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

[Razgovory]

I see that Berkut is mostly interested in throwing up strawman arguments.

You guys act like the Soviets went to great efforts to save them,

compare this to what I said

he 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).

[Caliga]

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

I don't think this is universally true.  It was true of the ones who had served (or were thought to have served) in Vlasov's German-allied army, but I thought more were interned in Siberia than outright shot...

[Berkut]

I see that Berkut is mostly interested in throwing up strawman arguments.

You guys act like the Soviets went to great efforts to save them,

compare this to what I said

he 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).

Except that it is simply not true.

The Soviets could have saved nearly all of them. The solution for starvation, for example, is food. You give them food, then they don't starve. It isn't rocket science, and the ONLY thing it takes is the will to actually give them food, and the actual food of course. And since I don't recall any reports at the time of wholesale starvation of the Red Army in the area, clearly food was in fact available.

They did not die because the Soviets could not save them, they died because the Soviets did not care care to save them.

There is no strawman - you guys ARE acting like the Soviets tried to save them when you conclude that the Soviets were not responsible for their deaths. That is the only way one can reasonable conclude that the Soviets were not responsible - if they tried to save them and failed.

[Razgovory]

It may not be rocket science, but it is medical science.  The Soviets were kind of short handed on experts, and while the Red Army was not starving, their rations were fairly lean.

[Berkut]

I had no idea that the Soviet Union was so backward at the time that they simply did not understand how to keep people from starving.

What? Food? Starving? What in the world is the connection?

Almost as bizarre as me actually arguing with you about this.

[Razgovory]

I had no idea that the Soviet Union was so backward at the time that they simply did not understand how to keep people from starving.
.

I think there's ample evidence of that in the 1930's.

[Caliga]

I have read before that if people are beyond a certain point of starvation, it's difficult to save their lives simply by feeding them, yes.  I have no idea if that describes the German POWs captured at Stalingrad, of course.

[Berkut]

I have read before that if people are beyond a certain point of starvation, it's difficult to save their lives simply by feeding them, yes.  I have no idea if that describes the German POWs captured at Stalingrad, of course.

It doesn't matter - because they didn't die because the Soviets fed them and, Ooops! that killed them.

They died because the Soviets did not feed them adequately to save them. Nor did they give them medical care, shelter, etc. The ones who did not die immediately were then worked to death, or died in outbreaks of typhus and other diseases.

The German soldiers, some 91000, who surrendered to the Soviets were in rough shape, of course. Many were in fact starving. I've never seen any evidence however, that the reason only 5,000 of them ever saw Germany again was because the Soviets simply could not save them.

The numbers speak for themselves. About 25000 of them died in the weeks immediately after capture. You could, if you REALLY wanted to, pretend that all 25000 of these deaths were not avoidable. How do you explain the other 50000+ who died in Soviet captivity though?

[Berkut]

I guess DG and Raz are kind of a good example of what the OP was rather badly trying to exemplify - the power of the media to shape Pravda in order to actually convince people of the most ridiculous claims. It is like someone still arguing that Katyn wasn't a Soviet massacre or something.

What strange allegiances tribalism creates.

[garbon]

What strange allegiances tribalism creates.

The Russian tribe and the mentally ill tribe?

[Caliga]

I don't have a dog in the fight... I'm just trying to back up Raz in his one specific point about rations not helping someone starving beyond a certain point, so you knew he didn't pull that out of his ass.  Whether or not the Soviets tried or didn't try to save the lives of the German POWs is something I know nothing about.

[Lettow77]

 Berkut is absolutely right.

Trying to excuse soviet actions at stalingrad is astounding, but if you were going to do it, you should've ran with a "They all deserved what they got" premise. Pretending that the deaths were out of the red army's hands is just baffling.

[Berkut]

I don't have a dog in the fight... I'm just trying to back up Raz in his one specific point about rations not helping someone starving beyond a certain point, so you knew he didn't pull that out of his ass.  Whether or not the Soviets tried or didn't try to save the lives of the German POWs is something I know nothing about.

Oh, I know that can be the case. My understanding is that is only in very extreme cases though.

What I find contemptible is using this "fact" which there is zero evidence to support that it applies in this case (and the fact that plenty of them were not dead in a matter of days after capture supports that while they were "starving" they were clearly not all pass the point of no return) as a means to excuse the killing to nearly 100,000 men.

I *do* know something about whether the Soviets did or did not try to save their lives - they did not, except to the extent that they used them for forced labor until they were dead. The Soviet attitude was pretty clearly "We don't give two shits about you people - if you all die, oh well. Whoever does manage to survive off of whatever pathetic amounts of food and shelter we provide will be placed in forced labor camps and worked to death". And that is exactly what happened. 27000 dies in the first weeks, another 35000 were dead in a typhus outbreak a year later due to the horrific camp conditions, and the remaining 30000 or so died over the next decade. Some 5000 went back to Germany in 1953 or something like that.

This is all pretty obvious to anyone who has a passing knowledge about the Stalingrad prisoners. That isn't most people of course. But it is interesting that people who clearly DO have a passing knowledge are quite willing to swallow an obvious lie.

[Gups]

Who cares? It's obvious that the Sovs aren't going to try and keep the Krauts alive when they couldn't give a flying fuck about the lives of their own citizens.

Treatment of German POWs isn't even in the top 20 of Soviet atrocities.

[Slargos]

Berkut is clearly and obviously wrong.

Oswald wasn't responsible for the death of Kennedy. The bullet was.