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

[Berkut]

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.

No doubt. Which is why seeing people trying to excuse it away is rather interesting.

[The Brain]

Anyway the Soviet Union wasn't real Communism. It was Red Fascism.

[Razgovory]

Yet remarkably Germans taken prisoner in other battles had a much higher rate of survival.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yet remarkably Germans taken prisoner in other battles had a much higher rate of survival.

Not inconsistent with Berkut's argument.

[LaCroix]

the treatment of prisoners of war in world war ii, s. p. mackenzie
the journal of modern history

All this [incessant propaganda declaring the kraut as subhuman] had an inevitable effect on the treatment of German prisoners. Many were simply killed out of hand at the front-a practice that became so widespread that some Red Army formation commanders (unconsciously echoing the Canaris Memorandum) began to argue that fear of surrender would induce the enemy to fight harder. Conditions for the prisoners who were shipped eastward in 1941-42 were just as atrocious as those accorded Russian POWs, the death rate in this period possibly being as high as 90 percent.92B y 1942-43, however, the Soviet Union was suffering from a severe labor shortage that POWs, now beginning to be captured in large numbers, could help alleviate. Consequently, efforts were made to prevent "unauthorized" shooting at the front, and German and other Axis prisoners were shipped eastward to work in mines, felling timber, and at a variety of other unskilled jobs. As in Germany, however, this did not mean that POWs were treated even remotely in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Thousands froze todeath and starved  on the march or in unheated cattle trucks, and once in camps they were treated as slave labor. Heat, shelter, and clothing were all inadequate, diseases such as typhus were rampant, and food was so scarce that on occasion cannibalism occurred. In all, at least one million German prisoners died out of the 3,150,000 taken by the Red Army. The International Red Cross and the Vatican, needless to say, were refused access to these camps, just as they were prevented from visiting the camps for Russian prisoners in Germany.

this might be of interest. of course, the german treatment of pows was no better and probably overall worse, but it's not as if the rus just didn't have any food

[Razgovory]

Yet remarkably Germans taken prisoner in other battles had a much higher rate of survival.

Not inconsistent with Berkut's argument.

It does suggest that Stalingrad's situation was somewhat unique.

[Berkut]

Yet remarkably Germans taken prisoner in other battles had a much higher rate of survival.

Not inconsistent with Berkut's argument.

It does suggest that Stalingrad's situation was somewhat unique.

Not, it only suggests that the Soviets did not treat other prisoners as badly.

We know exactly what the "situation" was at Stalingrad - it's not like there is some kind of mystery as to whether or not the Soviets *could* treat those prisoners adequately. They most certainly could have, they simply chose not to, with the rather obvious result.

The only thing that changed was the Soviet Unions realization that prisoners might actually be useful, hence letting them all die wasn't really that great an idea after all.

[Razgovory]

Really?  The NKVD, who was in charge of the prisoner's couldn't get trucks or supplies from the Army.  At the same time many Red Army soldiers badly malnourished.  To expect the Soviets would give more food to the POWs when their own are still hungry is kind of silly.

[The Brain]

I don't think anyone expects Communists to act decently.

[DGuller]

The original point stands regardless.  Even including Stalingrad in the statistics, and assuming that Soviet deliberately killed almost every German they captured as Stalingrad, your odds of dying as a German POW were not nearly as bad as the odds of the Soviet POW dying in German hands.  To suggest that Soviet were equally brutal to the German POWs is likewise a propaganda, and incredibly offensive as well.  Just because both sides were very brutal by Western standards does not mean that the levels of brutality were equitable.

[DGuller]

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

Being a Soviet POW who was back in Russian hands was not pleasant as well, but a sizable majority weren't even sent to the camps.  That's another myth.

[Berkut]

The original point stands regardless.  Even including Stalingrad in the statistics, and assuming that Soviet deliberately killed almost every German they captured as Stalingrad, your odds of dying as a German POW were not nearly as bad as the odds of the Soviet POW dying in German hands.  To suggest that Soviet were equally brutal to the German POWs is likewise a propaganda, and incredibly offensive as well.  Just because both sides were very brutal by Western standards does not mean that the levels of brutality were equitable.

Well, I agree with your basic point (better to be a German in Soviet hands than the reverse), but am not sure I really agree with its conclusion that there was any real difference in brutality levels. Sure, your odds of dieing as a German POW in Soviet hands were only 50% or maybe 60% compared to 80%, but I don't see that as being any great difference that would result in any kind of difference in judging the culpability of the relevant regimes.

They both were perfectly happy literally working their POWs to death, and displayed a callous, if not actively malicious, disregard for their well being resulting in the deaths of literally millions of POWs.

I don't even know that the different survival rates reflect any difference in the respective states attitudes towards POWs, rather than simply different circumstances. In any case, being offended that those with no loyalty to either side would look at them both and conclude that there wasn't much difference between them is pretty funny.

ZOMG! US RUSSIANS ONLY KILLED 1.5 MILLION POWS! WE ARE NOT SO BAD!

[Berkut]

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

Being a Soviet POW who was back in Russian hands was not pleasant as well, but a sizable majority weren't even sent to the camps.  That's another myth.

Hey, not EVERYONE was murdered or sent to a prison camp! Just most of them! Errrh, or a bunch but probably not more than 50%. Or maybe a lot of them. Or the undesireables. Or the politically questionable.

Why, there were some that were not even punished for being captured AT ALL! It wasn't so bad!

[The Brain]

The original point stands regardless.  Even including Stalingrad in the statistics, and assuming that Soviet deliberately killed almost every German they captured as Stalingrad, your odds of dying as a German POW were not nearly as bad as the odds of the Soviet POW dying in German hands.  To suggest that Soviet were equally brutal to the German POWs is likewise a propaganda, and incredibly offensive as well.  Just because both sides were very brutal by Western standards does not mean that the levels of brutality were equitable.

Well, I agree with your basic point (better to be a German in Soviet hands than the reverse), but am not sure I really agree with its conclusion that there was any real difference in brutality levels. Sure, your odds of dieing as a German POW in Soviet hands were only 50% or maybe 60% compared to 80%, but I don't see that as being any great difference that would result in any kind of difference in judging the culpability of the relevant regimes.

They both were perfectly happy literally working their POWs to death, and displayed a callous, if not actively malicious, disregard for their well being resulting in the deaths of literally millions of POWs.

I don't even know that the different survival rates reflect any difference in the respective states attitudes towards POWs, rather than simply different circumstances. In any case, being offended that those with no loyalty to either side would look at them both and conclude that there wasn't much difference between them is pretty funny.

ZOMG! US RUSSIANS ONLY KILLED 1.5 MILLION POWS! WE ARE NOT SO BAD!

I agree. "America only tortures a few thousand people. BUT NAZI GERMANY WAS WORSER!!11 USA USA USA!"

[DGuller]

Well, I agree with your basic point (better to be a German in Soviet hands than the reverse), but am not sure I really agree with its conclusion that there was any real difference in brutality levels. Sure, your odds of dieing as a German POW in Soviet hands were only 50% or maybe 60% compared to 80%, but I don't see that as being any great difference that would result in any kind of difference in judging the culpability of the relevant regimes.

Actually, it was closer to 15% for the Germans.