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

[crazy canuck]

So I should read it as Berkut agreeing with DGuller?

You should realize that the point you are attempting to make is not accurate.

Which is blindingly obvious to everyone. Except maybe Raz.

I thought that even Raz might realize the basic mistake he was making.   I wont overestimate him again.

[DGuller]

On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "Wow, you guys sure are nice to people that were trying to kill you" and 10 being "Gee, I cannot really imagine how you could possibly be any worse" I stick the Nazis are about 9 and the USSR around 8.

With Mongols being a 10, and Western Allies being a 2, Nazi treatment of Soviet POWs rates a 9.  Soviet treatment of German POWs rates a 6.  Soviets would score a lot higher against certain segments of their own population than they would against German POWs.

So you think the difference between what the Nazis did and what the Soviets did (which includes things like the Katyn Massacre) is about equivalent to the difference between what the Allies did and what the Soviets did.

Well, I guess there isn't much to argue about there. If you really believe that routinely murdering people and working them to death as a matter of policy is, you know, bad, but not really BAD, then ok.

I am sticking with the obvious conclusion though - regimes that murder prisoners in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are pretty fucking bad, and making distinctions between them is pretty bizarre.

If you whine about Raz allegedly misinterpreting you, then you should probably be extra careful to not blatantly make false claims about what I said.  I was rating Soviet treatment of German POWs.

[Berkut]

On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "Wow, you guys sure are nice to people that were trying to kill you" and 10 being "Gee, I cannot really imagine how you could possibly be any worse" I stick the Nazis are about 9 and the USSR around 8.

With Mongols being a 10, and Western Allies being a 2, Nazi treatment of Soviet POWs rates a 9.  Soviet treatment of German POWs rates a 6.  Soviets would score a lot higher against certain segments of their own population than they would against German POWs.

So you think the difference between what the Nazis did and what the Soviets did (which includes things like the Katyn Massacre) is about equivalent to the difference between what the Allies did and what the Soviets did.

Well, I guess there isn't much to argue about there. If you really believe that routinely murdering people and working them to death as a matter of policy is, you know, bad, but not really BAD, then ok.

I am sticking with the obvious conclusion though - regimes that murder prisoners in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are pretty fucking bad, and making distinctions between them is pretty bizarre.

If you whine about Raz allegedly misinterpreting you, then you should probably be extra careful to not blatantly make false claims about what I said.  I was rating Soviet treatment of German POWs.

Unlike Raz, I am happy to allow you to re-iterate if in fact I am not understanding what you said.

I *thought* you said that you rated the Western Allies a 2, the USSR a 6, and the Nazis a 9 - that would make the difference between the Nazi regimes policies towards POWS and the USSRs policies towards POWS slightly less than the difference between the Allies and the USSR.

So on your scale, the Soviets, who have such examples as the Katyn massacre where the USSR ordered the execution of about 20,000 prisoners (many of them civilians) as a matter of actual policy, are only slightly closer to the Nazis (who we all agree were very nearly as bad it it is possible to be) than they are to the Western Allies.

At least, that is what I thought you said. If that is incorrect, please feel free to clarify.

Like I said, I consider a regime capable of things like Katyn, or the deaths of tens of thousands of German POWs as a matter of policy to be only slightly different than the Nazis. In both cases, the regimes had no moral compunction about what they were doing.

[DGuller]

Unlike Raz, I am happy to allow you to re-iterate if in fact I am not understanding what you said.

I *thought* you said that you rated the Western Allies a 2, the USSR a 6, and the Nazis a 9 - that would make the difference between the Nazi regimes policies towards POWS and the USSRs policies towards POWS slightly less than the difference between the Allies and the USSR.

So on your scale, the Soviets, who have such examples as the Katyn massacre where the USSR ordered the execution of about 20,000 prisoners (many of them civilians) as a matter of actual policy, are only slightly closer to the Nazis (who we all agree were very nearly as bad it it is possible to be) than they are to the Western Allies.

At least, that is what I thought you said. If that is incorrect, please feel free to clarify.

Like I said, I consider a regime capable of things like Katyn, or the deaths of tens of thousands of German POWs as a matter of policy to be only slightly different than the Nazis. In both cases, the regimes had no moral compunction about what they were doing.

What exactly is so unclear about what I said?  I said: "Nazi treatment of Soviet POWs rates a 9.  Soviet treatment of German POWs rates a 6."  I don't see much room for misinterpretation or even a need for clarification, which makes your misinterpretation all the more impressive.

Both Nazis and Soviets treated their enemies in captivity vastly differently depending on who they were, which is why I was careful to specify whose treatment by whom I was rating.  Unfortunately, carefully stating things doesn't work if someone is really itching to put words in your mouth.

[The Minsky Moment]

Berkut: what you don't get is that relatively speaking, the Stalin regime treated German POWs pretty darn well, when compared to say a typical 1930s Ukranian peasant, a prewar general officer in the Red Army, or a high-ranking Bolshevik c. 1928-1941.

[Berkut]

Unlike Raz, I am happy to allow you to re-iterate if in fact I am not understanding what you said.

I *thought* you said that you rated the Western Allies a 2, the USSR a 6, and the Nazis a 9 - that would make the difference between the Nazi regimes policies towards POWS and the USSRs policies towards POWS slightly less than the difference between the Allies and the USSR.

So on your scale, the Soviets, who have such examples as the Katyn massacre where the USSR ordered the execution of about 20,000 prisoners (many of them civilians) as a matter of actual policy, are only slightly closer to the Nazis (who we all agree were very nearly as bad it it is possible to be) than they are to the Western Allies.

At least, that is what I thought you said. If that is incorrect, please feel free to clarify.

Like I said, I consider a regime capable of things like Katyn, or the deaths of tens of thousands of German POWs as a matter of policy to be only slightly different than the Nazis. In both cases, the regimes had no moral compunction about what they were doing.

What exactly is so unclear about what I said?  I said: "Nazi treatment of Soviet POWs rates a 9.  Soviet treatment of German POWs rates a 6."  I don't see much room for misinterpretation or even a need for clarification, which makes your misinterpretation all the more impressive.

Both Nazis and Soviets treated their enemies in captivity vastly differently depending on who they were, which is why I was careful to specify whose treatment by whom I was rating.  Unfortunately, carefully stating things doesn't work if someone is really itching to put words in your mouth.

SO how in the world did you manage to fabricate the claim that I did not understand what you said, when I simply repeated exactly what you said?

I then offered you the chance to make it clear if in fact I was incorrect, and you repeated it - so why are you whining about putting words in your mouth?

Never mind - you've gone into flinging feces mode and are not going to come out, no matter how many olive branches are proffered. So be it.

[Berkut]

Berkut: what you don't get is that relatively speaking, the Stalin regime treated German POWs pretty darn well, when compared to say a typical 1930s Ukranian peasant, a prewar general officer in the Red Army, or a high-ranking Bolshevik c. 1928-1941.

That is a good point - given that the DGs Soviet engaged in mass genocide on a regular basis, I can see why he would be "offended" that anyone would compare them to the Nazis.

I mean really, what a ridiculous comparison!

[DGuller]

SO how in the world did you manage to fabricate the claim that I did not understand what you said, when I simply repeated exactly what you said?

I then offered you the chance to make it clear if in fact I was incorrect, and you repeated it - so why are you whining about putting words in your mouth?

Never mind - you've gone into flinging feces mode and are not going to come out, no matter how many olive branches are proffered. So be it.

You keep mentioning Katyn Massacre, so obviously you did not completely understand what I said.  Katyn Massacre did not involve German POWs.  You tried to subtly take away my qualifiers, so that your Katyn Massacre argument would stick.

And stop projecting already.  Your raving and histrionic performance kind of undermines the story you're trying to sell here, that you're just trying to have a rational debate here only to be undone by those nasty brutes like Raz and DGuller.

[Berkut]

Ahh, so the Soviets butchering Poles doesn't count against them, because they aren't German, and therefore it is reasonable to be offended that anyone might compare Soviet treatment of POWs to Nazi treatment of POWs. Right. That surely makes a lot of sense.

[DGuller]

Ahh, so the Soviets butchering Poles doesn't count against them, because they aren't German, and therefore it is reasonable to be offended that anyone might compare Soviet treatment of POWs to Nazi treatment of POWs. Right. That surely makes a lot of sense.

My whole argument was about how Soviet and German POWs were treated in each other's hands, from the very first post, so it does make sense when I keep limiting myself to that scope.  Your argument was limited to that at first as well, until your Stalingrad argument collapsed as badly as the Germans there did, and you moved the goal posts.  No one is arguing that Soviets didn't have the capacity to be very nasty butchers.  What was in question was how Soviets treated German POWs, and how the treatment was reciprocated.

[LaCroix]

  was my post completely overlooked?

[jimmy olsen]

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.

He said they didn't try.

He said even if they tried they would have failed.

That's different than the view you're attributing to him.

[Berkut]

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.

He said they didn't try.

He said even if they tried they would have failed.

That's different than the view you're attributing to him.

What he said was that the Soviets killing 85000 German POWs doesn't really count, since they all would have died anyway.

That is wrong on multiple levels, not the least of which is the fact that they would NOT have died anyway had they bothered to feed them, shelter them, and not work them to death.

Like I already said, the only way you could reasonably conclude that the Soviets were not responsible for their deaths would be if they had actually tried to save them and failed. Excusing them because "well, they would have all died anyway" is bullshit. That is the excuse the Soviets used to avoid responsibility for killing 85000 people.

You might as well accept Soviet excuses for Katyn while you are at it, if you are going to believe something as obviously false as "they would have all died anyway" as justification for killing them.

[Slargos]

Why are you defending Nazis, Berkut?

Do you have brown leanings you haven't told us about?

Is this your way of coming out of the closet?

[Berkut]

Ahh, so the Soviets butchering Poles doesn't count against them, because they aren't German, and therefore it is reasonable to be offended that anyone might compare Soviet treatment of POWs to Nazi treatment of POWs. Right. That surely makes a lot of sense.

My whole argument was about how Soviet and German POWs were treated in each other's hands, from the very first post, so it does make sense when I keep limiting myself to that scope. 

Actually, the only ting I've argued with you about is

1. The idea that it is "offensive" to compare Soviet treatment of POWs with German treatment of POWs and conclude that they were basically similar. I can and do make just that comparison, and the idea that you are offended because you want to create arbitrary limits on the grounds so as to exclude the examples of the Soviets treating prisoners in much the same manner that the Nazis did is simply special pleading, and I don't accept your restriction. I think the evidence is clear that the Soviets were perfectly willing to treat POWs just as brutally as the Germans, and there is nothing offensive about that.

2. The specific claim, made by you, that the deaths of the German prisoners from the Stalingrad operation was a result of their condition, rather than the result of their treatment by their captors. That is simply repeating Soviet proaganda, and has been clearly shown to be completely false. You have provided zero evidence that the 90% fatality rate was unavoidable.

Your argument was limited to that at first as well, until your Stalingrad argument collapsed as badly as the Germans there did, and you moved the goal posts.

How did my Stalingrad argument collapse? Did someone provide some evidence refuting my pinting out that over 50k men were alive months after they were captured, and hence presumably did NOT die as a result of their condition upon capture? Did you refute my pointing out that food often saves people who are starving, and hence the claim that the Soviets simply did not understand how to save people from starving is clearly false?

No one is arguing that Soviets didn't have the capacity to be very nasty butchers.  What was in question was how Soviets treated German POWs, and how the treatment was reciprocated.

Indeed. And it is rather clear that your attempt to construct offense at the observation that the Soviets treated their prisoners, German or otherwise, with a callous indifference to their well being at best, and were maliciously murderous at times was nearly as bad as the Germans treatment of Soviet prisoners is certainly motivated by something other than the facts.