? Were the Zeppelins that bombed London 1915-18 British?
“And don’t tell me about Warsaw 1939 and Rotterdam…”
Of course not. The thousands of civilian victims understand their deaths were “justified and not a war crime”. How comforting.
How’s the air on Planet Germania?
For someone who “never wanted any war” he surely invaded a lot of countries:
Czechoslovakia
Austria
Poland
Denmark
Norway
Belgium
Holland
France
Russia
Yugoslavia
Greece
North Africa
And what was all his talk of a Germanic Empire reaching to the Urals in the East and the Black Sea in the South? And his detailed settlement plans for his new Greater Germany?
That list is nothing, compare that to the nations the British Empire and the American Empire have attacked. No doubt you are now going to explain how thats different because they are the good guys, but in a much longer worded manner.
For example V. Zemskov and A. Shubin definitely takes the official death register as the actual number of victims
A. Shubin :
“Even according to Ukrainian researcher S. V. Kulchytsky, “it is impossible not to see that the statistical authorities to properly fulfill their professional duty locking from month to month stunning mortality”.
The Registrar phlegmatic recorded the mortality of the whole period of the famine. If you count deaths 1931 “background”, then the excess number of deaths in 1932-1933 is 1489,1 thousand. In 1931, before the famine in Ukraine died 514,7 thousand people, in 1932, when the famine was just beginning – 668,2 thousand. In 1933 the officially registered mortality was 1850,3 thousand. …There is evidence that the registry office in the midst of famine did not capture all deaths. But what is the number of unaccounted for deaths? Because in general, the Registrar recorded an unprecedented peak of mortality. This in itself suggests that the leadership of the country did not intend to “hide” the tragedy, even from myself. The underestimation of mortality could be due to local initiative .
It is also unclear what number of died from hunger and not for other reasons related to the deterioration of the social situation.
The number of victims may be slightly less (not all died of starvation), and some more (there may be some underreporting in the civil registry offices). Objective assessment of victims in this way is in the corridor of 1-2 million”
I previously gave the wrong figure – In 1933 the officially registered mortality in Ukraine was 1 850 000 , not 1 350 000. I apologize for this error
Gee – now that is interesting – about a 1,000,000 German civilians were killed in WWII – a like number of Jews were also killed.
It is estimated that 500,000 to 1,500,000 Jews were killed in WWII.
Why do we only hear about the Jew civilian deaths?
Peace — Art
“Hitler never wanted any war…But in order to be able to restore the pre 1914 Germany he had to give the impression that he would, if necessary, go to war.”
Hitler never wanted war, but [ever the victim] had to threaten to wage it to get back territory his country agreed to give up? Jilles, do you suffer from brain farts?
Are we to believe pacifist Hitler, greatly beloved by innocent children, pets and inanimate objects, did all in his power to “restore the pre-1914 Germany” (violating all treaties his country signed) by benignly threatening “he would, if necessary, go to war”?
Why did Dolf the dove dedicate RM 35 billion over eight years for illegal rearmament a month after taking office (March ‘33)? Joblessness was at it’s height (6%). Know what he budgeted for joblessness relief? RM 1.5 billion.
Here’s a simple question. Why was the military budget 23 times the size of the relief budget? Was it because Dolf “never wanted war”?
The “everybody does it” defense. Congratulations! Think of that all on your own, or did did you seek help?
Terrible as UK and US crimes may be (they are, and I don’t excuse them by any means), the subject was Nazi Germany. Obviously you have little to add on that subject.
The real question should be.how was weiner and sydney Ieathers connected.also how was weiner connected to the so called 15 year old
.was the whole thing a package waiting to be delivered by comey.
Let us assume that the russian election interference is bullshit.let us assume that a queen was sacrificed for a king.i always knew that a republican would be the bearer of bad news.so the end justifies the means.
Regardless jerusalem will not be divided.no east west Berlin.no wall.not for oil.
Miro,
You really are a gigantic idiot.
Austria was German land, inhabited by ethnic Germans and the Austrians had wanted to join Germany proper after WW1 and the destruction of the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Poland, the alleged starting point of the war, was invaded only because ALL attempts by Germany to settle the Danzig issue by diplomacy failed. Germany had part of its lands and people stolen at the end of world war one, and East Prussia was severed from the rest of the country. Map of Europe 1914 and 1923;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zp3ncdm
The German offer was more than reasonable as it relinquished most German territories given to a Poland with artificial borders, in return for Danzig and a corridor linking to East Prussia. Danzig had never been Polish, Germans made up 97% of the population.
Also, the S.U invaded too, taking more than half of the country.
The rest of your idiotic list were war contingencies.
Miro ‘detailed settlement plans for his new Greater Germany’;
More BS. No such ‘detailed’ plans existed before the war.
Naturally, as the limited war with Poland, a war Hitler did not want and had tried hard to avoid, escalated into an ever broader conflict, eventually leading to the gigantic Soviet-German clash, some drafts re these occupied territories were drawn.
The most sinister ones alleged in literature, such as the often cited Generalplan Ost, the sinister version of which is often referred to, as in the piece by Karlin, has never been found.
Btw, during the war, Henry Morgenthau Jr., a Zionist who was the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, came up with his clever idea as to how to handle a defeated Germany. Although some Western allied directives borrowed from the horrific ‘Morgenthau Plan’, for the most part it was discarded.
Anyway, you are clearly a very dishonest person. I myself tried to educate you before several times, and all you do is come back with the exact same BS.
“The fact is that the only real offer of security which Poland received in 1938 and 1939 emanated from Hitler. He offered to guarantee the boundaries laid down in the Versailles Treaty against every other country.
Even the Weimar Republic had not for a moment taken this into consideration.
Whatever one may think of Hitler’s government or foreign policy, no doubt exists on this point; his proposals to Poland in 1938/39 were reasonable and just and the most moderate of all which he made during the six years of his efforts to revise the Versailles Treaty by peaceful means”.
– Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, prominent American historian.
“Of all the Germans, Believe it or not, Hitler is the most moderate as far as Danzig and the Corridor are concerned.”
– Sir, Neville Henderson, British Ambassador to Berlin, 16th August, 1939.
“The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war.
His people, and particularly his generals, were profoundly fearful of any such risk — the experiences of World War One had scarred their minds. ”
– Sir. Basil Liddell Hart, The History of the Second World War.
I meant the bad habit of ‘splaining to people what their symbols “really” mean. Does the store owner guy really look like he condones “genocide” and all those other things? Would that people stopped f*** with other people’s symbols!
I don’t follow Giraldi and don’t know what he writes about. I assume you mean he doesn’t defend Israel enough. If so, I agree that “yeah, but they’re doing it, too” is unimpressive, rhetoric-wise.
When you come up with a new argument, perhaps you can expect the same of others.
Soviet Colonel Petrov wrote in May, 1991:
Russian historian M. Nikitin, who researched the goals of the Soviet leadership in Soviet archives, particularly during the May-June 1941 period, summarized his findings as such:
Ocenka sovetskim rukovodstvom, p.142, 146.
You nailed it.
Man, just stop this nonsense. Did Germany circa 1914 include Czechoslovakia, Russia, Poland, France an d so forth so on? He stated his intentions early on and he was very consistent when it came to implementation. I am too old for this sort of alternative history interpretation.
You don’t read Russian. Stop cribbing your sources.
Two Länder of Austria, Tirol and Vorarlberg (mein Heimat) did not vote for union with Germany but union with Italy and Switzerland, respectively.
Link and year?
“The only thing that prevented the US from starting WWIII with the USSR was the nuclear deterrent.”
World War Three? Who else would have been on the Soviet Side? No, it would have been a U. S./USSR war. And there was no “nuclear deterrent” until August 29, 1949, when the Soviets explode their first bomb. What kept the United States from following General Patton’s advice was America’s yearning for peace.
Didn’t the Kuomintang deliberately cause flooding on a massive scale that killed enormous numbers of their own people?
In WW2 no-one was innocent.
Churchill wasn’t that popular in Britain. He was an unelected prime minister. As soon as they had the opportunity the Brits turfed him out.
The myth of Churchill as the much-loved wartime leader is mostly just that, myth.
This is the main reason for present-day Russophobia. Russians do not intend to exterminate themselves. They’re so evil they’d even like to maintain their own culture. They even tolerate Christianity. They’re monsters!
I think barbarism should be condemned, although it’s necessary to distinguish actual barbarism from propaganda.
You do have a point there as far as Britain is concerned. From Britain’s point of view the war ended in total defeat. In practical terms Britain ceased to exist as a sovereign state in 1945.
On the other hand the war was very good for the US. It established the US as the world’s dominant imperial power and made a lot of money for a lot of people. From the point of view of ordinary Americans though it could be seen as futile. But then Roosevelt didn’t care about ordinary Americans.
It’s said that you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Looks like Anatoly Karlin is entitled to his own statistics which, in accordance with the (lack of) citations given, he pulled out of his arse. Only 15% of German POWs perished in Russian hands? All I’ve ever heard is that 90% of the army that surrendered at Stalingrad never made it back. Also, there is the matter of German farmers living in Soviet Russia being picked up by the communists at the start of the war and never being seen again. What about the use of German POWs as slave labor in the Soviet Union AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER? Well, surely the commies were the good guys and just needed a little female TLC when travelling westward.
Nice screen name asshole
Some little known facts remain, to wit:
“Austria-Hungary broke apart at the end of World War I. Late in October 1918, an independent Czechoslovak state, consisting of the lands of the Bohemian kingdom and areas belonging to the Kingdom of Hungary, was proclaimed. The German deputies of Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia in the Imperial Council (Reichsrat) referred to the Fourteen Points of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and the right proposed therein to self-determination, and attempted to negotiate the union of the German-speaking territories with the new Republic of German Austria, which itself aimed at joining Weimar Germany… On 20 September 1918, the Prague government asked the United States’s opinion for the Sudetenland. President Woodrow Wilson sent Ambassador Archibald Coolidge into Czechoslovakia. After Coolidge became witness of German Bohemian demonstrations, Coolidge suggested the possibility of ceding certain German-speaking parts of Bohemia to Germany (Cheb) and Austria (South Moravia and South Bohemia). He also insisted that the German-inhabited regions of West and North Bohemia remain within Czechoslovakia. The American delegation at the Paris talks, with Allen Dulles as the American’s chief diplomat in the Czechoslovak Commission who emphasized preserving the unity of the Czech lands, decided not to follow Coolidge’s proposal”.
That was the remote origin of the ‘infamous’ Munich Agreement.
For the most part, yes.
For the most part, yes.
The glorification of the Allied bomber crews who murdered civilians during WW2 is nauseating.
It’s only a war crime if the other side does it. And you only get hanged for such crimes if you lose.
A. Shubin https://www.booklot.ru/authors/shubin-aleksandr-vladlenovich/book/10-mifov-sovetskoy-stranyi/content/2755582-skolko-jertv/ , 2006
V. Zemskov – http://eot-canada.ca/wp-ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/viktor-zemskov-politicheskie-repressii-v-sssr-1917-1990.pdf , 2009
Alas to this day victor’s propaganda has not been debunked in the media, on the contrary, it is repeated over and over again, also to create the Great European Salvation State.
The EU even got a Nobel Prize for Peace.
I must admit, this was before the EU entered into a military alliance with Ukraine.
Ah, so Ukraine is the problem now, heh? Not the Germanic states, like the Netherlands, whose elites are pushing EU EE countries like Poland and the Baltics to accept migrants? Listen, buddy – how about we keep Ukraine, and you, guys, get to can keep your fugees. Plus, your business gets the fuck out of EE.
Hitler made two big mistakes, he let himself to be provoked to attack Poland, and he underestimated the power of international jewry, as De Wendel stated.
Jean-Noël Jeanneney, ‘Francois de Wendel en République, L’Argent et le Pouvoir 1914-1940, Paris 1976
From Sept 1939 to Mai 1940 there was the phony war.
Nothing happened.
Then, in order to try to force GB to peace, Hitler occupied France, France also had declared war on Germany.
To occupy France it was necessary to occupy the Netherlands an Belgium.
Austra was never attacked, Austria already in 1919 wanted to be part of Germany.
Sudetenland, it was occupied to prevent that Russian bombers from there could bomb Germany.
Norway and Denmark, Hitler knew of Churchill’s plans to occupy neutral N Norway, and N Sweden, to cut off Germany from Swedish iron ore.
USSR, Hitler knew that Stalin was going to attack
N Africa and Greece, Mussoini’s stupidities.
So it was no more than ‘one thing led to another’.
I must state that I’m amazed at the number of people here who do not accept the standard lies about WWII, do know what really happened.
What nobody mentioned is why Germany was not defeated in 1938.
At the time Poland, France, Tsjechoslovakia and GB still were intact, Germany could have been defeated in a few weeks.
A lot of historians have wondered about this mystery, Ockam’s Razor provides just one answer: the USA would not have gained anything, as would have the USSR.
Roosevelt wanted a long war, he needed much time to build up the USA militarily.
If, at the time, he also wanted war in the Pacific is not clear, his 1940 promise not to wage war as long as the USA was no attacked, had yet to be made.
And, of course, Churchill would not have been glorified.
Shubin is a leftist activist who would clearly be a lot more biased than any of the Western scholars I linked to:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
Here is the bio of Wheatcroft whom I quoted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_G._Wheatcroft
You questioned Western scholars’ objectivity and then you use Shubin? Really?
Zemskov seems to be legitimate. But the Zemskov article you linked to was about political repression, not famine. From its abstract:
“After checking up the KGB archives, and documents of division responsible for NKVD-MVD special settlements, the author spills the light on real numbers of political repressions in USSR. In his view, the total number of political victims does not exceed 2, 6 million people. This number implies over 800 thousand of death sentenced for political reasons, around 600 thousand political prisoners who died in labor camps, and about 1, 2 million people died in exile (including ‘Kulak Exile’) and during transportation (deported ethnic groups and others).”
This article is correct in the essence: that Nazis strategy for extermination of Soviets based on their racist premises that Slaves and Asians who populated the USSR were subhumans and resulting in premeditated genocide of the latter cannot be compared anyway to certain collateral damage Soviet army did to Germans in 1945. But Karlin bases his argumentation on totally faulty assumption that the number 2 million raped German women is correct: this number was derived by means of ridiculous extrapolation by two German feminists in 1992 based on the data from ONE Berlin hospital that in 1945-46 out of about 500 newborns about 20 had Russian fathers, according to the mothers, and some of the mothers specified that they were raped. The number was then peddled by Antony Beevor in his book about Berlin fall. While during Nazis occupation of Belarus, Ukraine and a part of Russia during 1941-1944 rapes were common practices not only by SS by the regular troops – they raped on regular basis and on mass scales. This is confirmed i.e. in “Soldaten” book written on the basis of taped conversations of Nazi solders inmates after the end of WWII.
I can sense a regret that your mother wasn’t among them lucky German girls who benefited from the Soviet largess.
It’s amazing that you understand that Germany could be easily defeated in 1938, yet you still think that it was not German actions that lead to the war.
Totally agree. And I do not share views оf Shubin. But in this case (famine 1932-33), Shubin spoke quite reasonably.
Yes. “Western scholars’” work on this topic – party propaganda, like Soviet “The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union “. Of course the works Shubin is also party propaganda (from other political positions).
I pointed out that your statement “No significant modern researcher either in in Russia takes the official death register as the actual number of victims” is wrong (regardless of the rightness/wrongness of Shubin)
Your reaction is correct in the sense that it contains no argument or reference whatsoever, just assertions.
It here now has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that Hitler’s attack on the USSR was a defensive war.
Thus any assertions about genocidal plans are nonsense.
Books written by Germans on their experiences in the war in the east have been quoted here galore, I even mentioned a Russian book on how Russian soldiers were mistreated by their own officers.
I mentioned jew Arthur Koestler, who describes how, on Komintern orders, communists in the thirties tried to undermine governments that not yet had become communists.
Koestler and his wife were murdered, it never became clear if communists or zionists did it.
About rapes by German troops in the east, they did not rape in the western countries, why should they change their behaviour when transferred to the east ?
Were the Russian peasant girls, reeking of com dung, that more attractive ?
Cannot understand your reaction, I explained that the only possible, and likely explanation is that Roosevelt wanted a long war.
But indeed, Hitler’s actions caused the war, he defied Versailles, resurrected Germany.
Churchill confirmed this when he said ‘the whole period 1914 1945 can best been seen as one long war’.
A war in which world power was transferred from London to Washington.
Sir, you proved nothing but that you are liar who based upon opuses by other liars who desperately want to rewrite history are trying to switch guilt ,which truly is beyond any reasonable doubt ,except for soulless scoundrels, to victims. This whole effort to rewrite history has been going non stop since 1945.
The Dutch people, in a referendum, voted against the Ukraine association treaty.
But indeed, our ruling class has other ideas.
And, like in France, a majority still has illusions about the EU, or fear of leaving.
There have been demonstrations in GB to have the statue of ‘bomber’ Harris removed.
Charmley, a Britisch historians, wrote ‘Churchill, the end of glory’.
Chrustjow told the Russians the truth about Stalin, Putin acknowledged the Katyn massacre.
Roosevelt’s glory was removed by Charles A Beard, Flynn and Harry Elmer Barns, and books like
Thomas E. Mahl, ‘Desperate deception, British covert operations in the United States 1939-44’, Dulles, Virginia, 1998;
This book explains how in all probability Roosevelt had the chairman of the republican convention murdered, in order to make pro war Willkie the republican candidate
On the day Willkie was nominated Churchill terminated peace negotiations with Germany.
How Churchill tried to kill Hess in May 1941 is well described in
Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, ‘Double standards, The Rudolf Hess cover-up’, London 2002
Alas in mainstream history, the brainwashing by media, all these facts are never mentioned.
Roosevelt and Churchill remain heroes.
The problem with WWII is that, until now, it has been rewritten sufficiently, but that this rewriting has been ignored by the media.
The USA’s role as peacemaker, Peacemaker was also Colt’s most succesfull model, is essential up to the present day, the EU as the organisation that brings peace, too.
On top of that, if the Germans from perpetrators are turned into victims, how could Israel survive ?
The very wise German government understood this, so in 1980 it was forbidden by law in Germany to try to portray Germans of victims of two world wars.
Thanks, I have read Walden, but forgotten it came from that.
{It here now has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that Hitler’s attack on the USSR was a defensive war.}
Who has allegedly demonstrated – Suvorov?
Suvorov’s hallucination has been thoroughly debunked by many historians, e.g. including American Military historian Col. David M. Glantz.
Suvorov is a disgruntled GRU traitor who was/is working for British intelligence. They tasked him to write a revisionist book.
Brits hate Russians and have hated them for a couple of centuries.
‘Suvorov’ (a pen name) is no historian.
He is an amateur hack.
You got anybody else?
{About rapes by German troops in the east, they did not rape in the western countries, why should they change their behaviour when transferred to the east ? }
They did not commit mass murder of people in the West either: Why? Because they were not Untermenschen.
Nazi invaders murdered, burnt civilians alive, destroyed, looted, killed, massacred, tortured, raped,……
They had Carte Blanche to do whatever they wanted in the East: Why?
Because their victims were Untermenschen*.
{Were the Russian peasant girls,reeking of com (cow) dung,that more attractive ?}
Let’s see now: young German men 18-30 or so, full of surging testosterone, away from their lovely Master Race Fräulein for years.
Men of that age will screw anything that moves.
Years spent in the middle of nowhere in the endless Russian steppes.
Are you suggesting that your young Nazi forebears were all Homosexual men and were buggering each other while away from home?
Or perhaps they were having sex with farm animals in Russian villages after they had massacred everyone in the village?
Too bad Red Army boys did not capture him alive: they could have planted the Red Banner somewhere more appropriate than raising it over the Reichstag.
How the west fools us
https://kenfm.de/missing-link-to-ola-frithiofson/
The 80ties USSR submarines near the Swedish coasts, fake.
There is an english translation included
It is asserted that Swedish prime minister Palme was murdered because the west feared his meeting with Gorbatchow, a few weeks later, an end to to cold war, it might prevent the disintegration of the USSR.
{…the Russian peasant girls, reeking of com dung, that more attractive ?}
[German village girls tending German pigs, circa 1935]
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/german-reich-bund-deutscher-maedel-one-year-labour-service-news-photo/545919925#german-reich-bund-deutscher-maedel-one-year-labour-service-for-girls-picture-id545919925
Say, JD, were the German peasant girls reeking of pig s___t that much more attractive to the Nazi Schweinhunden than Russian peasant girls?
“About rapes by German troops in the east, they did not rape in the western countries, why should they change their behaviour when transferred to the east ?”
It is not that good argument. In the East war was tough and frustrating and very not safe for Germans and their allies Dutch, Flemish, French, Spaniards. Italians, Hungarians, Rumanians, Ukrainians, Balts, Scandinavians, Bosnians, Albanians, Azeris, Tatars, Croats. I am sure some of them were doing rapes. Hitler liked Flemish performance on the Eastern front over the Dutch performance. Did they rape more or below the norm?
Nazi propaganda presented Slavs and unworthy subhumans, while French were not. That’s enough for a reason why in Poland alone 800 villages were burned to the ground, and why in Poland intellectuals were rounded and murdered, while in France they were not.
Your reasoning has one fatal flaw. If Hitler would not attack Poland in 1939, the war would not happen. Poland would not attack Germany. Hence, blaming Roosevelt for the thing that Hitler decided to invade Poland is the worst possible explanation for the war. There is another, far simpler. Hitler wanted war. He was warned that if he would invade Poland, there would be war. Yet he ignored the warnings and invaded.
Unless, of course, you think Hitler was Roosevelt’s spy.
In the late 30’s, Germany repeatedly tried to get Poland to join the anti-comintern pact (see Diplomat In Berlin 1933 — 1939, the collected papers of Polish Ambassador Jozef Lipski). Poland honorably and courageously refused, and in so doing ultimately forced German aggression into a fatal two-front war. The USSR on the other hand, disgracefully started WWII by forming an alliance with Germany and invading Poland. Those are the facts.
“The only people who still take “Suvorov” seriously are (1) people who haven’t read anything about the Eastern Front outside Internet forums and (2) Nazis.”
Really? Historian Mark Solonin takes him seriously and he’s been reading through the Russian archives for a very long time. And he is certainly not a Nazi.
His website has compelling documentation:
http://www.solonin.org/en/article_comrade-stalins-three-plans
Never said i did , asshole.
However, the work of several Russian historians debunking the usual myths about the Soviet-German war has been made available in German. Also, several German historians who are fluent in Russian have cited their work. To a less extent some of this Russian historians work has been made available even in English.
For example:
https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Other-War-Strategy-1939-1941/dp/0742521923/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494786070&sr=8-1&keywords=albert+weeks
Pure BS.
Your problem is not that you are too old but that you are one of the most fanatic Stalinist pigs posting here and an utter liar and imbecile.
Eyewitnesses describe girls in Kiev being dragged by their hair to the Wehrmacht officers’ brothels.
Likely those girls did not smell like cow dung.
This film, from 1943, has a short sequence on the German invaders’ abuse of Russian women and girls:
The Zionists must have been listening in. Or maybe the Hitler got his ideas from the Zionists.
You know why there is so much propaganda brainwashing in the west? So the morons like you can be given the illusion that they know something about anything. Here is a little exercise I recommend for you in order to keep your brilliant mind sharp. Keep repeating the following mantra: Stalin, gulag, communism, bad. After you repeat it about a million times you will reach a state of all-encompassing wisdom otherwise known as nirvana.
I think it’s obvious that Stalin was planning to attack sometime before the end of the war, probably in 1942 or 1943.
It’s also obvious that this danger was clearly on Hitler’s mind when he decided to attack Stalin. In fact, that’s how he explained his decision to his entourage: that England’s only hope was Russia (as it had been against Napoleon), and once Russia was destroyed, England would finally sue for peace. It wasn’t an unreasonable position.
Of course, now that Hitler happened to start a war, his old ideological plans for Lebensraum were also resurrected, so the preventive (not preemptive) war he started also became an ideological and genocidal war of conquest.
Similarly, as it happened, Stalin only entered the war because he was attacked, but he would’ve attacked anyway, and he had attacked all of his western neighbors before. Once he was in a defensive war, it also became an ideological war to spread communism.
So both regimes were waging two wars, or in other words, both regimes’ wars had two faces: one was a defensive (or in the case of the Germans, preventive) war, the other an ideological war, and when they seemed to be winning, this second, ideological character came to dominate.
It’s needless to say that the German plans were more genocidal in nature, but apparently they involved a smaller area, whereas the Soviet plans were for the eventual bolshevisation of the entire planet. The Soviet victory meant less premature deaths between the Rhein and the Ural Mountains, but it meant more such deaths in Asia, where a particularly deadly form of communism spread (which wouldn’t have happened if the Soviets lost in Europe), and so it saved the lives of tens of millions in Europe, but cost the lives of tens of millions of Chinese and millions of Vietnamese, Koreans and Cambodians.
I think what we have here is transference of memories. You are mixing up how your mother used to smell to you in your early infancy with how you imagine Slavic girls should smell.
That’s still controversial though, isn’t it? There are also those who argue that Hitler’s goals ultimately were global and that he envisaged some sort of clash of continents between a Nazi empire and the US in the later part of the 20th century. Supposedly that’s in his 2nd book, the unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf. There also were at least some plans for renewed German colonisation of Africa. Obviously all of this never got beyond the planning stage, but it’s not clear to me that Nazi ambitions were limited only to Eastern Europe.
You don’t read German either.
Yes, but I doubt he wanted to exterminate the US population the same way he wanted to exterminate the Slavs. Envisioning a conflict between the emerging superpower on the western hemisphere was quite logical, and no different from Brzezinski’s idea of moving across a grand chessboard against Russia.
Hitler explicitly criticized African colonization, because African colonies were difficult to defend for an inherently continental power like Germany. He also wished to support the British Empire, apparently he wished for a kind of symbiotic alliance (where Germany would dominate, naturally) between the continental German power and the British Empire. Although he mentioned in 1940 how perhaps, after all, he’d request a return of Germany’s pre-1914 colonies, but I doubt he had much plans to do with it.
In any event, anything beyond Eastern Europe was a long-term idea several decades to the future. Stalin’s plans for expanding the communist system into Europe and Asia were basically for that war, and in the case of West Germany (but maybe the rest of Western Europe), they only seem to have been thwarted by Hitler’s unexpectedly quick victory in 1940 and then his preventive (and initially successful) attack in 1941.
People say Stalin killed more than Hitler. But at least half of WWII dead must be blamed on Hitler since he caused the war. He even broke the peace with Stalin and really got the war going.
So, Hitler killed many more than Stalin did.
Communism was terrible and caused great harm on the basis of class hatred, but it still regarded all humans as humans.
Nazism was an especially virulent form of fascism on the issue of race. As a result, it didn’t consider Russians as worthy humans.
For that reason, Nazism was more evil than communism. If Nazism had been contained within Germany, it would have done less harm. But as an ideology ruling over others deemed ‘subhuman’, few things could be more horrifying.
Such virulent radical racism was not intrinsic to fascism. After all, fascist-minded Mussolini, Ataturk, and Franco held no such crazy theories.
Part of the reason why Soviet soldiers did so much raping was out of revenge.
But the fact that they also raped lots of Poles, non-Germans, and even Jews suggests that the guys were just drunk, uncouth, and going wild. They were barbarized by poverty, communist oppression, war, and Nazi terror. And when you let young men to run riot, that’s how they act.
Look at Japanese in Nanking.
Soviets also committed lots of rape in Manchuria, China, and Korea. Stalin had to order his officers to ruthlessly shoot unruly soldiers to implement some kind of order.
I think it’s obvious that Stalin was planning to attack sometime before the end of the war, probably in 1942 or 1943.
That simply wan’t Stalin’s way. Stalin didn’t like to take risks, at least not on that order of magnitude. Stalin was reacting to events, not instigating them.
Stalin didn’t even touch tiny states like Lithuania and Estonia out of fear of how the West might react though he could have easily taken them in the 1930s. The ease with which the Soviet military took all of Eastern Europe proves that Stalin could have take huge chunks of Eastern Europe if he’d really wanted to. Stalin didn’t make any such move because he feared Western response. Also, if he did, Western nations would grow closer to Germany against the USSR.
So, Stalin sat and waited. He expected the most trouble from Nazi Germany. But when Hitler made a peace offer, Stalin was relieved and took it. He made peace with Germany to avoid war, not to enter into one.
Indeed, Stalin’s total shock at German invasion proves that he totally didn’t expect war with Germany.
In the case of Stalin’s grain exports, it was deemed ‘necessary’. He had to hold onto Eastern Europe and East Germany, and that meant he had to feed them. He wasn’t doing it for vanity.
In contrast, Mao acted vainly when he shipped grain and foodstuff to Eastern Europe during the Great Leap Forward when so many Chinese were starving. It was a publicity stunt that did nothing for China.
Stalin was ruthless but also more purposeful in his brutality. The forced-collectivization of agriculture was especially cruel because the grain requisitioned were sold to the West while many in the USSR, especially in Ukraine, starved. This led to mass famine, but the Soviets got lots of machinery in exchange for the grains, and this kicked off industrialization. So, the Soviets still got something out of the horror. In contrast, Mao’s harebrained schemes not only led to mass death but total economic collapse.
No, certainly not…iirc his attitude towards the mass of the US population was rather positive (I think he regarded the US as basically an “Aryan” society manipulated by Jews…which made it especially dangerous). He was also clearly appreciative of “Anglo-Saxon” Americans like Madison Grant and Henry Ford, and seems to have been somewhat aware of and admired the eugenics programmes of some US states.
I think you’re right that Hitler himself wasn’t that interested in African colonies, but I recall reading that some German ministries in the early 1940s did draw up plans for German colonies in Africa, including regulations for relations between whites and blacks (presumably not favourable to the latter). It must have had some resonance in wider German society because even in the inter-war era there still was the Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft which called for the restitution of Germany’s colonial possessions (interestingly enough Konrad Adenauer was its vice-president in the early 1930s). Admittedly I’ve never really looked into the subject, so I don’t know how serious Nazi plans in this regard were.
Obviously all of this is somewhat speculative, and it’s clear that a conflict with the US as envisaged by Hitler would have happened a long time after the successful conquest of the Soviet Union. So you’re right that it was a rather more vague prospect than the global spread of communism which after all did happen to a substantial degree.
When you have the courage to post comments with a record, maybe I’ll care about what you write.
Well, you apparently care enough to post a reply, though, I admit, not enough to post one that makes any sense.
I’m labeled, to great shame, “troll” in #391 by L.K.
L.K is a lovable Aryan (“my ethnicities, Germans and Italians, have accomplished more than armenians could ever dream to [sic]” -L.K #31may16 #158 http://www.unz.com/tsaker/led-by-poland-the-european-house-negroes-compete-for-the-darwin-awards. And the not so Aryan “Btw, I’m Italian on my mothers side, from Veneto and Piedmont.” -L.K 27dec15 #189 http://www.unz.com/article/no-matter-who-becomes-president-israel-wins).
14 April 2017 I asked L.K the following:
“I think it [20C Wilhelmine and Nazi leadership] was the biggest enemy of the German People. Two catastrophic wars – the first ruined them financially. The second brought moral and physical ruin. For what?
Alternatives. Blame WW1 and WW2 on everybody but Germany. But whose troops were first to invade? Germany. So either German enemies mobilized and ordered German troops into battle…or German leadership underestimated the enemies they invaded. My bet’s on the second option. Which means German leadership was incompetent. And criminal. Period. Biggest loser? The German People. QED my critical stance on 20C German leadership. Their prime victims were the German People. And a lot of others as well.
Why didn’t Hitler supply his troops with winter gear in ‘41 L.K? Did he forget? Did the Jews (or FDR or Churchill) make him forget? Why did Adolf turn on his own people in ‘44-45 and order Speer to destroy Germany in an epic Wagnerian Götterdämmerung…? Was it because he loved the German People? Why did SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler pretend to be Sergeant Heinrich Hitzinger and quickly commit suicide on discovery? Was it because he was proud of his record?”
-#529 http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/aipac-is-back-in-town/#new_comments
L.K didn’t respond. Wait. That’s not wholly true. Here’s a sample of L.K’s careful, measured intellectual reply: “imbecile, Zio scum, virulent German hater, Zionist scum, ziotroll,.slime, creep, shill, abomination, simpleton, miserable propagandist & shill, just another shit eater, sucker, zionist liar, scumbag, sham, village Idiot.”
Naturally, given L.K’s great courage, all were offered to third parties, just like his #391 ‘troll’ label on my post to jilles dykstra.
When faced with simple questions, L.K (‘His Ethnicity’) is as courageous as his fearless Führer in poisoning new Frau Eva and depositing his brains on a Berlin bunker ceiling 30 Apr ‘45 – leaving normal Germans to take the blame.
PS. jilles. Don’t blame you for not responding to #391. Hard to justify your “Hitler never wanted any war…” in the face of so much contrary evidence. Look on the bright side. You’ve found a kindred spirit in ‘His Ethnicity’ L.K. Kismet? Enjoy.
It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest… And yet for some people – for the most part, the most Russophobic neocons and Cold Warriors, the more Nazi elements of the Alt Right, and deranged Poles and Balts who don’t quite realize what Hitler had in store for them – the Soviet rape of about 2 million women in Eastern Germany at the end of the war is supposed to be a really huge, defining war crime, even something that delegitimizes the overall Soviet victory.
Barbarism is barbarism, and one simply cannot condone or justify Soviet rape of German women. Even if what the Nazis did to Russia was horrible, the massive Soviet brutality toward women cannot be excused. Wrong is wrong. And the same can be said for Allied Bombing that willfully targeted civilians in WWII.
If we regard war as an act of revenge pure and simple, then I suppose one could justify such atrocities. But there are rules to modern war, and the Allies committed war crimes too, lots of them. Two wrongs don’t make a right, especially when so much of Soviet Brutality against German women was gratuitous, sadistic, and barbarous.
That said, we can understand why what happened happened. As John Dower recounted about the Pacific War, battlefield tensions, propaganda, and the adrenaline turn young men into little monsters. So, what happened between Germans and Russians wasn’t much different from what happened between US and Japan, except that Germans and Russians were more evenly matched.
Anyway, even though I can’t in any shape or form rationalize Soviet brutality toward German civilians, I find the condemnation rather hypocritical and bogus coming from Americans. One thing for sure, if Japan had done to the US what Germans did to the USSR, it’s very likely that the US would have wiped Japan off the map and maybe killed every ‘Japper’. Imagine if Japan didn’t just bomb Pearl Harbor and killed 3,000 but invaded 1/3 of US, raped tons of American women, killed millions of US civilians, and had a plan to conquer & enslave all Americans.
Upon rolling back and defeating such a Japan, how would the US have reacted? What Americans would have done to Japan would have made Soviet Occupation of Germany look like a picnic. (After all, new revelations show that the US planned to nuke several more Japanese cities if Japan still didn’t surrender after Nagasaki. And according to John Dower’s EMBRACING DEFEAT, there was a voice in FDR’s government that called for wholesale genocide of all Japanese.) But here’s another thing to consider. Japan didn’t have a diabolical plan of invading and subjugating all of the US. Indeed, Japan didn’t even want to take Hawaii. It attacked Pearl Harbor to cripple the US navy there so as to strengthen its hand on Asia, over which it had own version of Monroe Doctrine: No Whitey in Asia.
So, Japan’s intentions against the US was infinitely mild compared to German intentions against the USSR. But was the US war against Japan any less savage? The massive carpet bombing killed 100,000s in a single night in Tokyo. And many more cities were razed to the ground. And just when Japan was about to collapse like a house of cards, US dropped two big ones and indiscriminately killed everyone from newborn baby to old folks.
If the attack on Pearl Harbor(that killed 3,000) enraged Americans so much as to rain down destructive fury upon fury on Japan, then Americans should think twice before judging Russians for their counter-violence against the Germans whose horrors in the USSR were many times more epic and grisly that what Japan did to the US. Furthermore, Japanese imperialism had been encouraged and enabled by UK and US to use as leverage against Germany and Russia(and then the USSR). Japan became an ally of Germany only when its agenda in Asia began to run in conflict with the designs of the Anglo/American powers.
Also, US wars in Korea and Vietnam were also horrific with massive bombings of civilians. This seems odd since Koreans and Vietnamese posed no threat to the US and never intended to harm Americans. North Korea attacked the South ONLY AFTER the US withdrew all troops and declared to the world that it would not defend the South. So, the North harbored no ill will toward the Americans. Since the North was only trying to unify the nation and had committed no violence against the US, how does one account for the ultra-violence on the part of Americans that, in some ways, exceeded, their violence against Japan, which at least was an aggressive imperialist power that had attacked the US.
Also, it was the US that intruded itself into the affairs of Vietnam. When US didn’t get things their way in Vietnam, it went about dropping so many bombs, much of them against civilians. Again, this level of hate is puzzling since the Vietnamese hadn’t done anything to Americans. I suppose one could argue that US was defending the ‘free world’ from communism, but then, the US policy had precipitated the communist takeover of China, a big prize, when it requested the Soviets to enter into North Asia, drive out Japan, and lend support to fellow communists there.
So, yes, the Soviets were no angels. But neither were the Americans.
And since the end of the Cold War, US actions in the Muslim world have been downright psychopathic, coldly enforcing sanctions to starve 100,000s of Iraqi women and children to death. Also, US cooked up all manners of lies to turn the Middle East and North Africa upside down. At least in the case of WWII, the US was attacked by Japan. But in almost all the subsequent wars, US was the aggressor, invader, or ‘interferer’, sticking its nose into other nation’s business and mucking things up. Even the Iran-Iraq War that cost a million lives could have been prevented or ended earlier if the US hadn’t played both sides to keep fighting and bleeding one another dry.
Early on, (after 1917), the Bolsheviks were encouraging copy cat revolutions to their own, as a way to extend their power. For example:
Germany (Berlin1919): Strike & Spartacist Uprising. “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” and armed attack on opponents. Revolutionary Committee. Parallel government and attempt to subvert state military regiments. Liebknecht & Luxemburg. Failed in street gun battles.
Germany (Munich 1919): German Soviet Revolutionary Dictatorship. “Workers and Soldiers Council”. Declaration of a parallel government. Eugen Levine. Failed in street gun battles.
Hungary (Budapest 1919): Hungarian Soviet Republic. “Council (Soviet) of Soldiers, Workers and Peasants”. Parallel (all Jewish) government took absolute power through violence. Launched the “Red Terror”. Bela Kuhn. Failed the same year.
Stalin certainly supported Bolshevik style revolutionary movements in Europe, and provided economic help and military equipment to the Bolshevik element in the Spanish Civil War, but it’s not so clear that he intended to invade Western Europe. He had a peace treaty with Hitler and apparently believed to the last moment that Hitler would respect it.
When Hitler in fact attacked Russia, Stalin had to respond.
But still, Hitler had the option of not invading Russia, and rather organizing a very formidable defence of his new Eastern frontier using a large, powerful and well equipped German military working on short supply lines. Would Stalin really have started a war against this to extend world Communism?
Хрю хрю! Pigs are intelligent and nice animals. i have no idea why you think calling me pig would insult me. From your post I deduce you have yet to attain pig intelligence level.
And therefore no doubt quite objective.
It seems quite obvious from other evidence that mass rapes did take place, but I can’t really credit “Why We Fight” or the story of the commenter above about girls being “dragged by their hair” as having more than very slight evidential value.
I think you’re right about that (at least in regard to 1941…who knows what would have happened later), but that’s something I have difficulty understanding…how could Stalin have been that stupid? There were plenty of warnings from numerous sources, and the Soviets must have known about the German troop build-up across the border. I think Zhukov even at some point in the days leading up to Barbarossa explicitly warned Stalin about it and proposed a counter-strike which was of course rejected. But apparently Stalin really was totally surprised by the German attack (at first he seems to have thought it was a limited provokation, not a full-scale invasion)…I find that baffling.
“Well, you apparently care enough to post a reply, though, I admit, not enough to post one that makes any sense.”
Comprehension problems? Unsurprising. Let’s make it simple.
You post anonymously, eschewing any record of your remarks. Why should anyone care about what you write? Especially since (in this case) it’s passive-aggressive nonsense?
Happy to have a conversation, but get the courage to go on record and write something worthy of a response.
Well, it depends on the case. In this case, no one should, because I have allowed myself to become involved in a private exchange of insults of no interest to anyone else. However, whether you should or should not, you apparently do, which I find amusing.
Actually, I posted anonymously mostly to get your goat, since your initial comment to which I replied was a content-free attempt to get the goat of some other commenter. I seem to have succeeded.
No hard feelings.
That seems to be about right. In HTT he said,
(180) “Although the Jew has seized the levers of control in the Anglo-Saxon world (the press, the cinema, the radio, economic life), and although in the United States he is the entire inspiration of the populace, especially of the negroes, the bourgeois of the two countries with the rope already around their necks, tremble at the idea of rebelling against him, even timidly. What is happening now in the Anglo-Saxon world is absolutely identical with what we experienced here in 1918.”
(302) “The Americans are a completely unpredictable crowd. In a tight corner, the British are infinitely more courageous than they are – there’s no comparison! How they have the nerve to cast aspersions on the British passes my comprehension.” (99) “I don’t see much future for the Americans. In my view it’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities. Those were what caused the downfall of Rome, and yet Rome was a solid edifice that stood for something. Moreover the Romans were inspired by great ideas. Nothing of the sort in England today. As for the Americans, that kind of thing is non-existent. That’s why, in spite of everything, I like an Englishman a thousand times better than an American.”
“Actually, I posted anonymously mostly to get your goat…”
What a surprise! Let me repeat:
“Happy to have a conversation, but get the courage to go on record and write something worthy of a response…[something other than] passive-aggressive nonsense”
Because Jews control a disproportionately large segment of education and media in the US.
What about the German POWs used as slave labor in Russia after the war? They broke it, they had to help fix it. They got repatriated in the end. What about the millions of Poles, Belorussians, Russians and Ukranians marched off to be used as slave labor in Germany?
The Russians let the Germans off easy. 4 days of rape and pillage (according to one lady) is a hell of a lot easier than 4 years of brutal occupation, forced labor, starvation, and rape and pillage.
Had the Russians really acted like the mongoloid barbarians of Goebell’s propaganda, there would have been pyramids of sculls, humiliation and torture-executions of the German leadership, women being marched off into sex slavery and all the other well known cultural quirks of Ghengis Khan’s boys. Instead, some POWs had to rebuild the stuff they spent four busy years blowing up, some women had to get abortions because they got raped ( or just traded sex for food and protection and later lied about it).
Boo fng hoo. Don’t attack Russia next time.
Stalin wasn’t stupid. He was afraid that if the USSR displayed any aggression, the Western powers would stop their war with Germany and join it in an attack on the USSR. Winning against Germany and the US, and Great Britain would have been impossible.
I don’t know if that was true, but it seems like a valid concern for Stalin to have
[From your post I deduce you have yet to attain pig intelligence level.]
It’s rather simple. Reptiles are behind, much behind on the evolutionary timeline.
[ ….why should they change their behaviour when transferred to the east ?
Were the Russian peasant girls, reeking of com dung, that more attractive ?]
Why? On the whole Russian girls are far more attractive than German girls. There is a stupid stereotype about German girls being blonde, blue and attractive. They are not on the average. Mostly masculine or frumpy.
All indications were that Stalin was preparing to fight the Germans in 1942/43. In the meantime he was concentrating on rebuilding and strengthening the Soviet forces that he had himself partly depleted by his purges of the Red Army in 1937/38. This was part of the reason for the Nazi-Soviet Pact. The Pact offered two advantages:
a) He could swallow up the Eastern European territories ceded by the Nazis without a fight.
b) Free the Germans to fight the imperialists – ie, the French and British to a phyrric victory,
since the West would have bled white as in WWI.
Unfortunately, from the Soviet POV, the swift defeat of the French in 1939, put paid to all that. From then on our friend Stalin was fearful of provoking Hitler at all costs, since he had grossly miscalculated. Hence his criminal orders right up to June 22 1941, to the Soviet forces not to in any way prepare an active defence. In any right order of the world, the swine Stalin should have been hung from the highest tree for the gross miscalculations and paranoia that saw the Soviet frontline forces collapse in short order. The mass deaths of the Soviet forces have only one final cause: the genocidal criminal, Uncle Joe but the Stalinists arses posting here and elsewhere, keep rushing to protect their hero.
Incidentally it is not often noted that Rudolf Hess’ peace flight to see Churchill, probably sealed the fate of millions of the Soviet forces in the early days of Barbarrossa – it confirmed to Stalin’s paronoid mind – that ‘imperialistic’ circles in Germany and Britain were determined to make Hitler wage war on the Soviet Union (before she was ready). In a cosmically ironic way, Stalin became even more frantic not to give Hitler any excuse to abrogate the Nazi-Soviet Pact, resulting in more orders to the troops not to provoke the Germans, even as they were cutting Soviet telephone lines in preparation for the invasion!
I agree, but the question was whether they were more attractive than French (and I suppose Norwegian) girls.
It’s still a silly question.
All indications were that Stalin was preparing to fight the Germans in 1942/43.
There is a huge difference between Stalin preparing USSR for a possible fight AND Stalin preparing to attack Germany.
Obviously, Hitler and Stalin were carefully eyeing one another. Stalin wanted to build up the military to the point where Hitler wouldn’t even dare contemplate invading the USSR.
But such preparations doesn’t mean Stalin was planning to use military might to invade Germany. Stalin’s attitude was much like that of the French after WWI: Concentration on Defense. His military strategy toward Germany was one of containment, not provocation.
For example, Putin has grown anxious about the US and NATO, and so, he’s been preparing Russia for possible military conflict. But that doesn’t mean that he is building up arms to invade Poland or invade Western Europe.
Also, during the Cold War, both the US and USSR embarked on massive military buildup. But they did so defensively as the consensus on both sides was to prevent war by awesome show of force.
Another thing. There was no need for the USSR to invade Germany or even take Eastern Europe. Why? Because the USSR was vast as it was. It had tons of land, lots of people, and unlimited natural resources. So, the USSR didn’t need to take more land.
The ONLY reason why Eastern Europe fell into the Soviet Orbit was because Germany invaded and then lost the war. So, obviously, the Soviets rolled into all the allies of Nazi Germany as a ‘liberating’ power.
The reason why Hitler was hellbent on attacking Russia was because Germany was much smaller than the USSR and had limited resources, even with German hegemony over much of Western and Central Europe. USSR was self-sufficient in fuel and natural resources. Germany was not. Also, even without taking one more inch of territory, the USSR was a world unto itself. In contrast, Germany was, at most a mid-sized nation. So, for Germany to be a true super-power like USSR and the US, it needed more land and more natural resources to claim as its own.
Hitler had everything to gain by conquering Soviet Union. It was a huge risk but came with great reward. In contrast, Stalin didn’t need to invade Eastern Europe and Germany to have so much land and resources at his disposal.
So, Stalin needed to be well-armed and prepared as a defensive measure against Germany. Stalin was NOT waiting to pounce on Germany. Stalin knew that even if USSR were to prevail, the costs would be tremendous and horrendous, as indeed WWII proved to be for the Soviet Union.
Watch this documentary if you have time, it is surprisingly neutral considering this is from a mainstream source.
It goes inside both minds and explains their reasoning (according to them).
Well, OK. But when raid is used as a part a of war, the relative attractiveness isn’t relevant.
They were the only girls available and weren’t likely to go willingly.
Oh, I see. Easy enough for the set of 4 in competition; in order of decreasing average attractiveness: Russian, French, Norwegian, German.
Silly I agree, but JD opened the door first.
We’re on UNZ Review, important people like neocons don’t read Mr. Karlin, the Polish/Baltic Nationalists and the Deranged Nazi fringe of the alt-right is mostly who this article was intended for.
I’m afraid there is something to this. I’m a very unimportant person myself, but frankly, given the stupidity on display in this thread I wouldn’t admit to reading or commenting on Unz review. Would be embarrassing.
Nobody here seems seriously to consider that from 1932 on Roosevelt prepared for war.
Charles A. Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the coming of the war 1941, A study in appearances and realities’, New Haven, 1948
Nobody understands, or takes notice, that for that reason he diplomatically recognised the USSR, so that military aid could begin, especially with regard to planes.
Franz Kurowski, ‘Balkenkreuz und Roter Stern, Der Luftkrieg über Russland 1941 – 1944’, 1984, Friedberg
Nobody notices that Davies, the first, I think USA ambassador, ignored how the trials by Stalin at the time were show, he was a nephew of Morgenthau sr.
Nobody seems to know that USA troops did enter Prague, on reconnaissance, but were forbidden to take the city.
Thereby, as Tsjechs say, postponing their liberation until 1990.
Nobody seems to know that Eisenhower forbade his troops to take Berlin, this prize was for Stalin.
That Stalin never trusted his ‘allies’ is true, he especially hated Churchill, who understood who Stalin was, not Roosevelt’s Uncle Joe.
Churchill did not want the invasion in Normandy, but in the Adriatic, in order not give E Europe to Stalin.
Churchill also performed the PQ 17 show, he let a whole convoi to Murmansk be destroyed in order to give Stalin the idea that these were impossible, and the Dieppe raid show, to make it clear to Stalin how difficult the invasion was.
Just Canadian troops were sent to Dieppe, without air support, in 1943, it was a disaster, as it was meant to be.
David Irving, ‘The destruction of Convoy PQ.17’, London, 1968, 1980
Unauthorized Action: Mountbatten and the Dieppe Raid
Villa, Brian Loring
Published by Oxford University Press, USA (1989)
That Roosevelt wanted a long war is clear, in 1938 Hitler could have been beaten in a few weeks time, without the USA and the USSR gaining anything.
As Sol Bloom, a political friend of Roosevelt writes:
The great accomplishment of Roosevelt was that he slowly prepared the USA people for war’.
Sol Bloom, ‘The Autobiography of Sol Bloom’, New York 1948
Once one understands the grand design, everything falls into place, also the failure of the New Deal.
Hogwash, on the one hand to keep the democrats in power, on the other hand having a gigantic labour reserve ready for war production.
Also the effort, in vain, by Roosevelt’s predecessor, to save the USA banks, when Roosevelt already was elected, but not yet in power.
Roosevelt was not interested, he needed misery.
That in all probability Roosevelt was murdered, also seems not clear.
The coffin going from Warm Springs to Washington just contained his ashes, he had been cremated, nobody was told.
The reason for the murder is easy to grasp, he told Congress that ten minutes with Saud had taught him more about the zionist Palestinian conflict than hundreds of letters, and that he had promised Saud to limit jewish emigration to Palestine.
He in this did not follow the text prepared for him, it seems that these statements even are not in the official records of Congress.
But I suppose the co writer of the speech, Sherwood, knew quite well what he had written, so I believe him.
Robert E. Sherwood, ‘Roosevelt und Hopkins’, 1950, Hamburg (Roosevelt and Hopkins, New York, 1948)
Churchill turned away from zionism in 1953, when his life long friend Moyne was murdered in Cairo, by zionists, because he had refused to trade a million jews for large numbers of trucks, just to be used on the eastern front.
Moyne is supposed to have said ‘what am I going to do with a million jews ?’.
Once the Komintern plans to make western countries communist by revolution had failed, Stalin’s defeat in Spain, also in Germany, Hitler, he knew that just war could bring him world power.
Stalin therefore was happy to join Roosevelt’s war.
The August 1939 Molotov Von Ribbentrop deal startled Roosevelt, he was fishing on on the Atlantic near the Canadian coast, he immediately let the Potomac, his yaught, bring him to the nearest Canadian port, then he went by train to Washington.
As I have said, before the new wave of repression against free historical inquiry in Russia began to materialize, eventually resulting in the Orwellian ‘memory law’ passed by the Duma to protect the untenable ‘great patriotic war narrative’, there was a window of time after the fall of the S.U which saw a partial opening of the archives and the rise of the new Russian historians, who began to look more critically at the Stalin regime’s responsibility for bringing about the clash with Germany and the war itself.
German Slavicist & political analyst Wolfgang Strauss discusses the findings of several of the Russian researchers, some of whom I have listed above, in his book ‘Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit’. https://www.amazon.de/Unternehmen-Barbarossa-russische-Historikerstreit-Wolfgang/dp/3776620285
(from a review of it by D.Michaels):
Some of the Major findings of the new Russian historians presented in the book I mentioned in my previous post , ‘Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit’;
-Stalin wanted a general European war of exhaustion in which the USSR would intervene at the politically and militarily most expedient moment. Stalin’s main intention is seen in his speech to the Politburo of August 19, 1939.
-To ignite this, Stalin used the [August 1939] Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact, which: a) provoked Hitler’s attack against Poland, and b) evoked the declarations of war against Germany by Britain and France. But not against the Soviet Union which also invaded Poland taking half of it.
-In the event Germany was defeated quickly by Britain and France, Stalin planned to “Sovietize” Germany and establish a “Communist government” there, but with the danger that the victorious capitalist powers would never permit a Communist Germany.
-In the event France was defeated quickly by Germany, Stalin planned the “Sovietization” of France. “A Communist revolution would seem inevitable, and we could take advantage of this for our own purposes by rushing to aid France and making her our ally. As a result of this, all the nations under the ‘protection’ of a victorious Germany would become our allies.”
-From the outset Stalin reckoned on a war with Germany, and the Soviet conquest of Germany. To this end, Stalin concentrated on the western border of the USSR operational offensive forces, which were five- to six-times stronger than the Wehrmacht with respect to tanks, aircraft and artillery.
-Troop contingents were to be brought up to full strength in all the western military districts; airfields and supply bases to support a forward-strategy were to be built directly behind the border; an attack force of 60 divisions was to be set up in the Ukraine and mountain divisions and a parachute corps were to be established for attack operations.
-The 16th, 19th, 21st, 22nd and 25th Soviet Armies were transferred from the interior to the western border, and deployed at take-off points for the planned offensive.
The best reply to this type of chick would have been for him to point to his bottles, ask her which one she likes, and offer her a drink on the house. Instead of taking her seriously, he should have kept up a sexist patter about how it’s a shame she’s alone, she needs a man to take care of her, she could look really good if she’d put on some makeup and wear something tight-fitting – all interspersed with suggestions that they go in the back where they can be more comfortable, because he really enjoys talking to her and wants to hear her story …
What they hell is the point if this article? I have read a lot of history of this period, including Max Hastings’ “Armageddon” (I’m looking at it right now in my library as I type) and I have never seen anyone advance the idea of “the nice German soldier”. WWII in Europe was started by two barbarian dictators, Stalin and Hitler. Pursuant to an agreement Hitler invades Poland from the west and Stalin invades from the east. Then they end up fighting each other in a manner consistent with the barbarous natures of the two dictators. The reality is, the ordinary soldier in the ranks has absolutely no say in how he will behave. In both armies any refusal to promptly follow orders would have lead to summary execution.
In fact, in Hastings’s “Armageddon” he recounts a story where a German woman is about to be raped by a Red Army soldier, she escapes and runs to a Red Army officer seeking protection. The officer grabs the soldier and executes him. After reading the book I did not walk away thinking Hastings was saying the German soldier was really a nice guy who just happened to get some bad press.
Another, newer book, that makes available the research of several Russian historians debunking the official narrative, is ‘Überfall auf Europa: Plante die Sowjetunion 1941 einen Angriffskrieg?(2009), edited by Viktor Suworow/Dmitrij Chmelnizki.
https://www.amazon.de/%C3%9Cberfall-auf-Europa-Sowjetunion-Angriffskrieg/dp/393238153X/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494865391&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=suvorow
A reviewer, ‘Perlmutt’ writes;
‘Die hier vertretenen neun russischen Historiker haben intensiv recherchiert und schreiben sehr sachlich, im Gegensatz zu manch einem ihrer deutschen “Kollegen”.’
Well, that was then folks… with the criminalization of dissident thought re WW2 in Russia as well as the closing of the archives, except to some extent for the usual court historians, such as the Israeli Gorodetsky, Russian historians will find themselves increasingly in the same straight-jacket of political ‘history’ as most of their German colleagues.
For example, when German military historian Dr. Joachim Hoffmann, after research, agreed with the Russian revisionists and began to write about it, several German official bigwigs, cannot recall exactly who now, told him he should not do it, as such would exonerate Hitler and N.S.
The facts and truth be damned!
To be clear, the politicization of history, its use as a weapon, is conducted by all parties in a position of doing so, only the methods vary. In many Western countries, even the heavy-handed method used now in Russia is used, particularly in the case of the sacred religion of the holohoax.
Well, you got it right only in part.
The British war party and the FDR administration also played big fat roles in getting the war started, escalating it and prolonging it.
The Brits and the Zamericans were very much responsible too, criminals the lot of them.
Max Hastings is , of course, a court historian with a deep anti-German bias.
Jilles,
If you haven’t yet, try to get historian Walter Post’s books, particularly his
” Die Ursachen des Zweiten Weltkrieges –
Ein Grundriß der internationalen Diplomatie von Versailles bis Pearl Harbor”
Very thorough study on the causes that led to WW2.
The authenticity of the speech is in question. It’s possible that it was a forgery by one of the French intelligence services, for example.
Unless you fear some form of persecution (loss of a livelihood etc.), you shouldn’t deny it, instead just point out that there are a lot of crazies for obvious reasons, and that of course one has to read comments at one’s own risk. (But is it still necessary to point this out in this age when everyone has a lot of experience with crazy commenters on pages of pop bands and the likes?) In Hungary in 1989 anti-communists were often crazy, and the advent of free speech meant the explosion of a lot of non-political craziness (from astrology through ufology etc.), but it doesn’t mean that communism was good.
Richard J. Evans (of Irving-trial fame) wrote casually (in The Third Reich at War) about the fact that neither Stalin nor Hitler expected the peace to last between them. If someone needs, I can find a page number, it’s easy to find.
In general I agree with you, but frankly, parts of this thread are just moronic. It’s not just the demented Holocaust deniers (who for some reason insist that I’m some sort of politically correct, anti-German lemming…haha)…when I see that this thread degenerates into some idiotic “discussion” which country has better-looking women (in a thread that originally dealt with the topic of rapes in wartime), I despair. Are people really that dumb and immature? Granted, there are quite a few reasonable, interesting comments here, but at least 50% is just low-quality nonsense. But I suppose one has to live with that…the alternative (censorship) would be worse.
The f**k you know about communism, you moron. And the rest of the morons brainwashed by decades of propaganda. Have you ever lived under communism? As a path to enlightenment, to you I also suggest the mantra from #442.
http://www.politics.hu/20080521/poll-shows-majority-of-hungarians-feel-life-was-better-under-communism/
German_reader:
While some UR comments are off-the-wall, I find that many of them are high-caliber and worthy of attention and deserve either comment or counter-comment.
BTW, I have always found your comments to be both judicious and well-informed.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html
Otherwise, f**k you Nazi swine.
Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment.
Well, of course a lot of people are nostalgic for the communist era…with the passing of time its disadvantages become less prominent in people’s memory, whereas dissatisfaction with the present system (which often is fully justified) makes the advantages of life in the old Eastern bloc seem attractive. I’m certainly not one to claim that everything was bad in the Eastern bloc (at least its popular culture seems to have been much less degenerate than what we have in today’s west). That’s not an argument though that communism can work as an economic system.
As for you calling me a “Nazi swine”…lol. I guess being insulted by both the Holocaust denial brigade and by your kind means I’m really a moderate centrist after all.
And then of course, these same Red Army hero-worshippers will call you every kind of fascist if one dares to commemorate the Ukrainians and others who fought the Red Army in the UPA, OUN, and other formations.
I’ve read so many books on history since 1870, the turning point in recent history, that I suppose no book can add any significant knowledge.
Beautifully and forcefully stated – and true. Sorry I missed this article when it came out, but very good to see you here. A guess on who AP is? A little bit like Dr. Preobrazhensky, but different. Now if Oknemfrod and Peter would show up, what a lineup!
umfangreiche amerikanische Literatur stützen, die schon bald nach dem Kriege die offizielle Version des Weißen Hauses hinterfragte. Diese Untersuchungen kamen übereinstimmend zu dem Ergebnis, daß die Politik Roosevelts zur Entstehung des Zweiten Weltkrieges entscheidend beigetragen habe.
My ideas go even further, had not Roosevelt been brought into politics in 1932, there would have been no WWII.
In 1933 Roosevelt was quite busy, his correspondence with Churchill began, at the time just an unemployed citizen, and he recognised the USSR diplomatically.
The man who brought Roosevelt into politics, Bernard Baruch, was a friend of Churchill, already in 1928 or 1929 he had witheld Churchill from going into business, and told Churchill he had a great future in politics.
This came true.
I am sorry for calling you a “Nazi swine”. I guess if all Russians can be commies, then all Germans can be Nazis. Anyhow, I don’t entirely agree with your explanation that it’s all “nostalgia” or whatever. Get ready for this one: Communism was actually more humane than capitalism (I won’t even bother to call it democracy). All the intellectual midgets here can argue about this one, but they don’t know diddly.
Everything that people in the west “know” about communism is what their rulers wanted them to “know”. I am not saying that overall communism was a better model, but it was definitely more humane. You can go on about gulags, and famines and KGB and whatever you think that you know. It doesn’t really matter. I am not smarter than anybody on this site, it’s just that I have a firsthand experience of both systems and I can make observation based on that experience and not on some BS propaganda. Have a nice day.
https://communismgr.blogspot.ca/2016/08/life-was-better-under-communism-says.html
I am not smarter than anybody on this site
You really didn’t need to point this out.
Some of us do know diddly, and not just Bo and squat.
“I am not smarter than anybody on this site, it’s just that I have a firsthand experience of both systems”
Well yes, but unless you’re very old, it’s not like you have lived through the worst times of Stalinism (and I’d assume you’re not Chinese either so you haven’t lived through the Cultural Revolution) – which is what people mostly refer to when they’re calling communism inhuman. I don’t think most people here would claim that the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc after Stalin’s death was somehow the very epitome of evil; compared with the vast mass of human history it certainly had a lot of advantages, and I can see why people feel nostalgic for at least some aspects of it. It’s just that in the end the system failed on an economic level. I’m not going to defend the capitalist system though either, certainly the way things have been going in the last 30 years or so it’s hard not to feel cynical about it.
The narrator in this video demonstrates what he decries: a failure of critical thinking.
He links some of his favorite, mindlessly inculcated memes —
“Prussian education teaches slavish obedience;
Fichte taught German supremacist;
Fichte said that “Jews are a state within a state . . .”
then uses them to bash Prussia/Germany and, by extension, the US education system, as teaching its children on the “neo-Nazi” model.
But the narrator fails to critically analyze his own assertions: to cite one brief example and one lengthy critique:
–>a brief example:
Germany achieved a high-water mark in industrial development and progress, such that US higher education emulated it — What was going on at the great universities in France, Britain and Italy at the time? Did they achieve similar advances in prosperity and distributed literacy? Would it have been wiser to emulate the Italian model rather than the Prussian model?
[answer: Perhaps YES:the Italian Montessori developed a superior model for childhood education]
–> a more lengthy critique might pose the question: Why were there so many Jews in Germany?
Jacob Raisin offers an answer in “The Haskalah Movement:” Jews flocked to Germany to enroll in the superior German and Austrian universities.
As Israel Shahak explains in his landmark work, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” until the time of emancipation, Jews lived out their lives under the oppressive rules of their rabbis, strictures that forbade secular education for males and limited all education for females. Rabbis/ Jewish community leaders exercised life-and-death control over the minutia of Jewish life.
In his lectures, Rabbi Henry Abramson states that in the opening years of the 20th century,only 30% of East European Jews were literate.
Migrating to Germany to get an education, even in the dreaded Prussian system, amounted to a quantum leap into enlightened modernity for E European Jews.
Jews were, indeed, a “state within a state” in Germany as elsewhere: most of the elements of Jewish liturgy, ritual, and mores, from food rules to marriage rules, reinforce the theme of Jews as a separate people . To cite a present day example: In one of the wealthiest and most sophisticated of DC suburbs, homes built to appeal to observant Jews include double kitchens, to accommodate two sets of dishes and two wash-sinks and dishwashers, so that dinnerware for milk can be kept separate from dinnerware for meat — one of the ways that Jews enforce upon themselves the sense of a “people apart.”
The dominance of Jews in German and Austrian schools and universities was one of the primary sources of friction between native Germans and Jews: in 1933, Leonard Stein published two pamphlets detailing what he called “persecution” of Jews; the majority of the items involved restriction of Jewish presence in German schools/universities to a number proportionate to the population of Jews in Germany. The 1935 Nuremberg laws codified such restrictions, against which some Jews — mostly American zionists — complained vehemently.
In short, the narrator of this clip suffers from an affliction similar to that which he decries: he slavishly regurgitates and teaches propaganda in service of the PTB; he does not practice critical thinking.
I meant anybody not everybody. It was trying to offer a random generosity, which on a second thought it shouldn’t include you. I should be able to beat you in any intelligence contest by using only my spinal cord neurons.
Bullshit you lowlife sack of shit. The Russians killed a very low number and percentage of Polands you dipshit.
Russians are proud of liberating Poland, who were on the point of annihilation…and Russia sacrificed 600000 of its men to do so you lowlife cunt
Once knew a woman would 100 this year if she were still around. Her aunt, aged 15 in Czechoslovakia during WWI, threw herself in front of a train after she heard of German soldiers raping girls. “Not treating them very nicely” as the old lady expressed it. Must have been a convincing rumor for her aunt to kill herself that way. There is a book by a Russian who was about 13 when Russian soldiers attacked some of the women in her apartment complex. One woman staggered around her flat for many days before seeking help because of an infection from one of them biting her nipple off. It was strange to hear of them attacking other Russians. What was that about? Internal factions fighting? The author of the book was not attacked and thought it was because of her age, but a doctor she saw said she was lucky because most females who had been in her area were raped and many much younger than she.
It is doubtful the number of rapes was as massive as claimed, but it was common. Even boys were raped. Who knows. Maybe they raped dogs and goats. War brings out the worst in everybody.
If you can get your spinal cord neurons to engage in abstract thinking I will defer to you.
BTW, you can use the extra help.
Beyond that, you seem to be an upgrade in the unreconstructed commie commenter brigade. At least you have a sense of humor.
The Soviet Union may not have needed any territory as such, but Stalin was a disciple of Marxism-Leninism. That theory held that world revolution was inevitable, as the imperialists succumbed to the forces of history; conveniently embodied in the organs of the Soviet state. In the arcana of his dispute with Trotsky, one of the of most contentious points was that between ‘international communism’ and ‘communism in one country’. Stalin was an advocate of the latter, Trotsky and Tuchachevsky votaries of the former**. (‘International Communism’ was at play in the attempted invasion of Poland in 1920.) The difference as far other countries were concerned was only a matter of timing. In Stalin’s estimation after the purges and so on, the Soviet Union would not be ready to be at the vanguard of liberating the international masses until the modernisation and augmentation programme of the Soviet forces was completed in 1942/43. Hitler had the uncanny ability to strike with speed and daring at his enemies (largely due to the ability of the German armed forces, we would not be having this discussion if the German Army was not the best in the world), Stalin feared provoking him at the wrong time . But the size, disposition and future plans of the Soviet forces all pointed to world conquest. Just because the Nazis assert this, it does not make it wrong.
** As with everything to do with Stalin, the reason for the difference of opinion may be nothing more than that Trotsky held the opposite view.
While Churchill at the end of it looked like a fool, Roosevelt though was knowing knave. Roosevelt was an American Machiavellian, doing what he could to manoeuvre the Japanese into an all out war. According to Hoover, pressure from Roosevelt resulted in the UK giving the stupid guarantee to Poland.
The Continuum of Sexual Violence in Occupied Germany, 1945-49
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09612029600200111
The Russian scholar Nikolay Koposov and his wife, both lost their jobs and had to emigrate, because of his defense of freedom of historical thought and expression in Russia, in opposition of the memory law which upholds the untenable Soviet/Russian official WW2 narrative.
In his article ‘The Armored Train of Memory”: The Politics of History in Post-Soviet Russia’, 2011, Nikolay Koposov writes:
I don’t know why it is so difficult for some to accept that Stalin had planned on general invasion of Europe, and that the Nazi-Soviet Pact was just a preparation for it. It is not as though Stalin was a choir boy or something like that.
Very interesting what Russian scholar Nikolay Koposov has to say about the historical profession, a simple insight, and true pretty much everywhere;
N. Koposov then talks about the obvious counters, also in the form of politicized ‘history’, emanating from those Baltic and Eastern European countries that suffered , er, ‘liberation’, at the hands of the peace loving Stalinists:
As both me and Rurik have stated before, this sort of Russian behavior pushes those countries right into the arms of the Zio-American Empire. It’s very counter-productive, yet Russia just cannot help it.
From the perspective, say, of many Poles, having monuments for Red Army soldiers in Poland is pretty much the same as having monuments for the German army.
Certainly the Americans were the big victors of WW2, followed by Stalin. The big loser was Europe in general, Germany in particular, as it ceased to exist as a sovereign country.
As for the Soviets, the victory costs were so high that some historians think it spelled their doom a few decades later.
Already in 1938, the Roosevelt administration was trying to get a war going in Europe.
The new deal had failed, unemployment was high.
At the end of the war, the US was untouched, main competitors in the world destroyed or in poor condition.
For a while the Soviet Empire moved on, seemingly recovering from the terrible losses, then it collapsed.
I would say that in practice the Germans were forgiven more quickly than practically any other people in history. The frequent appearance of villainous Nazis in movies had little to no practical effect on actual U.S.-German relations.
Within less just a few years after the war was over, the U.S. had made a major commitment to the freedom of West Germany even though they knew that such a commitment risked nuclear war. A popular U.S. president claimed that he himself should be considered a resident of Berlin. A car created by the Nazis and once endorsed by Hitler himself became popular with the most self-consciously hip and cool elements of the population.
yet Russia just cannot help it
Because they need to hold onto something. The myth of Great Patriotic War and Glorious Red Army and Immortal Regiment what they opted for.
It’s pretty understandable the Poles would feel that way.
at least some of the Red Army where not comitted Stalinists. A fact Stalin understood.
According to Hoover, pressure from Roosevelt resulted in the UK giving the stupid guarantee to Poland.
Do you have any references for this? Before the UK guarantees Poland was courted by Hitler very strongly. Public opinion in Poland (which means media that were inciting hostility) was against the treaty with Germany but there were sober minded politicians in Poland who were considering it. W/o UK guarantees if Poland became an ally of Germany the history would be entirely different. Probably there would there would be no Holocaust in Poland as Jews in countries allied with Hitler had much higher degree of protection that in countries hostile and occupied.
Please read :
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.sg/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html
The book itself is Freedom Betrayed – Herbert Hoover.
There is also a section on this is in Mr Buchanan’s,
Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World
I myself tend to the view that the genocidal bugger, Mr Hitler wanted war, so I don’t think that Poland could have avoided war, but at least they could have bought time and prepared better for it. Poland since long ago was a thorn in the side of both the Russians and Germans.
Thanks for the link:
Losers and winners are decided by the Will of History. But the Europeans didn’t help matters by engaging in a suicidal war in WWI, for which the Germans bear a large share of responsibility. They under the Nazis, waged a genocidal war against all in WWII. In my opinion they got what they deserved. Nonetheless the butcher’s bill would have been shorter had the Allies not insisted on ”unconditional surrender”. ”Unconditional surrender” played right into Stalin’s hand as he could rely on it not to be backstabbed. Right until the end, Uncle Joe was afraid that the Western Allies would conclude a separate peace with the Germans.
After the fact, to cover the grim reality that the Eastern Europeans were now under the Soviet yoke, thereby vindicating in a manner of speaking the Nazi fight against Judeo-Bolshevism, there descended the dogma that ”unconditional surrender” was the only way to have gotten rid of the Nazis. All historical studies, especially by the British cabal of historians, motivated by their reputation as good losers, work to reinforce this. Hence, any attempt to say that; perhaps working on the internal German Opposition to the Nazis would have yielded results, are met with complete derision. You can see in the treatment meted out to members of the resistance in popular accounts: they were royalists, Catholics, Prussians, antisemites; what good could have come of this lot? Better to raze all of Germany than to rely on them.
I can engage my spinal cord neurons into pretty much any kind of thinking: Abstract, Impressionist, Neoclassical – anything you want my friend. You won’t be too much of a challenge even for my spinal cord.
I wonder if the British needed Roosevelt for their guarantee.
The 1938 Chamberlain is portrayed as a coward, my view is he deliberately sacrificed himself, he belonged to the so called Thirtyniners, who were under the illusion that in 1939 GB would be ready for war.
The British believed that by bombing the enemy in his own country one could force him to capitulation.
British planning for a fleet of long range bombers began already in 1937, or even earlier.
Parallel with the bomber plan was the radar plan, designed to make it impossible for the enemy to retaliate.
R.F. Harrod, ‘THE PROF, A personal memoir of Lord Cherwell’, London, 1959
The Earl of Birkenhead, ‘The Prof in Two Worlds, The official life of Professor F. A. Lindemann’, Viscount Cherwell, London, 1961
Adrian Fort, ´PROF, The Life of Frederick Lindemann´, London 2003
Lindemann, later Lord Cherwell, was against radar.
Both asssumptions were wrong, bombing prolonged the war, radar was effective, but not as effective as was assumed.
It took me a long time to understand why Poland did not remain neutral.
It was because all the Polish divisions occurred after a war in which Poland had been neutral.
Polish expectations were that after the German attack Germany would collapse, they would take Berlin.
If it all failed, they expected a greater Poland after the war.
Comte Jean Szembek, Ancien sous-secrétaire d’État aux Affaires étrangères de Pologne, ‘Journal, 1933 – 1939’, Paris 1952
Which German freedom ?
There still are some 170.000 USA troops in Germany, no country defends the truth of the victors better than Germany.
At the same time making the Germans feel guilty until today, one of the reasons Germany welcomes immigrants.
YOu may note that all such “plans” started with “we do not want war, but if Germans would be so stupid to attack us, after the war we would want to take…” Without Hitler’s invasion, there would be no war.
Not to mention that you have to differentiate between the propaganda directed to the population and low-level troops, and the expectations at the top. The propaganda was all about how fast we would reach Berlin, but the fact is the military plans were all about withdrawing and keeping the lines till offensive in the west, and there are also memories of lower officers like this one guy, who remembers how he boasted to his superior about Polish morale, and when he finished, his superior answered “but you have to realised taht in case of war we will get our a* whopped?”
The British investment in a bomber force, was in lieu of a large army. After the general slaughter in WWI, the British public had very little stomach for a continental war involving a large army, and who can blame them? The massive bomber force was to compensate for the smaller British Army. I can’t say that it worked out too well, since the Bomber Command lost over 50,000 men. As the air force criteria is generally tougher than that for recruits into the army, the British lost many officer grade men, who could have made a difference in a larger army.
Of course Bomber Command had its own dogmas:
a) The Bomber will always get through.
b) Dehousing the Germans workers will stop the war.
Nonetheless it has to be said, that the RAF (and the RN) were the equal of anything the Germans could throw at them. They had performed mighty deeds.
There was no option of neutrality for Poland in 1939. There alternative was: with or against Germany.
If Polish government in 1938/39 tried to make the deal with Germany most likely there would be a coup just like in Yugoslavia in 1941 organized by pro-British faction (read British agents).
I do not think anybody in Poland apart for some lunatics believed that Germany would collapse and that Poland would take Berlin.
“You’re however right the territories beyond the Oder were strongly pro-Nazi (also quite backwards in their general social structure, with all those large landowners).
Anyway, there is little point to discussing these matters today imo.”
I would very much like to discuss these matters, because my relatives from the German speaking Banat of today’s Romania, west of Timisoara, (Temesvar, Temeschburg, Austria Hungary, when my grandparents emigrated to America in 1906) were probably removed after the war. At any rate, when I went there on my ancestor search/pilgrimage in 1991, and when, after much examination of old maps, I finally found St. Mihai Germain (German St. Michael), Grandpa’s birthplace, nothing German remained but a row of empty cottages with German surnames above the doorways in one street. I recognized Jung, one of the cousins who sponsored my grandparents.
As everyone seemed to be speaking Romanian, I didn’t stay long. There was one old man, however, who just happened to be in his garden as I passed. He looked … familiar, so I stopped. He was accompanied by perhaps a granddaughter, and I managed to get her to ask him if he was German. It felt like I was asking the poor man for his “papers” in some old noir movie. He said a few words – I recognized German – and then slipped behind the screen door of his back entrance. The glimpse I got of his face is still a poignant memory for me; fear or suspicion, yes, but also a touch, perhaps, of recognition … It was a lovely old garden, the work of many generations; they were not peasants, nor were they “large landowners”, or if they had once had more land, at least they lived there and not in some city. I sensed he had a story, many stories, and just the ones I had come to hear – but I could not make myself press him for them.
So if you can, would you tell me something about that area? Were they pro-Nazi? How did the post-war period affect them?
“some Yugoslav communist (Milovan Djilas) complained to the Soviets about rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Yugoslavia”
Djilas, in Moscow with Tito to report to Stalin, was personally confronted by the dictator and reprimanded for daring to make this complaint. In fact, Stalin forced Djilas to drink (Djilas did not like to drink) a toast to the Red Army, made of a potent specialty liquor. It was at this dinner that Stalin remarked, according to Djilas, (in “Conversations With Stalin”) that his troops should be allowed to “have a little fun with a woman” after all they’d been through.
” What’s this, a voice of freedom, or of Nazi-like Dark Ages? Suspicious, quite suspicious.”
It is the voice of a knee jerk Russian chauvinist who equates any criticism of Russia with “fascism” and “nazis”.
The Germans in Prussia and Silesia were different from the Saxon settlers of Transylvania. Transylvania was an ethnic mix of Hungarians, Germans and Romanians and Germans weren’t some sort of overlords there; traditionally Hungarians were in charge. To the extent that these Transylvanian Germans supported the Nazis, it was probably an ethnic identity thing and not a reflection of the desire to dominate their neighbors.
The Prussian/Silesian Germans had a sort of colonial relationship or attitude towards the Slavic natives (perhaps a softer version of how white South Africans viewed blacks). They strongly supported the Nazi party and given the context of how Nazis treated Slavs this speaks poorly of those Germans, collectively. Silesian friends of partial German ancestry have told me that yes, the Germans were very pro Hitler and supported his invasions.
After World War II the German civilians in these areas mostly either fled or suffered from atrocities. A few became “Poles” and stayed behind (I suspect most of these were from mixed marriages). Some of these became Germans again and moved to western Germany in the early 90s.
:::::::::::::::::
There are probably some parallels between Saxon Germans and Volga Germans.
German_reader is the type of German that cheers Bomber Harris. Or at the very least burps this up (paraphrase):
Why should we complain about rapes, fire bombings, occupation, fake holocaust mythos and lost territories? There are some young guys catcalling our (sic) women outside nightclubs.
I love Hitler and Germany, it is time for the country to become Muslim, just like Hitler wanted.
I think that lots of people on this site are just a bunch of envious sissies. They are envious of the success that the Red Army soldiers had with the German women. I think that the phrase “Frau komm” should be recognized for what it is – the most successful pick-up line in history and as such it should be entered into the UNESCO world heritage phrases.
‘I would say that in practice the Germans were forgiven more quickly than practically any other people in history.’
pffffhabuhaHAHAHAHA
Thanks for the laugh, comedian!
I don’t really know that much about the “Saxons” in Romania tbh…I know some German minorities (“Donauschwaben”, “Danube Swabians”) in Yugoslavia had quite high enlistment rates in the Waffen-SS (and consequently suffered horrible violence in 1945), but not sure how it was in Romania. In any case, there are now only a few thousand “Saxons” left in Romania. Most emigrated to Germany in the post-war era.
Actually I’ve become fairly critical of Arthur Harris…his fanatical insistence on area bombing is hard to defend imo.
He did however have sound ideas about how to deal with your kind when he was involved in police operations in Iraq in the 1920s 🙂
“The 1938 Chamberlain is portrayed as a coward, my view is he deliberately sacrificed himself, he belonged to the so called Thirtyniners, who were under the illusion that in 1939 GB would be ready for war.”
Chamberlain was simply incapable of understanding Hitler. According to Lukacs in “The Last European War”, Chamberlain did not realize the depth and ferocity of Hitler’s rage, who, after all, had said “It cannot be that so many Germans died for nothing” regarding Germany’s World War One losses and his determination to avenge them; nor the amorality of one who said “The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.”
Another important factor motivating Chamberlain’s appeasement was his loathing of war, following from his profound grief over the World War One death of, iirc, his favorite nephew.
Ivan: “But the Europeans didn’t help matters by engaging in a suicidal war in WWI, for which the Germans bear a large share of responsibility.”
Nonsense. The British, Russians and French bear most of the responsibility for WW1.
Ivan: ‘They under the Nazis, waged a genocidal war against all in WWII. In my opinion they got what they deserved. … I myself tend to the view that the genocidal bugger, Mr Hitler wanted war, so I don’t think that Poland could have avoided war, but at least they could have bought time and prepared better for it. Poland since long ago was a thorn in the side of both the Russians and Germans.”
Absurd and patently false statements.
That “genocidal bugger” did NOT want war with Poland and tried to avoid it to the last minute. All the NS leadership really wanted was to redress the facts created by the Versailles Treaty.
« The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war.
His people, and particularly his generals, were profoundly fearful of any such risk — the experiences of World War One had scarred their minds. » – Sir. Basil Liddell Hart, The History of the Second World War.
« The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all. » – Professor AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War.
« Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war;
and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership. » – Professor AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War.
« The fact is that the only real offer of security which Poland received in 1938 and 1939 emanated from Hitler.
He offered to guarantee the boundaries laid down in the Versailles Treaty against every other country.
Even the Weimar Republic had not for a moment taken this into consideration.
Whatever one may think of Hitler’s government or foreign policy, no doubt exists on this point; his proposals to Poland in 1938/39 were reasonable and just and the most moderate of all which he made during the six years of his efforts to revise the Versailles Treaty by peaceful means. »
– Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, U.S historian.
Had the situation with Poland been solved without war, there would not have been any more moves by Germany. In fact, without Stalin going into a pact with Hitler, Germany might have been forced to perhaps give up on the corridor issue altogether, for fear of a 2 front war.
In regards to the Soviet Union, it would largely depend upon Soviet behavior.. at any rate the 2 countries did not even share borders. Until Stalin did his best to destroy the buffer states separating the S.U. from Germany.
“The massive bomber force was to compensate for the smaller British Army. I can’t say that it worked out too well … the RAF (and the RN) were the equal of anything the Germans could throw at them. They had performed mighty deeds.”
The role of the bombing campaigns is still and probably always will be debated, but it’s worth noting that even David Glantz, who generally agrees with the Russian view of the Red Army’s preeminence in Germany’s defeat, conceded that the bombing tied up crucial resources – over a million men, and , just as important, most of the 88 mm cannons, which were the most effective tank killers. IMO, there is little doubt Moscow would have fallen faced with ten or fifteen more divisions and thousands more of the deadly eighty-eights.
Harris’s aerial campaign in Iraq killed a few thousand vs 600,000 urban civilians of your kind in Germany – but do keep yuking it up to make yourself feel better. I see you would like to round the square pegs of the past to fit in better with the Anglos that conquered your country and programmed you. The Anglo narrative of cowing “native” populations appeals to you but your kind was spectacularly cowed then gelded like none other in history – hence the dissonance.
That would have been in 1941 though. Britain’s bombing campaign really got massive only in mid-1943, with the bombing of Hamburg as a spectacular “success”. It was on a much more modest scale in 1941/1942 which were the really critical years for the survival of the Soviet Union.
I wasn’t wholly serious anyway in my previous comment, it would probably have been better if Britain had never meddled in Iraq…nothing good came of it, and I reject imperialism in general.
As for the rest of your comment, nice try at psychoanalyzing me, but I don’t think you’ve succeeded. Bye!
[Which German freedom ?]
Everything that any free peoples enjoy today. Can you name something which Germans are prevented from enjoying compared to, say, the English? Education, choice of livelihood, choice of residence, a great healthcare system, even the best soccer team, etc; in other words, everything any modern state can aspire to. And, in the bargain, they do not have to foot the full freight for defence (defending against whom, of course, is a thornier issue since Russia is not a threat. More pointedly, Germans are better off exclusively remaining manufacturers of heavy machinery and armaments for her allies than militarising and risking another replay of the Prussian Act to the detriment of Europe. That is my opinion which I am sure you’ll find jarring, but there it is nonetheless. History teaches those willing to learn)
I think it is pretty fair to say that Germany like the U.S. has picked the path of a capitalistic-commercial state as a means to achieve their welfare goals. You might speak derisively of free speech restrictions, immigration trends etc, but those are issues to be addressed through the elections in September, are they not? Apparently, most Germans are centrists who do not share any of your fringe concerns.
Thanks for the reply. Transylvania only borders the Banat on the northeast, so probably my Germans in the Banat were not the Saxons. That’s always been a problem for me – I’ve never been able to identify which Germanic group my people came from. There’s also the Danube Swabians, which seem to fit my profile, being Catholic; also, they were originally imported to man the Imperial anti-Ottoman fortifications, and Gramps was in the Austro-Hungarian Army in his youth. Parish records only show our branch of my surname going back to the late 18th century, and I think Saxons came much earlier. When the Prussian/Silesian Germans came to the lands under discussion here, did they assume another name? I know of them in Germany, but had not heard of them in these parts before.
” The Germans by 1942 had installed . over 15,000 88 mm flak guns in cannons Flak belts stretching across the route into the Reich’s industrial heartland.” BY 1942. http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/gd/flak.html
The guns alone, never mind the manpower, would have made a massive difference. Guderian is adamant that the puny 37 and 50 mm anti-tank guns he had were useless.
Hmm, maybe. From what I’ve read, British bombing was very ineffective in 1940/1941, due to technological limitations (even finding the targets was problematic for a long time). The first real “success” of the RAF was the bombing of Lübeck in March 1942 which came as something of a shock to the Germans…but wasn’t really followed up for some time. Things then more or less steadily escalated only from mid-1943 with the bombing of Hamburg which killed 40 000, with the most destructive phase coming only in late 1944/early 1945. Obviously the increasing severity of attacks meant Germany had to devote increasing resources to air defences.
However I see your argument, there’s certainly something to it. I’m not convinced though that it was that decisive in 1942.
Can’t really add more, except to recommend once again Overy’s “The bombing war” which deals with all of this in detail.
Initially they had huge problems finding targets at night. Lubeck was targeted because it was easier to find a coastline. “Gee”, a navigational aid, began to be used, and Pathfinder aircraft dropped coloured flares so follow-up bombers could drop their load at the same spots.
As far as I know it was only the Mongol invasion that split Russia and Ukraine into 2 separate nations – they used to be one before that. Even today Russians affectionately refer to Ukrainians as Little Russians. But I guess you can’t hang a cow’s bell around pig’s neck (You see pigs are less graceful animals, is what I am getting at).
I guess also what the phrase “little Russians” might mean is that given enough time the larvae which are called Ukrainians might blossom into beautiful butterflies – Great Russians, but it’s a vain hope.
I know that I shouldn’t be biased, as a Slav both Ukrainians and Russians are brothers to me. But I have to show bias, because there is only one Slavic country that has ever amounted and will ever amount to anything, and it’s not Ukraine and it ain’t Poland either. You see, you don’t attain national greatness by kissing America’s arse, which is what the two afore mentioned nations think that the magic formula is.
Yes, similar with Hamburg, targets on the coast were easier to find than those inland (and Hamburg of course was exceptionally successful because the RAF managed to jam the German radar by dropping thousands of metal strips). As pathfinders they used Mosquitoes and the like iirc. The technical aspects (well covered in Overy’s book which I can’t recommend enough) are actually quite interesting in a way.
There is something off about you. Like using “exceptionally successful” in this sentence. If I were German I would rather use “exceptionally deadly” and never “exceptionally successful” unless when meant sarcastically. You have been amputated from the past and have no feelings one would expect from a normal psychologically healthy person. I wonder if it is just you or the whole generation of Germans that was being subjected to incessant pedagogy of guilt and shame for 70 years.
When France lost Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 Léon Gambetta said: Think about it all the time but never talk about it. Perhaps you should start thinking what really happened to your country and your people and stop babbling about it. Give Gambetta’s dictum a try.
Yes it is the case that the UK contributed massively to overcoming the Nazis. First by standing all alone (though with her Empire) in 1939/41 while at that the same time having to prepare for the defence of far-flung lands such as Singapore. And second by the destruction of Nazi war making capacity. They would have been even more effective though had they concentrated on industrial targets. But I can understand the rage of the British, as they saw their merchant shipping sunk mercilessly by the Germans.
Ivan: “But the Europeans didn’t help matters by engaging in a suicidal war in WWI, for which the Germans bear a large share of responsibility.”
Nonsense. The British, Russians and French bear most of the responsibility for WW1.
Ivan: ‘They under the Nazis, waged a genocidal war against all in WWII. In my opinion they got what they deserved. … I myself tend to the view that the genocidal bugger, Mr Hitler wanted war, so I don’t think that Poland could have avoided war, but at least they could have bought time and prepared better for it. Poland since long ago was a thorn in the side of both the Russians and Germans.”
Absurd and patently false statements.
That “genocidal bugger” did NOT want war with Poland and tried to avoid it to the last minute. All the NS leadership really wanted was to redress the facts created by the Versailles Treaty.
Danzig, nearly 100% German, never Polish, was to be returned to the Reich and a highway/rail link, the corridor, provided to reconnect east Prussia.
The rest of the German territories wrongly stolen from Germany would remain Polish.
Poland was also to receive special trading status with Danzig as well as a 25 year guarantee for its borders.
British historian, Professor A.J.P Taylor, in his ‘The Origins of the Second World War’, already back in the early 60s, recognized that the state of German armament in 1939 gave decisive proof that Hitler was not seeking general war, and probably did not desire war at all.
Had the situation with Poland been solved without war, there would not have been any more moves by Germany. In fact, without Stalin going into a pact with Hitler, Germany might have been forced to perhaps give up on the corridor issue altogether, for fear of a 2 front war.
In regards to the Soviet Union, it would largely depend upon Soviet behavior.. at any rate the 2 countries did not even share borders. Until Stalin did his best to destroy the buffer states separating the S.U. from Germany.
should read
standing all alone (though with her Empire) in 1940/41 while at that…
instead of 1939/41
Whatever the Germans wanted that was reasonable could have been accommodated by the British and French. But Hitler was angling for world or at least European dominance. The question of Danzig etc, was only temporising as far as the Nazis were concerned. Why should either the British or French or for that matter the Americans and Soviets, not to mention the other Europeans have to accommodate the Germans? What had they done for them? Did the Germans pay for what they did to the French in WWI? Did they show any gratitude to the Poles, for having stood athwart the Soviets with their brand of international communism in 1920 under Pilsudski? Did the British make them pay sufficiently for turning their Muslim subjects against them all across their Empire? Did the Germans pay for sending Lenin and cohort like ”sealed bacillus” into Tsarist Russia? And don’t tell me about Versailles. At the same time that they were pleading inability to pay, their army was conducting manoeuvres in the Ukraine, courtesy of Brest Litovsk.
The lesson of WWI was that the German Army should have been utterly destroyed by Foch, Haig and Pershing when they had the chance in 1918, instead of allowing them to sue for peace. But the Allies did not make the same mistake again in 1945 and that finally is all there was to it.
That’s really getting a bit ridiculous…I mean it’s one thing to criticise imperial Germany for atrocities against Belgian civilians etc., but inciting Muslims in Britian’s colonies can hardly rank as some great crime (and the Germans weren’t even very successful with this). I mean, by that logic Britain should apologize to Turkey for inciting sedition among the Ottoman empire’s Arab subjects.
Strange how much passion those long-ago events still seem to arouse.
It may not count as a crime with you, but the effects were intended to be devastating to British interests. In the event the Germans may not have succeeded, but not for want of trying. In any case comparisons with the Ottomans are moot, since the British by their enlightened administration largely retained the loyalty of their Muslim subjects. The Ottomans on the other hand rightly deserved to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
I have to add here that according to all reliable estimates 2.6 to 3 million Soviet prisoners died within a few months of their captivity in the immediate aftermath of Barbarrossa. What wrong did they do to deserve to be largely starved to death? Norman Davies quotes this figure. So in a way does Solzhenitsyn in the first volume of the Gulag Achipelago. No doubt, Stalin or his own reason refused to acknowledge these prisoners. But does it then follow that the Germans should starve them to death? We sometimes see pictures of babushkas breaking ranks to give a loaf of bread to starving German POWs. Why was the same humanity not shown shown to the Slavs? This clearly shows that the Nazis regarded the East Europeans as Untermenschen, fit only to be slaves.
Whatever we think of Stalin, he did say this:
”If the Germans want a war of annihilation, they will have it.”
Umm, that’s kind of the point of war, devastating your enemies’ interests, isn’t it?
But anyway, no point in starting a large discussion about this…have fun in your exchange with L.K. 🙂
There are 10 million Americans of Polish ancestry.
It’s the largest Polish diaspora in the world. Polish
generals like Kosciuszko and Pulaski played an
important role in the American Revolutionary War,
for example. It’s a diaspora that began forming not
100 or 150 but 250 years ago. For these and many
other reasons, it is very natural for the Polish to feel
affection for America.
You probably think of Poland as an Eastern European country
– a common form of misunderstanding. Eastern European
countries like Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have indeed
(except for the Jews) until recently had little contact with
the U.S.
It should also be pointed out that in 1938 Stalin was a genocidal monster while the Nazis were so far worse than but comparable to American Southern whites. Stalin had killed millions, the Nazi regime had engaged in segregation and occasional lynchings with perhaps a thousand or two victims, if that many. At that time, the two regimes were not in the same league. Under such circumstances, given that Nazism was opposed to Bolshevism and that Germany was a lot closer to the USSR than were France or Britain, it doesn’t seem unreasonable for someone in Chamberlain’s position to go easy on Germany and to allow it to get stronger.
It’s another little way that Stalin contributed to Hitler’s success.
I don’t know if some scattered East Slavic tribes ruled by Scandinavian chieftains could really be considered a “nation.” They probably spoke a very similar language (having migrated from the original east Slavic homeland only a couple centuries earlier), had the same Eastern Christianity forced on them by their overlords, and had the idea that they belonged to an entity called Rus. But a modern feeling of nationhood? Rather doubtful. This wasn’t a state like medieval England. Much of the time before the Mongol invasion the various Rus principalities were engaged in savage wars against each other; they couldn’t even really unify against that threat.
Russians and Ukrainians, already loosely connected, developed into different nations due to the Mongol split, followed by Russians spending time under Mongol tutelage and Ukrainians spending centuries in the Polish world.
It’s more a geographical term – Ukraine is smaller. Like Asia Minor. Ukrainians used to refer to themselves as Rusyns and Rusnaks not just Little Russians.
Here is the main problem that I have with you Polaks. You draw a sense of accomplishment from your religion. You think it’s what makes you equal with the Western Europeans and at the same time better than the Russians. I find that hilarious.
You know who draws a sense of accomplishment from their religion? People who have no other accomplishments to be proud of. You see CIA knew this, that’s why they elected Wojtyla for head honcho or your sect. They shouldn’t have bothered, communism would have collapsed without it.
You know what I really hope for? I hope for Germany one day to regain their independence and to show you (again) how much your wonderful religion makes you equal with them. Because you never learn, you dumb fucks.
It’s self-defeating for you to think in terms
of who is “better,” but in hard economic terms,
i.e., something that is empirically measurable,
Western Slavs (Czechs, Slovaks, and Poles) are
leaving Russia behind. Czech R., at close to $37,000
per capita (GDP PPP), is at almost the level of
Italy and Spain in economic productivity, and of
course, left Portugal and Greece behind a long time
ago. Back in 1993 Russia’s GDP per capita was twice
that of Poland. Today Poland at $29,300 has moved
ahead of Russia which is at about $27,000 level.
The point is that the Russian economic model has
little to offer to the countries in Central Europe. And
Belarusians are beginning to notice that. In Europe
geography is destiny, and culture, let’s face it, has
come from the west. Even Czechia which is farther west
than Poland, and therefore reached nationhood about
100 years ahead of Poland (850 AD vs 950 AD), is more
developed economically than Poland (plus having suffered
little damage during WW II has helped). It’s not religion
so much as geography: the regions that have been part of
the Roman Empire have had a 200-year advantage over
everyone else. Catholicism, to the extent that by becoming
part of Western Christendom, Poland had access to the
great resources of Italy and France, definitely has helped,
although the Vatican always gave preference to Germany
(e.g., the sorry history of the Teutonic Knights)
You should be proud of the economic accomplishments
of your fellow Slavs like the Czechs, Slovaks, and
Poles, instead of being bitter. And the Central
Europeans have done it without engaging in colonialism
or slave trade, which IMHO makes them morally superior
to Britain, France or Germany – all of whom had vast
overseas empires, and now are paying the price. Karma
is a bitch.
Russia, unlike Poland (which only has coal, and economies
are now moving beyond it), has vast natural resources. It
should be one of the richest countries in the world. Something
isn’t right there
You draw a sense of accomplishment from your religion.
The strength and depth of their religious commitment allowed them to overthrow the commies and defeat Soviet imperialism. This was the first domino in a line that is continuing to fall. If I was you, I would suck up to the Chinese, if they will have you.
Germany didn’t have a “vast” overseas empire. It had some colonies for about 30 years or so (and yes, some pretty horrible atrocities were committed during that brief time), but they were economically insignificant and not relevant to Germany’s industrialization.
The tit-for-tat between nationalists in these discussions depresses the hell out of me.
Folks, we’re brothers.
The Second World War came when an alien, utopian mania that was murdering its way across Europe clashed with a countervailing nationalist ideology that went to the most outrageously immoral extremes to combat the former.
It galls me when non-Russian nationalists feel the need to defend Hitler’s every action despite his obvious character flaws and terrible judgment. I’m equally perplexed that Russian nationalists see any critique of Communism, Stalin or the Red Army’s conduct in the war as an attack on Russia in the present by some eternal Nazi Conspiracy. Unforunately, Karlin ends his article with this cheap implication.
Do we not agree that:
We sometimes see pictures of babushkas breaking ranks to give a loaf of bread to starving German POWs. Why was the same humanity not shown shown to the Slavs?
This is not about Slavs or non Slavs. This is about culture and the modern state. The babushkas were premodern. Their natural human compassion was not yet destroyed by communism or capitalism. I am sure you haven’t heard of cases that members of Komsomol were giving bread to POW’s or marching Gulag prisoners. Also you would not hear of similar act of compassion by Americans with respect to chain gang prisoners. The natural human compassion could thrive in Christian cultures but had to be destroyed in anti-human capitalist and communist systems.
You really are a dumb fuck aren’t you? I was talking about accomplishments in terms of culture and general impact on history as a nation. GDP per capita? Really? That’s the best argument you can offer? Kuwait has higher GDP per capita than both Poland and Russia and pretty much everybody else. Does that make them better than anybody?
One of the most devastating effects that religion has on people is that it makes them believe that it makes them better persons. Let me tell you something. If you are a failure in every other aspect of your existence, religion by itself is not going to carry the day. But don’t listen to me, you carry on believing that religion is what makes you equal with the western Europeans even if none of them feels the same towards you. Especially not the Germans.
Yes, it was short-lived. Nevertheless, according
to Wikipedia, the German colonial empire was about
8 times the area of contemporary Poland, and included
colonies in Africa, New Guinea, and the Pacific. I’d call
it ‘vast,’ esp. compared to Poland which didn’t even exist
at the time. Of course, it was not comparable in duration
or size to the British or French empires. However, the
empires gave the Western Europeans a sense of self-confidence,
if not arrogance, that persists even today. The Russians
gained a similar sense of self-confidence when they added
Siberia and Alaska as their colonies. For China it was the
colonization of Tibet. I confess, and that is my bias – I’m
extremely anti-imperialistic, and I feel the same way about
the Ottoman or Japanese empires. It’s interesting that
nothing stimulated progress in science and technology as much
as military expansionism and having standing armies, and not
just in weaponry. So colonialism was wonderful for Western
Europeans – it gave them a sense of superiority over ‘inferior’
peoples both overseas and in Europe, and stimulated new
discoveries and inventions. Cf. von Clausewitz: “War is the
father of invention”
Kuwait has 4.3 million people. You can’t
be serious!
Well said.
The way I see it, Russia has never particularly tried to cozy up to China. It is actually US that has a record of trying to kiss-up to China. Remember the ping-pong diplomacy? When China fully reaches its economic potential, I suspect ping-pong diplomacy alone might not do it anymore. You might have to employ ping-pong, badminton and squash diplomacy and even then you’ll end up being the ping-pong ball that China bounces around.
Well, you can add stuff like abortion, HIV, homicide rate, etc. – other objective measures in addition to GDP. Poland does very well here. Russia, not so much.
As a pro-Slav person you are probably aware that various Moscow-ruled entities have been among the greatest Slav-killers. With the obvious exception of the German Nazis, a historical anomaly, the greatest Slav-killers. The Bolshevik regime murdered millions of Slavs. Slav-killing continues, in much milder form. If Putin had chosen not to provide weapons, training, volunteers etc. to the rebellion within another Slavic country’s territory, that rebellion would have been over long ago and thousands fewer Slavs would be dead. (or, if you like – if he had swiftly just seized the contested territory there would be much less bloodshed – but the Russian State pursues the policy that results in maximum Slav deaths).
If you’ve seen my old posts, I have never
claimed that Poland is superior (or inferior)
to Russia, although in terms of lower rates
of social dysfunction like homicide and HIV
rates, life expectancy, corruption, etc , one
could certainly make that argument. Wikipedia
is full of rankings of this sort.
When it comes to the number of famous people,
Russia has four times the population of Poland,
and has existed continuously for at least 500
years, but in general I’m not impressed by this
type of argument. I’ve known many famous people,
and often they are arrogant a-holes. Humanity doesn’t
need more people like them – it needs more peacemakers.
Besides, the Age of Genius is over. It lasted maybe
200 years, and now all we have is talent, and very little
genius
How does your argument work in your favor? The way I see it, the Russians have both the talent and the genius – what do you have?
Your argument about Ukraine is baloney. It’s not Putin’s fault that Slavs are dying there. It’s the neoNazi Ukrainian morons. Asking US for help to defend them against Russia? Really? Why? Because Americans care more about the Ukrainians than the Russians do? That’s a disgrace. You know what Ukraine is? Ukraine is a rebellious teenage girl which tries to run away from her family (Russia) and ends up in a company of maniacal rapist. Eventually the teenage daughter is going to return to her family (Russia) after being f***ed by everybody, pregnant (with debt) and carrying some kind of venereal disease.
AP: ‘With the obvious exception of the German Nazis, a historical anomaly, the greatest Slav-killers.’
Only in the sense that there was a titanic war between the N.S Germany and Stalinist Russia, a war brought about chiefly by the Stalin regime itself, which therefore, must bear the lion’s share for Soviet losses, military and civilian.
AP: ‘If Putin had chosen not to provide weapons, training, volunteers etc. to the rebellion within another Slavic country’s territory, that rebellion would have been over long ago and thousands fewer Slavs would be dead.’
Now you are being dishonest, Putin’s hand was forced by the coup promoted by the US neocons.
AP:’ (or, if you like – if he had swiftly just seized the contested territory there would be much less bloodshed – but the Russian State pursues the policy that results in maximum Slav deaths).’
Russia did it in the case of the Crimea, beautiful op btw.
In the case of Donetsk and Luhansk, the situation is more complicated & Russia’s key interests less clear, leading to the indirect support for the separatists.
But the key is, this whole mess is ZUSA’s fault, as it has been systematically provoking and encircling Russia.
Ivan: ‘No doubt, Stalin or his own reason refused to acknowledge these prisoners. But does it then follow that the Germans should starve them to death?’
Stalin did not only ‘refuse to acknowledge these prisoners’, he deliberately had a hand in their starvation and deaths.
See my post 228 and fnn post 78.
The Stalin regime was so ruthless that Soviet airstrikes targeted, on purpose, overcrowded soviet POW camps, such as Orel and Novgorod-Severkij.
In the Soviet military, surrender was not allowed. Officers, if they surrendered, would be executed if taken back (or later repatriated) and their families arrested. Conscripts faced same fate but families ‘only’ lost state support.
As Russian journalist Teplyakov put it:
Also, the notion that the Germans deliberately starved the Soviet pows to death is just simply another lie.
The bulk of prisoners taken 1941 early 42 suffered a very high mortality rate largely due to the huge strain and near total breakdown of the German transportation/logistical system. The Germans were simply unable to provide food/housing for such a huge mass of men.
As military historian J. Hoffmann explains, in the spring of 42, with improved conditions, many steps were taken to improve the situation of Soviet pows, greatly reducing mortality.
Also, although made worse by lack of proper nutrition, most of the pows died from epidemics, some of which were quite common in Eastern Europe at the time.
As I have already said, circa 1/3 of the German pows also died, even though in their case, most were captured towards the end of the war.
Around 1/3 of red army pows also perished in Finnish captivity. Were the Finns also trying to starve the prisoners to death?
You are not a serious person.
Ah, Townsville. Fond memories from my hitchhike trip up the coast in ’76 or’77. It was just as I entered either Townsville, or perhaps Rockhampton, hot and tired after a long spell of walking between rides, that I stopped at the garden gate of a little cottage where an old lass was puttering about and asked for water. She gave me some and as I drank I took in the view. Not only was her house endearingly inviting, like something from a drawing in Winnie The Pooh, but from that gate I could look down a winding little street and see the ocean. Jacaranda, lotus and lemon were in blossom … from my store of “places I never should have left”.
Good to hear some sane voices here. Unfortunately there are two many crazies in this thread, as well as in the other one.
Eventually the teenage daughter is going to return to her family (Russia) after being f***ed by everybody, pregnant (with debt) and carrying some kind of venereal disease.
You’re welcome.
Spot – freakin’ – on!
I’m reminded how some of the pre-modern Arabs treated the Armenian refugees that were victims of the modernizing Turkish ethno-state under its secularizing authorities:
“Armenians came to Jordan, believe it or not, on foot. Walking all the way from their motherland through Turkey, under the scorching sun, children, women and the elderly made their way to the deserts of Syria and Jordan. Some were killed on the way, others perished either from exhaustion or butchered at the hands of heartless soldiers.
The ones who were lucky to survive this grueling journey were received and generously treated by Arabs. Al Sharif Hussein offered them protection and told his Arab subjects through a formal letter they should be treated well and their language and religion must be respected.
The letter still exists and is part of the many documents that Armenians are proud of, always reminding them of the humanistic role Arabs played in helping Armenians to survive.”
http://www.armeniapedia.org/wiki/Jordan
Post-modernism is death of the heart and its fruits are bitter.
Peace.
Yuck!
Spread your legs little bit wider, your old whore, the third world hordes are coming to enjoy your ever diminishing charms. Put on some make up too. You look disgusting.
At least we are 1st world, keep clawing, you might get close.
If Russia has all this talent and genius, to use your
words, why is it doing so poorly economically? When
Russia catches up to the Czech Republic, the most economically
advanced Slavic nation, then we’ll talk, but I wouldn’t hold
my breath. And Czechia did it without colonies, like Siberia,
and without oil or gas. You should be applauding this if
you’re really interested in promoting the Slavic cause in
Europe.
Moreover, nothing shows the bankruptcy of the mass
delusion called Marxism more starkly than the economic
fate of Central Europe. Before WW II, Czechoslovakia and
Poland were economically in the middle of the pack among
the European nations, along with Italy whereas Spain,
Portugal, and Greece were near the bottom. I won’t even
mention Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia since they have always
been near the bottom. To be fair, northern Italy was always
more advanced. Then after 45 years of Communism (and WW II)
Poland and Czechoslovakia fell from the middle to the bottom
of the pack. So the fact that Czechia is now nearing Italy, Spain,
and Israel in economic performance is definitely to be celebrated,
and I have no doubt that Czechia (along with Slovakia) will soon
lead the middle pack, and will become much more advanced than
Spain, Italy or Israel.
Re: talent. Look, I like Russian music as much as anybody else,
and after the Partitions the Polish diaspora in Russia became
the largest Polish diaspora in the world, and contributed greatly
through composers such as Glinka, Stravinsky, and Shostakovich,
all of whom had Polish ancestry. Even the film director Andrei
Tarkovsky’s grandfather was a Polish nobleman. However,
all the low hanging fruit has been picked. Nobody is writing
great symphonies or striking out in new directions in painting
or sculpture anymore. It’s all been done. There is no genius anymore.
Even physics has entered a period of stagnation in the last 40
years (no new discoveries beyond the Standard Model). Welcome
to the Age of Mediocrity (or Idiocracy if you like) – even pop culture
has become mediocre and boring. Where are the new Beatles?
LOL. Remember the Molotov-Ribbontrop Pact, and the joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland?
The NKVD was the one doing the annihilation in Poland.
Polish Operation of the NKVD
NKVD Order No. 00485
So you recognized your country in my description? See, you’re not as stupid as I thought.
Peace Bro. We are brothers. Pan-Slavism is not dead. Russia is motherland of all Slavs. At one point or another we have all benefited from having Russia as a protector. Blood is more important than religion and politics. Don’t forget that.
I have nothing against Russians. In fact, a woman
of Russian ancestry has been a friend of mine for
many years so I understand the Russian point of view
well. And, I hope Russia understands the Polish
point of view as well. What gives me a degree of
optimism is that finally, after all these years, Russia
is being ruled by Russians. And as ling as the Russians
stay on their side of the border I wish them well
You have nothing to worry. America will protect you. You are in safe hands. I won’t be surprised if Poland thanks to their membership in NATO has their historical glory fully restored.
That is a significant point, utu.
You are not a serious person.
Bloody hell. Just because I don’t buy self-serving narratives from either side does not make an unserious person.
Kiev controls lots of area such as Kharkiv that were friendly towards Russia, yet nobody is dying there.
The only place where people are dying, are areas where Russia is intervening.
What is the difference between Kharkiv and Donbas? Kharkiv didn’t get a Russian rebellion, and a flow of arms and volunteers from Russia. Donbas did. It is therefore very clear which factor is responsible for those deaths.
Ukraine, like Poland, is a Slavic country that had been in an aversive relationship with Russia, a country that has not treated Slavs well.
And you keep ignoring the reason why Russia has interfered in Donbas at all;
The US neocon engineered coup that overthrew Ukraine’s elected government.
Why do u keep dodging this?
The reason you are not a serious person is that you write ridiculous, totally unsupported nonsense, such as ‘Hitler wanted to conquer the world or at least all of Europe’ kind of BS.
Plenty of non-German people have this same view. A smarter statesman than A H could have found other means to get the corridor back, but Poland never should have taken those ill-gotten gains – not “our lands” – from a gang of vengeful thieves after World War One.
I can’t wait for you to fall into German hands again. You’ll get a way better treatment from them.
Did you mean to say “while the Nazis were NO WORSE than … American Southern whites”? In any case, leaving aside a compare and contrast National Socialism/American segregationism digression, I take your point. (For the record, I wish our segregationists had taken the negro threat as seriously as the NS took bolshevism.)
However, to invert your geographical observation, Germany was “a lot closer” to Britain than the USSR was, so it was with Germany that a British government had to deal first. An honest and clear-eyed comparison of the two of course showed that Stalin’s regime had vastly more blood on its hands than Hitler’s, but nobody cared much about that. There was instead a shabby dance going on between Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and the USSR, with all parties seeking to gain from the others’ rivalries. Stalin hoped Hitler would soften up the capitalist West for him, while the Western powers hoped Germany would hold back bolshevism; Hitler hoped he could split England and France, France and England had serious disagreements, and Italy, being full of Italians, would dance with anybody who bought her a drink. All the while, behind closed doors, world Jewry and America’s Machiavelli FDR maneuvered for their own reasons.
When it comes to Chamberlain, you have a politician who represented manufacturing interests and who thought first of Europe and of England’s place in it, so that a peaceful Continent was paramount for him. Churchill and his supporters, on the other hand, were Imperialists who thought more of the British Empire and its importance to Great Britain’s role and standing upon the world stage. He saw a Greater Germany under Hitler as ultimately destroying the Empire and demoting Britain from Great Power to regional bit player.
“Coolidge suggested the possibility of ceding certain German-speaking parts of Bohemia to Germany (Cheb) and Austria (South Moravia and South Bohemia). He also insisted that the German-inhabited regions of West and North Bohemia remain within Czechoslovakia.”
Which of these lands are also referred to as the Sudetenland? Which are you suggesting should have been ceded to Germany?
1930s German Nazis were worse than, but in the same general league as, 1930s American Southern political leaders. Between a European Jim Crow-implementing party and a genocidal one (Stalin), the former is the lesser evil. It isn’t even close. With that in mind, Chamberlain is not as bad as he seems given hindsight.
I’ve always enjoyed myself in Germany, though I haven’t been there since the refugee flood. I’m sure it’s still much more pleasant than current Donbas.
Why do your side keep dodging the fact that the elected government spent years doing unelected things, such as cancelling the results of the previous election, rigging the rules of the next parliamentary election so that their side would win despite losing the popular vote, giving himself more powers than he was elected with, etc.
You conveniently forget all of that.
If after winning his election Obama somehow stacked the Supreme Court with Democrats, flipped the congress and changed the rules so it was be all Democrats, and rammed through his agenda – all of which, without any new elections – you would probably complain, rather than stating that it was all good because he was elected, and nobody would have a right to overthrow him, because after all he won that election.
::::::::::::::
But I guess in your world it is acceptable to kill Slavs in another country if you don’t like how power changed hands over there. In that case, dead Slavs don’t count?
From what I hear the Germans enjoyed themselves too, in Poland in 1939, and they will again if they ever gain their independence. I am not sure that the religion that makes you western will help you much – like it didn’t in 1939. People who don’t learn from history – tend to fail the exam. You Polaks continue to fail that exam and never learn anything. I bet that if today somebody conducted a poll in Poland asking the question who liberated Poland from communism, majority will say NATO – that’s how smart you are. For your information Russia liberated Poland twice in the 20th century. First from the Nazis in 1945, and then from communism in 1989. Chew on that one, not that you have the brain power to come up with anything that makes sense. And still Russia is not good for Poland. Because it prevents them from achieving the national glory. Sure, and America will allow you to. NATO is like a big prison, US is the leader of the gang, and Poland is just the punk that shares the cell with the gang leader and getting it up its a**, but it still thinks that it’s an important factor because it’s very close with the boss. Once the boss stops f***ing you, you are back to being nobodies. But yeah sure, Poland is getting greater and greater every day and everybody respects you.
{…. and Poland is just the punk that shares the cell with the gang leader ….}
Apparently some Polish leaders have figured that out:
[Polish foreign minister says country’s alliance with US worthless]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/22/poland-foreign-minister-alliance-us-worthless
[“According to a transcript of excerpts of the conversation that was published by Wprost on its Internet site, Sikorski told Rostowski: “You know that the Polish-US alliance isn’t worth anything.”
“It is downright harmful, because it creates a false sense of security … Complete bullshit. We’ll get in conflict with the Germans, Russians and we’ll think that everything is super, because we gave the Americans a blow job. Losers. Complete losers.”]
Are you a Serb? That would explain a lot.
Also, the pattern of analogies in your arguments suggests that you are some sort of sexual degenerate. You like to bring bring up religion often. This speaks poorly of yours.
The truth has one amazing quality, my friend. It hurts. It hurts losers like you, who like to live in delusionary state. Yeah, enjoy your special relationship status with US that you have at the moment – being their bitch. We’ll see how long it lasts and what you’ll get out of it. And you know what? The religion that makes you western is not enough anymore. In order to be truly western, these days you’ll have to accept the religion of peace too. With the recent horde of immigrants- belonging to the religion of peace invading Europe – Poland will have to accept some of them if they want to be truly western. Where before Poland used to be 97% Polish and Catholic, now will have to cede few percentage points to the religion of peace. You know what Gorbachev said when Eastern Europeans started join NATO en masse? He said: “By giving away their freedom so soon after it was given to them, they showed that they didn’t deserve it in the first place”. You are just cheap whores that don’t appreciate what was given to you. Crying for freedom for almost 50 years under communism, and what did you do with it after it was given to you? You sold it. You are people without dignity. I believe that there are some good Polish people out there. You ain’t one of them.
Well, AP, I think you have just blown more smoke… many of your accusations against Yanukovych appear to be propaganda, but in any case, bottom line is that ZUSA has been meddling in the affairs of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics. Hell, it has even heavily meddled in Russia itself.
A comparison would be if Texas separated from ZUSA and Russia were trying to get a hostile, anti-ZUSA government in Texas and get Texas to join a Russian military alliance…
Unfathomable, eh?
What is certain beyond any doubt is that the way power ‘changed hands’ was clearly through a neocon engineered coup.
The war in Ukraine is ZUSA’s fault.
Being fond and proud of the American South and Southerners, including the Confederacy, and especially in light of the recent anti-South (anti-white, really) depredations here, I’m vigilant against outrageous attempts to equate the Confederacy with the Nazis, slavery with holocaust, etc. I’ll go along with your comparison of Jim Crow to certain parts of the NSDAP program, however.
Germans and Southern whites had a right to try to preserve and advantage their culture and people over alien and threatening others. A happy medium somewhere between the efficient and punitive policies of the Nazis and the ad hoc authoritarianism of the Southerners would have been better for both.
That’s Townsville.
A very pretty place, like Rockhampton, and also a very welcoming place.
The vitriol in your posts suggests that you are the one who has been hurt. By the truth, probably.
Poland has a little more than 1,000 Muslims out of 38 million people. It’s gotten an anti-Islamic government – one far more so than Russia’s. Your good wishes for Poland are, alas, not very realistic.
The usual focus of your thoughts, evident in most posts. A reflection of a place with probably a high HIV rate amongst its population.
None of them were.
I’ll tell you what I have been hurt from. I have been hurt by the Polaks stupidity. That’s what I’ve been hurt from. There is only one simple rule that you need to follow in order to secure your nation’s prosperity:
Don’t try to hurt mother Russia. But you are too stupid to follow even that simple rule. You see, you Polaks see Russia as greatness denying country (from your perspective) Right, and US will be country that will allow you to achieve greatness. Don’t you know, American politicians when they go to sleep at night, that’s their last thought that they have before falling asleep – how can we make that shithole Poland great. I didn’t add “again” because you’ve never been great and you’ll never will be.
It’s not Russia that denies you greatness, it’s you that’s incapable of achieving it. Hanging out with NATO and US is not going to change that. You might enjoy your delusion of greatness at the moment, but it’s only in your head , it’s not reality. Trying to get the world’s attention: Look at us, we are in the thick of things, the most important NATO member, just about to be invaded by Russia, we are the ones that the future of the world depends on, and on and on.
Let me tell you something: You are nobodies. Why would Russia want to invade you? They just let you go not so long ago. If they wanted you, they could have held on to you forever and ever and there was nothing that either you, NATO or US could have done about it.
Why would Russia want to invade you gypsies, what have you got that’s so valuable? Russia let go of Kazakhstan which produces 3 million barrels of oil a day and they didn’t bat an eyelash, but no you are the grand prize, you are the ones that they secretly covet. You know, you are actually starting to fit in perfectly in that lunatic asylum that the West has become. So there you go, finally you’ve become western – just when the west is going to pieces.
Can you point to even one example in which German corporations, German authors and intellectuals, or German celebrities have had to combat stigmas or obstacles placed in their path due to their nationality?
While not wanting to commit the error of “settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea,” I do note that Solzhenitsyn maintained that Stalin had actually been responsible for more deaths in the Soviet Union than Hitler (mass exiles to wastelands, unrelenting purges and mass casualties among soldiers condemned to the suicidal tactics of penal battalions accounting for Stalin’s portion).
Nothing but more empty vitriol. At least you refrained from mentioning your favorite topic in this post – prostitutes.
Remind us again, which low IQ Balkan country you are from?
I am from Vatican. I am the high priest of truth. Sent here to convert heretics to the highly esteemed religion of the west. Polaks are safe, they enjoy all the privileges of belonging to the west. If you don’t believe me – ask the Germans.
Thanks Kilo.
And take Glossy’s LOL to mean “I once again said something stupid that I can’t defend–in this case because it violates basic temporal causality–so my only response to your calling me out on it is LOL.”
Thanks for helping my memory.
You’re welcome. Enjoyed your post.
I think it’s been pretty convincingly shown that Hitler’s Table Talk can’t be relied upon. See Mikail Nillson’s 2016 article on it. Nonetheless, it’s not too hard to find anti-Slav ravings in Mein Kampf. One example,
“For the Russian State was not organized by the constructive political talent of the Slav element in Russia, but was much more a marvellous exemplification of the capacity for State-building possessed by the Germanic element in a race of inferior worth.”
He doesn’t exactly say “I want to kill them all,” but once Hitler declares you racially inferior I wouldn’t give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to ultimate intentions.