Teens Now Look Favorably On Torture Because Media Teaches Its Morally Acceptable

[Admiral Yi]

Given the choice, I'd much prefer to be a German POW in a Soviet camp than a Soviet POW in a German camp.  My odds of surviving would be many times higher.

You sure about that?  My recollectin is around 1/3 of Soviet POWs made it out alive, and around 1/10 of Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad did.

[DGuller]

Given the choice, I'd much prefer to be a German POW in a Soviet camp than a Soviet POW in a German camp.  My odds of surviving would be many times higher.

You sure about that?  My recollectin is around 1/3 of Soviet POWs made it out alive, and around 1/10 of Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad did.

You're mixing and matching statistics, using whole war for one, and using one specific example for the other.  Stalingrad was not a typical case; Germans held out for so long that they were in no physical condition to survive the camp conditions.  For the whole war, the survival rate was closer to the reverse of that for the Germans.

[Razgovory]

Well, I'd like to Tweek DGuller's Russian nose over this, but he is right.  The Germans in Stalingrad were in really bad shape and is unlikely the Soviets could have saved most of them if they even had the desire to do so (which they didn't).  The US army might have been able to, as they were with concentration camp inmates, but probably not the Reds.   It didn't help that they were the first large concentration of Germans the Soviets captured and they didn't make preparations and they were rougher on them then they were POWs.

[Razgovory]

We disagree on this. The soft terms of 1865 and the efforts of the Confederate generals toward reconciliation were crucial to the South's laying down arms and accepting the military realities. It could have become an unhappy, generational conflict, with ethnic violence and periodic general uprisings.

As it is, violence probably would have sparked again eventually, except the Southern elites got back into power as the north tired of reconstruction. This would not occur in a world where those associated with the rebellion were shown no quarter.

Well in a world where the Southern elites didn't get back in power the average Southerner would likely have found his standard of living increase dramatically.  Southern elites did a great deal to keep out efforts to invest in the South keeping it poor for another 50 years.  The average Southerner wasn't stupid, he'd quickly find that he had been misled by his leaders

If they had continued to resit that would likely adopted ideologies you wouldn't care much for, like Marxism (as did several other agricultural states in the Americas).  The "Celtic" nationalism that you adhere wouldn't likely get far as it would be an alien concept to the average Southerner (who would identify "Celtic" with "Irish" and thus hated Catholicism).

[Lettow77]

 I am pretty fine with the populists of the 19th century midwest. Huey Long inculcated me with a weakness for populism a long time ago.

The Celtic nationalism bit is pretty immaterial. Southerners couldn't very well not be Celtic, aware of it or not. I'd be satisfied with a marxist South, provided it was independent. 

  I imagine a Confederate Marxist state might manage to have amicable race relations, even, provided blacks weren't relegated to a lumpenproleteriat underclass.

[Berkut]

Given the choice, I'd much prefer to be a German POW in a Soviet camp than a Soviet POW in a German camp.  My odds of surviving would be many times higher.

You sure about that?  My recollectin is around 1/3 of Soviet POWs made it out alive, and around 1/10 of Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad did.

You're mixing and matching statistics, using whole war for one, and using one specific example for the other.  Stalingrad was not a typical case; Germans held out for so long that they were in no physical condition to survive the camp conditions.  For the whole war, the survival rate was closer to the reverse of that for the Germans.

Uhhh, yeah, that is the excuse the Soviets used for why they killed off 90% of the prisoners they took at Stalingrad.

I am a bit surprised that anyone actually swallows it enough to regurgitate it like that though.

[Razgovory]

Given the choice, I'd much prefer to be a German POW in a Soviet camp than a Soviet POW in a German camp.  My odds of surviving would be many times higher.

You sure about that?  My recollectin is around 1/3 of Soviet POWs made it out alive, and around 1/10 of Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad did.

You're mixing and matching statistics, using whole war for one, and using one specific example for the other.  Stalingrad was not a typical case; Germans held out for so long that they were in no physical condition to survive the camp conditions.  For the whole war, the survival rate was closer to the reverse of that for the Germans.

Uhhh, yeah, that is the excuse the Soviets used for why they killed off 90% of the prisoners they took at Stalingrad.

I am a bit surprised that anyone actually swallows it enough to regurgitate it like that though.

Er, German soldiers were dying of starvation before the they surrendered.

[Berkut]

Well, I'd like to Tweek DGuller's Russian nose over this, but he is right.  The Germans in Stalingrad were in really bad shape and is unlikely the Soviets could have saved most of them if they even had the desire to do so (which they didn't). 

uhh, no, he is not right.

The Soviets were responsible for those men, regardless of their "condition". They marched them through winter weather without adequate provisions, and less than 6% of the ended up surviving. The idea that they somehow had no idea that they were going to capture a lot of prisoners doesn't really fit in with the claim that the reason the prisoners died is that they "held out too long".

The Soviets simply did not care. Now, you can probably make a pretty good argument that the Germans did not give them any reason to care, and you can certainly point out that the Germans treated Soviet POWs no better, and in most cases a hell of a lot worse.

But the Soviets killing of some 85000 German POWs from Stalingrad is the responsibility of the Soviets - not the Germans who were so rude as to "hold out for so long".

[Berkut]

Given the choice, I'd much prefer to be a German POW in a Soviet camp than a Soviet POW in a German camp.  My odds of surviving would be many times higher.

You sure about that?  My recollectin is around 1/3 of Soviet POWs made it out alive, and around 1/10 of Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad did.

You're mixing and matching statistics, using whole war for one, and using one specific example for the other.  Stalingrad was not a typical case; Germans held out for so long that they were in no physical condition to survive the camp conditions.  For the whole war, the survival rate was closer to the reverse of that for the Germans.

Uhhh, yeah, that is the excuse the Soviets used for why they killed off 90% of the prisoners they took at Stalingrad.

I am a bit surprised that anyone actually swallows it enough to regurgitate it like that though.

Er, German soldiers were dying of starvation before the they surrendered.

Of course. That must be why 85000 of the 91000 who surrendered died. Because they were starving before the surrender.

Gee, if the Germans had held out just another day or two, the Soviets would only have captured the 5000 who survived, presumably!

[Razgovory]

Of course. That must be why 85000 of the 91000 who surrendered died. Because they were starving before the surrender.

Gee, if the Germans had held out just another day or two, the Soviets would only have captured the 5000 who survived, presumably!

Er, yes.  If the soviets captured a bunch of dying men, then the fact they were already dying is a good reason as to why many of them did in fact die.

[Berkut]

Of course. That must be why 85000 of the 91000 who surrendered died. Because they were starving before the surrender.

Gee, if the Germans had held out just another day or two, the Soviets would only have captured the 5000 who survived, presumably!

Er, yes.  If the soviets captured a bunch of dying men, then the fact they were already dying is a good reason as to why many of them did in fact die.

No, the fact that they were starving is a not a good reason for why the Soviets let them starve some more until they died.

"They were already starving" does not explain a 90% fatality rate...unless of course the Soviets just didn't feed them. However, in that case, they would all die regardless of their previous condition.

There is a really easy solution to the problem of people dying because they don't have enough food, you know.

[Razgovory]

Actually, giving starving people standard rations would likely kill them.  It is interesting that officers had a much higher rate of survival.  Officers also enjoyed better rations and living conditions during the siege.  I think most died of the Typhus epidemic that broke out during the siege.  I'm not sure the Soviets even had effective treatments for that.

[Berkut]

Actually, "most" of the 91000 who died did not die as a result of starvation suffered prior to their capture, but to malnutrition, exposure, disease, and over-work after they were captured.

And while "giving starving people standard rations" is vague and meaningless enough to possibly be true in some bizarre fashion, what we are quite certain will kill starving people, and not starving people as well, is not giving them any food at all. Or forcing them to march 100 miles through the snow. Or working them until they die.

It is amazing the lengths that you will go to excuse the Soviets killing tens of thousands of Germans. Oh, their condition sucked on capture, so that means the Soviets can just let them all die!

You guys act like the Soviets went to great efforts to save them, but alas, a year later 40,000 who survived that first year were dead in a typhus outbreak...because apparently they were starving when they were finally captured. A year earlier. Oops! Too bad!

The Soviets killed some 80,000 Germans captured at Stalingrad. Certainly some number of them would have died even if the Soviets had not deliberately set out to kill them or treat them so indifferently that the effect was the same. But it is revolting to argue that the Soviets are not responsible for their own prisoners because "the prisoners were sick and starving before they were captured".

The Soviets denied them basic sustenance, shelter, and medical care. Twenty seven thousand were dead in a matter of weeks. The remaining 50,000+ died over the next several years from all the standard combinations of over-work, malnutrition, and disease that killed Soviets POWs in German hands.

[Gups]

Weren't "liberated" Russian POWs summarily shot by the Red Army?

[Berkut]

Weren't "liberated" Russian POWs summarily shot by the Red Army?

Yeah, but they often had a cold beforehand, so it was not really anything you can hold against them.