Dissapointing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/teens-torture-media-red-cross_n_848751.html
QuoteTeenagers Now Look Favorably On Torture Because The Media Taught Them It Was Morally Acceptable
Over at the Daily Beast, Daniel Stone dives into a study on torture conducted by the American Red Cross. "Americans' opinions on torture seem to have fractured," the report said, "largely on generational lines."
So, who are the biggest supporters of torture? "A surprising majority -- almost 60 percent -- of American teenagers thought things like water-boarding or sleep deprivation are sometimes acceptable," the study found. Overall, teens are "significantly more in favor of torture than older adults."
It's a dispiriting result, and Stone does a fine job taking on the reasons why these results came down in this fashion. As he relates, there's been a general uptick in the visibility of torture (er..."enhanced interrogation techniques") in the media. Along with that comes the effort undertaken by the Bush administration to normalize torture, despite its attendant lack of success as an intelligence gathering technique. Stone also notes that there are "societal influences that may be responsible for de-stigmatizing torture, including increasingly graphic media."
But the bottom line, he says, is that young people are just at a significant remove from the world of war and conflict:
The generational tip-toe back from humanitarian legal norms may say more about a nation increasingly removed from the costs of war. "For young people," says [Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence] Tribe, "to put themselves in place of a soldier is a level of empathy that most people simply don't have anymore."
All of which makes (depressing) sense to me.
The only thing I'd add to this is that the Red Cross' study also found that a similar majority of young people deemed it unacceptable for "American troops to be tortured overseas." In that contrast, there's another factor worth considering: The youth of America seem to be following along with the way the media treats torture.
Let's recall that, back in the summer of 2010, a study from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government found that the way major newspapers addressed the issue of torture abruptly changed in 2004:
The current debate over waterboarding has spawned hundreds of newspaper articles in the last two years alone. However, waterboarding has been the subject of press attention for over a century. Examining the four newspapers with the highest daily circulation in the country, we found a significant and sudden shift in how newspapers characterized waterboarding. From the early 1930's until the modern story broke in 2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture: The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast, from 2002-2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture.
Over the same time period, the same newspapers made it clear that, while it was okay for America to torture people, it was never okay for a non-American to do the same. Again, from the old Harvard study:
In The New York Times, 85.8% of articles (28 of 33) that dealt with a country other than the United States using waterboarding called it torture or implied it was torture while only 7.69% (16 of 208) did so when the United States was responsible. The Los Angeles Times characterized the practice as torture in 91.3% of articles (21 of 23) when another country was the violator, but in only 11.4% of articles (9 of 79) when the United States was the perpetrator.
It's the concept of "American exceptionalism" that transforms "torture" into "enhanced interrogation techniques." So sayeth our news media, anyway. As this new Red Cross report makes clear, older Americans who grew up at a time when this issue was tended to by the media with a distinct and consistent moral clarity have maintained that distinct and consistent moral clarity themselves. American teenagers diverge at that point, but what can I say? This is learned behavior.
And that's the price you pay when you elevate torture and torturers to one "side in a political dispute."
[H/T: Adam Serwer.]
Most people who've been to High School know that teens are in favor of torture.
I know this is the HuffPo, but even by those standards this is a horribly-written & misleading article.
Does this mean we can get back to spanking kids?
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2011, 04:00:04 AM
Does this mean we can get back to spanking kids?
What ya mean, "go back to"?
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2011, 05:13:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2011, 04:00:04 AM
Does this mean we can get back to spanking kids?
What ya mean, "go back to"?
dunno, I said "get back to"
Since when do teens read newspapers? :huh:
Quote from: Josephus on April 15, 2011, 07:06:10 AM
Since when do teens read newspapers? :huh:
or matter?
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2011, 12:56:28 AM
I know this is the HuffPo, but even by those standards this is a horribly-written & misleading article.
:yes:
I blame it on the cutting.
Torture does have its uses. For one, I should expect that we (Americans) start torturing criminals to find and stop drug dealers, crime lords, etc. Not extreme torturing, of course, but a little poke and prod here and there.
Teens? Who cares about them? Two term POTI preach it.
QuoteFrom the early 1930's until the modern story broke in 2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture: The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast, from 2002-2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture.
This is instructive in that it shows how quickly the media will pick up a meme and run with it. Not that Americans love teh torture.
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2011, 04:00:04 AM
Does this mean we can get back to spanking kids?
i like this idea.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lotustalk.com%2Fforums%2Fattachments%2Ff68%2F77078d1206277881-best-motivational-posters-att000788.jpg&hash=116b5fdce209fd347f3822fedaa8a5fd81b5c084)
Quote from: Zeus on April 15, 2011, 11:31:10 AM
Torture does have its uses. For one, I should expect that we (Americans) start torturing criminals to find and stop drug dealers, crime lords, etc. Not extreme torturing, of course, but a little poke and prod here and there.
Perhaps a system could be put in place wherein a particular criminal could get off with a lighter sentence for naming 10 of his known associates.
Work camps could be instituted in Alaska in order to pay for the system rather than building expensive prisons. The income from the camps could be used to hire a system of informants nation-wide in order to help boost employment and keep dissent from being such an easy option.
I like this, your idea.
Quote from: Zeus on April 15, 2011, 11:31:10 AM
Torture does have its uses. For one, I should expect that we (Americans) start torturing criminals to find and stop drug dealers, crime lords, etc. Not extreme torturing, of course, but a little poke and prod here and there.
You are a fucking retard. Please die. How old are you, 12?
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2011, 01:45:45 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 15, 2011, 11:31:10 AM
Torture does have its uses. For one, I should expect that we (Americans) start torturing criminals to find and stop drug dealers, crime lords, etc. Not extreme torturing, of course, but a little poke and prod here and there.
You are a fucking retard. Please die. How old are you, 12?
:hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 17, 2011, 01:46:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2011, 01:45:45 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 15, 2011, 11:31:10 AM
Torture does have its uses. For one, I should expect that we (Americans) start torturing criminals to find and stop drug dealers, crime lords, etc. Not extreme torturing, of course, but a little poke and prod here and there.
You are a fucking retard. Please die. How old are you, 12?
:hmm:
What? Did you realize he's your soul mate?
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2011, 01:49:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 17, 2011, 01:46:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2011, 01:45:45 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 15, 2011, 11:31:10 AM
Torture does have its uses. For one, I should expect that we (Americans) start torturing criminals to find and stop drug dealers, crime lords, etc. Not extreme torturing, of course, but a little poke and prod here and there.
You are a fucking retard. Please die. How old are you, 12?
:hmm:
What? Did you realize he's your soul mate?
Nope, it's just funny that you asked if he was 12 since saying to someone "You are a fucking retard. Please die" is something a 12 year old would say.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 17, 2011, 07:29:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2011, 01:49:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 17, 2011, 01:46:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2011, 01:45:45 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 15, 2011, 11:31:10 AM
Torture does have its uses. For one, I should expect that we (Americans) start torturing criminals to find and stop drug dealers, crime lords, etc. Not extreme torturing, of course, but a little poke and prod here and there.
You are a fucking retard. Please die. How old are you, 12?
:hmm:
What? Did you realize he's your soul mate?
Nope, it's just funny that you asked if he was 12 since saying to someone "You are a fucking retard. Please die" is something a 12 year old would say.
:face:
Don't compute. I can't think someone is a retard and they should die? If wishing dead on someone was a quality of 12 y.o., does it mean Hitler was 12 y.o.?
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2011, 01:45:45 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 15, 2011, 11:31:10 AM
Torture does have its uses. For one, I should expect that we (Americans) start torturing criminals to find and stop drug dealers, crime lords, etc. Not extreme torturing, of course, but a little poke and prod here and there.
You are a fucking retard. Please die. How old are you, 12?
And you're a shortminded prick. Point?
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2011, 01:45:45 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 15, 2011, 11:31:10 AM
Torture does have its uses. For one, I should expect that we (Americans) start torturing criminals to find and stop drug dealers, crime lords, etc. Not extreme torturing, of course, but a little poke and prod here and there.
You are a fucking retard. Please die. How old are you, 12?
And you're a shortminded prick. Point?
Well, he got your there, Marty.
I'm extremely against torture or physical coercion in our criminal justice system. We need more humane treatment of prisoners, not less.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 17, 2011, 10:39:54 AM
I'm extremely against torture or physical coercion in our criminal justice system. We need more humane treatment of prisoners, not less.
And your kind of mentality is why we don't catch half as many criminals as we should.
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 17, 2011, 10:39:54 AM
I'm extremely against torture or physical coercion in our criminal justice system. We need more humane treatment of prisoners, not less.
And your kind of mentality is why we don't catch half as many criminals as we should.
And your kind of mentality is why you don't have half as many criminals as you should. :hmm:
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:43:44 AMAnd your kind of mentality is why we don't catch half as many criminals as we should.
indeed, let us begin the prodding of the citoyens. papa joe of maricopa asks: who needs search warrants!
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
And your kind of mentality is why we don't catch half as many criminals as we should.
You do realize that torture is a very bad way to get information, don't you? It's kind of how they found 26 "witches" instead of 1 or 2 in Salem. People will say anything - and point a finger in any direction - if it will stop the pain. Torture is unreliable at the best of times.
Wait, half as many criminals as we should?
Our prisons runneth over. It shames America just how many people we have locked up. Do you really mean to say we should have twice that number behind bars?
I don't trust our prison systems at all to give them the power of physical coercion even if I approved of the method in theory. They are notoriously corrupt.
We should focus on making our prisons productive places, safer, and stop handing out arrests for non-violent crime.
Quote from: merithyn on April 17, 2011, 10:49:15 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
And your kind of mentality is why we don't catch half as many criminals as we should.
You do realize that torture is a very bad way to get information, don't you? It's kind of how they found 26 "witches" instead of 1 or 2 in Salem. People will say anything - and point a finger in any direction - if it will stop the pain. Torture is unreliable at the best of times.
That's why I said not to use any extreme torture. I am familiar with the Salem Witch Trials, and that was torture used stupidly. But, as Slargos pointed out, we could have such things as work camps in Alaska to give people pointless work to do. And, of course, we wouldn't let anyone go unless their information proved true.
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 17, 2011, 10:39:54 AM
I'm extremely against torture or physical coercion in our criminal justice system. We need more humane treatment of prisoners, not less.
And your kind of mentality is why we don't catch half as many criminals as we should.
United States, a nation of bandits, thiefs and criminals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
:hmm:
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:53:40 AMThat's why I said not to use any extreme torture. I am familiar with the Salem Witch Trials, and that was torture used stupidly. But, as Slargos pointed out, we could have such things as work camps in Alaska to give people pointless work to do. And, of course, we wouldn't let anyone go unless their information proved true.
those are some substantial changes to our rule of law, but you may have a point.
stupid torture would never work, but safe torture could give us just the edge we need :hmm:
@syt: america stands tallest in moral integrity, good
Quote from: merithyn on April 17, 2011, 10:49:15 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
And your kind of mentality is why we don't catch half as many criminals as we should.
You do realize that torture is a very bad way to get information, don't you? It's kind of how they found 26 "witches" instead of 1 or 2 in Salem. People will say anything - and point a finger in any direction - if it will stop the pain. Torture is unreliable at the best of times.
What a silly and, it seems, indestructible myth. :lol:
Torture is an excellent tool for finding hidden treasure [be it the location of the other perps or the kidnapped rape victim or the body], since it is the kind of information that can be verified before acting on it (unlike "she's a witch").
You're assuming once the tortured gives up the information the torture stops and can never be resumed again. You would of course be incorrect.
[/b]
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:53:40 AM
Quote from: merithyn on April 17, 2011, 10:49:15 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
And your kind of mentality is why we don't catch half as many criminals as we should.
You do realize that torture is a very bad way to get information, don't you? It's kind of how they found 26 "witches" instead of 1 or 2 in Salem. People will say anything - and point a finger in any direction - if it will stop the pain. Torture is unreliable at the best of times.
That's why I said not to use any extreme torture. I am familiar with the Salem Witch Trials, and that was torture used stupidly. But, as Slargos pointed out, we could have such things as work camps in Alaska to give people pointless work to do. And, of course, we wouldn't let anyone go unless their information proved true.
I was, in fact, calling you a communist.
Quote from: Slargos on April 17, 2011, 11:06:17 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:53:40 AM
Quote from: merithyn on April 17, 2011, 10:49:15 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
And your kind of mentality is why we don't catch half as many criminals as we should.
You do realize that torture is a very bad way to get information, don't you? It's kind of how they found 26 "witches" instead of 1 or 2 in Salem. People will say anything - and point a finger in any direction - if it will stop the pain. Torture is unreliable at the best of times.
That's why I said not to use any extreme torture. I am familiar with the Salem Witch Trials, and that was torture used stupidly. But, as Slargos pointed out, we could have such things as work camps in Alaska to give people pointless work to do. And, of course, we wouldn't let anyone go unless their information proved true.
I was, in fact, calling you a communist.
Since I'm a capitalist your calling me a communist is instantly refuted due to my money aura.
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 11:08:00 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 17, 2011, 11:06:17 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:53:40 AM
Quote from: merithyn on April 17, 2011, 10:49:15 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
And your kind of mentality is why we don't catch half as many criminals as we should.
You do realize that torture is a very bad way to get information, don't you? It's kind of how they found 26 "witches" instead of 1 or 2 in Salem. People will say anything - and point a finger in any direction - if it will stop the pain. Torture is unreliable at the best of times.
That's why I said not to use any extreme torture. I am familiar with the Salem Witch Trials, and that was torture used stupidly. But, as Slargos pointed out, we could have such things as work camps in Alaska to give people pointless work to do. And, of course, we wouldn't let anyone go unless their information proved true.
I was, in fact, calling you a communist.
Since I'm a capitalist your calling me a communist is instantly refuted due to my money aura.
But your aura of immense stupidity acts as a gravity anchor and there you are again.
Eh, shit happens.
I still say moderate torture would work.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 17, 2011, 10:39:54 AM
I'm extremely against torture or physical coercion in our criminal justice system. We need more humane treatment of prisoners, not less.
Something along the lines of Andersonville, perhaps?
Quote from: Syt on April 17, 2011, 10:59:32 AMtates, a nation of bandits, thiefs and criminals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
:hmm:
Cher identified the increasing social problem of gypsies, tramps, and thieves in this country as early as 1971. :(
On a related note:
QuoteEx-Iraq commander may throw hat in Texas Senate race
By MARIA RECIO
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON -- Democrats appear to have recruited retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez to run for the U.S. Senate in Texas, setting the stage for a potentially competitive race in 2012 for the seat of retiring Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes confirmed that Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the head of the Democratic Senate campaign committee, was referring to Sanchez Thursday when she said that Democrats were very close to announcing a candidate in Texas.
Sanchez, reached by phone at his San Antonio home, said, "I can neither confirm nor deny."
While Sanchez, the former top military commander in Iraq who was forced out by the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, wouldn't speak about the Senate race, he did discuss his career and political philosophy.
"I would describe myself as during my military career as supporting the president and the Constitution," Sanchez said. "After the military, I decided that socially, I'm a progressive, a fiscal conservative and a strong supporter, obviously, of national defense."
Sanchez, a Rio Grande City, Texas, native, said that he was shaped by his upbringing.
"It's my views and my history, having grown up in south Texas, depending on social programs and assistance, that America has a responsibility to its people," he said.
Barnes, one of the state's last high-profile Democrats, said, "I talked to him. It sounded to me like he's close to being a candidate."
"He's got a very compelling story," Barnes added. "He's the one guy who could unite the Hispanic vote. He'll get the conservative Hispanic businessman."
There is, however, the hangover from the year he spent as U.S. commander in Iraq, in 2003 and 2004.
Asked if the Abu Ghraib scandal - where U.S. military personnel and contractors humiliated prisoners in photos seen around the world - had effectively terminated his military career, Sanchez said, "That's pretty fair." He retired in 2006.
Sanchez emphasized that he hadn't known or had anything to do with the actions at the prison and was cleared by Army investigators. His 2008 book, "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story," was critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war. In the interview, he said that President George W. Bush "at times asked the right questions, but didn't impose his will."
Until now, all the attention in the U.S. Senate race has been on the Republicans' multitude of potential candidates, including Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, former Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams, former Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert and Houston lawyer Ted Cruz.
Barnes is eager for the Democrats to make it competitive, especially with Texas' growing Latino population.
"It's the one candidate that will cause John Cornyn some heartburn," he said of the Texas senator who heads the Republicans' Senate campaign committee.
Reps. Henry Cuellar and Charlie Gonzalez, both Latino Democrats, said they welcomed Sanchez's likely entry into the race.
"I think he will be a very viable candidate," Cuellar said. "He's got the background. Texas is about ripe to start shifting into the blue area."
Gonzalez said, "His heart is in public service." But he said that "it's really tough" for a Democrat in Texas to raise money, although he was waiting "to see what the climate is" in 2012.
"The changing demographics are there, but you still have to get people to register and turn out on Election Day," Gonzalez said.
After Murray's surprise announcement that Texas was one of "Six in '12" states Democrats were targeting in 2012, National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Walsh said, "Republicans can only hope that national Democrats are going to waste their money in the state of Texas. We look forward to their mystery candidate."
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/15/2169676/ex-iraq-commander-may-throw-hat.html#ixzz1JpVNqSOP
It's funny to see how unprincipled the Democrats were in their cries of outrage over Abu Ghraib. One criticism of Sanchez was that he approved a memo authorizing interrogation methods that went beyond which was legally permissive at that time, to include the use of guard dogs in interrogations. Once villified by the left he will now become their darling. Oh, that is too rich.
Quote from: Strix on April 17, 2011, 05:15:32 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 17, 2011, 10:39:54 AM
I'm extremely against torture or physical coercion in our criminal justice system. We need more humane treatment of prisoners, not less.
Something along the lines of Andersonville, perhaps?
Andersonville doesn't stick as far as mistreatment allegations go. There wasn't enough food to feed Confederates, let alone the north's hirelings. Now, why were there crippling food shortages in Georgia again? :hmm:
The locals stepped in with rations for prisoners where they could. Libby prison is the one that has no excuse, not andersonville. The blackguard damnyankees are lucky they were captured by civilized Christians so prepared to treat them decently- Doubtlessly why union POWs were more likely to fight for the Confederacy than vice versa.
Quote from: merithyn on April 17, 2011, 10:49:15 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 17, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
And your kind of mentality is why we don't catch half as many criminals as we should.
You do realize that torture is a very bad way to get information, don't you? It's kind of how they found 26 "witches" instead of 1 or 2 in Salem. People will say anything - and point a finger in any direction - if it will stop the pain. Torture is unreliable at the best of times.
Yeah, if only they had managed to catch the real witch and then stop there. :(
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 17, 2011, 08:27:46 PM
Quote from: Strix on April 17, 2011, 05:15:32 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 17, 2011, 10:39:54 AM
I'm extremely against torture or physical coercion in our criminal justice system. We need more humane treatment of prisoners, not less.
Something along the lines of Andersonville, perhaps?
Andersonville doesn't stick as far as mistreatment allegations go. There wasn't enough food to feed Confederates, let alone the north's hirelings. Now, why were there crippling food shortages in Georgia again? :hmm:
:lol: :menace:
QuoteThe locals stepped in with rations for prisoners where they could. Libby prison is the one that has no excuse, not andersonville. The blackguard damnyankees are lucky they were captured by civilized Christians so prepared to treat them decently- Doubtlessly why union POWs were more likely to fight for the Confederacy than vice versa.
:lol:
Well, in the defense of the South, historically the side losing the war has a tendency to have a lower quality of living index for prisoners. Except for the Soviet Union.
Hey, some of those Germans came back from the Soviet Union. A handful, in the 1950's.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 17, 2011, 08:27:46 PM
The blackguard damnyankees are lucky they were captured by civilized Christians so prepared to treat them decently- Doubtlessly why union POWs were more likely to fight for the Confederacy than vice versa.
Except for the black Union POWs...oh wait, there weren't any. I wonder why? :hmm:
They were contraband by union admission. Contraband, once seized, can be put to whatever use is deemed expedient. They were traitors who drew their hands against their communities and country, and property to boot.
Had it coming.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 18, 2011, 01:25:16 AM
They were contraband by union admission. Contraband, once seized, can be put to whatever use is deemed expedient. They were traitors who drew their hands against their communities and country, and property to boot.
Had it coming.
The South was not burned, pillaged and raped enough by the Union. Sherman should have crucified a Confederate every half a mile from Atlanta to Washington DC.
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2011, 01:28:50 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 18, 2011, 01:25:16 AM
They were contraband by union admission. Contraband, once seized, can be put to whatever use is deemed expedient. They were traitors who drew their hands against their communities and country, and property to boot.
Had it coming.
The South was not burned, pillaged and raped enough by the Union. Sherman should have crucified a Confederate every half a mile from Atlanta to Washington DC.
And your very existence tells us neither the Soviets nor the Germans were enthusiastic enough about finishing the job with your kind.
Quote from: Slargos on April 18, 2011, 01:30:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2011, 01:28:50 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 18, 2011, 01:25:16 AM
They were contraband by union admission. Contraband, once seized, can be put to whatever use is deemed expedient. They were traitors who drew their hands against their communities and country, and property to boot.
Had it coming.
The South was not burned, pillaged and raped enough by the Union. Sherman should have crucified a Confederate every half a mile from Atlanta to Washington DC.
And your very existence tells us neither the Soviets nor the Germans were enthusiastic enough about finishing the job with your kind.
STFU, Nazi toadie.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2011, 03:40:48 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 18, 2011, 01:30:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2011, 01:28:50 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 18, 2011, 01:25:16 AM
They were contraband by union admission. Contraband, once seized, can be put to whatever use is deemed expedient. They were traitors who drew their hands against their communities and country, and property to boot.
Had it coming.
The South was not burned, pillaged and raped enough by the Union. Sherman should have crucified a Confederate every half a mile from Atlanta to Washington DC.
And your very existence tells us neither the Soviets nor the Germans were enthusiastic enough about finishing the job with your kind.
STFU, Nazi toadie.
Why don't you crawl back into your basement, you mockery of an actual complete person.
Eat me, you Wiking cocksucking kitchenette whore. Stick your dick in a blender and press Puree, you sorry ass excuse of an IKEA salesman. I hope a Jew rapes your future children. A Jew named Siegy.
When you die, surrounded by dusty wargame boxes, your cats will feast on your flesh and I will laugh. Oh how I will laugh.
Then I will toss them in a bag and into the river they go.
And you? You did your part.
:lol: I'm not the one with the motorcycle, meat bag. When you become someone's hood ornament, think of me when you're driving your wheelchair with a straw and your colostomy bag backs up. :nelson:
I bet Martinus could talk you through the whole coming out of the closet process. :hmm:
Americans are as a rule more liberal on that subject than polacks so it should be relatively painless for you.
Having teenage children IS torture.
Get in the kitchen and make me some affordable solutions for better living before I beat you with an ice tray, my domestic goddess bitch.
I rest my case. :cool:
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 18, 2011, 01:25:16 AM
They were contraband by union admission. Contraband, once seized, can be put to whatever use is deemed expedient. They were traitors who drew their hands against their communities and country, and property to boot.
Had it coming.
It's fortunate that the Federal government didn't see things the same way, otherwise the road from Atlanta to Savannah would be lined with graves.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2011, 04:24:09 AM
:lol: I'm not the one with the motorcycle, meat bag. When you become someone's hood ornament, think of me when you're driving your wheelchair with a straw and your colostomy bag backs up. :nelson:
This. Thread. Delivers.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2011, 11:23:49 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2011, 04:24:09 AM
:lol: I'm not the one with the motorcycle, meat bag. When you become someone's hood ornament, think of me when you're driving your wheelchair with a straw and your colostomy bag backs up. :nelson:
This. Thread. Delivers.
It gets better :D
Quote from: Slargos on April 18, 2011, 04:18:03 AM
When you die, surrounded by dusty wargame boxes, your cats will feast on your flesh and I will laugh. Oh how I will laugh.
Then I will toss them in a bag and into the river they go.
I hope you mean the cats, not the wargames. :mad:
Quote from: RazgovoryIt's fortunate that the Federal government didn't see things the same way, otherwise the road from Atlanta to Savannah would be lined with graves.
Don't you mean unfortunate?
Quote from: dps on April 18, 2011, 02:42:22 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 18, 2011, 04:18:03 AM
When you die, surrounded by dusty wargame boxes, your cats will feast on your flesh and I will laugh. Oh how I will laugh.
Then I will toss them in a bag and into the river they go.
I hope you mean the cats, not the wargames. :mad:
Of course. The cats, having feasted on such dessicated and putrid flesh (nevermind after it's started decaying), are beyond salvation and must be destroyed.
However, since the majority the games will still be in their wrapping it means they've been sheltered from the rot and are probably in pristine condition.
Quote from: lustindarkness on April 18, 2011, 04:44:51 AM
Having teenage children IS torture.
This. OhmyfuckingGodyes THIS!
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2011, 10:18:48 PM
Hey, some of those Germans came back from the Soviet Union. A handful, in the 1950's.
:rolleyes: 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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2011, 10:18:48 PM
Hey, some of those Germans came back from the Soviet Union. A handful, in the 1950's.
:rolleyes: 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.
Nevermind that in the latter scenario you would be Russian.
Who wants to live with that?
Well, the German POWs that did get back weren't put in camps in Germany when they got home, so you may have something there. Though many of them had to live in East Germany.
Quote from: Slargos on April 18, 2011, 04:38:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2011, 10:18:48 PM
Hey, some of those Germans came back from the Soviet Union. A handful, in the 1950's.
:rolleyes: 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.
Nevermind that in the latter scenario you would be Russian.
Who wants to live with that?
Well, the Russians did win the war.
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
:rolleyes: 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.
I think I'd have deserted before facing this choice. So probably end up dead anyway, but eh...
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2011, 11:06:29 AM
It's fortunate that the Federal government didn't see things the same way, otherwise the road from Atlanta to Savannah would be lined with graves.
I might actually prefer this. Reconciliation would never have occurred in this scenario- the South would cease to exist or become an independent nation in the long run.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 18, 2011, 04:48:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2011, 11:06:29 AM
It's fortunate that the Federal government didn't see things the same way, otherwise the road from Atlanta to Savannah would be lined with graves.
I might actually prefer this. Reconciliation would never have occurred in this scenario- the South would cease to exist or become an independent nation in the long run.
Probably not, it honestly wouldn't have made much of a difference, except to those who were killed. Most Southerners came to
believe that something like this actually occurred, had it actually occurred it's not likely they would have been able to get any more upset about it.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
:rolleyes: 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2011, 05:55:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
:rolleyes: 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.
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.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 18, 2011, 05:19:33 PM
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).
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 06:01:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2011, 05:55:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
:rolleyes: 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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 09:36:10 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 06:01:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2011, 05:55:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
:rolleyes: 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2011, 09:54:16 PM
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".
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 09:38:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 09:36:10 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 06:01:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2011, 05:55:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 04:25:47 PM
:rolleyes: 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!
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 09:43:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 09:48:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 09:43:33 AM
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.
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.
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.
Weren't "liberated" Russian POWs summarily shot by the Red Army?
Quote from: Gups on April 19, 2011, 10:11:24 AM
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.
I see that Berkut is mostly interested in throwing up strawman arguments.
QuoteYou guys act like the Soviets went to great efforts to save them,
compare this to what I said
Quotehe 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).
Quote from: Gups on April 19, 2011, 10:11:24 AM
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... :unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 10:16:14 AM
I see that Berkut is mostly interested in throwing up strawman arguments.
QuoteYou guys act like the Soviets went to great efforts to save them,
compare this to what I said
Quotehe 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 10:28:04 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Caliga on April 19, 2011, 10:30:42 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 10:41:31 AM
What strange allegiances tribalism creates.
The Russian tribe and the mentally ill tribe? :unsure:
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.
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.
Quote from: Caliga on April 19, 2011, 10:44:01 AM
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.
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.
Berkut is clearly and obviously wrong.
Oswald wasn't responsible for the death of Kennedy. The bullet was.
Quote from: Gups on April 19, 2011, 11:20:49 AM
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.
Anyway the Soviet Union wasn't real Communism. It was Red Fascism.
Yet remarkably Germans taken prisoner in other battles had a much higher rate of survival.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 12:25:46 PM
Yet remarkably Germans taken prisoner in other battles had a much higher rate of survival.
Not inconsistent with Berkut's argument.
the treatment of prisoners of war in world war ii, s. p. mackenzie
the journal of modern history
QuoteAll 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
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 19, 2011, 12:38:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 12:25:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 19, 2011, 12:38:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 12:25:46 PM
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.
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.
I don't think anyone expects Communists to act decently.
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.
Quote from: Gups on April 19, 2011, 10:11:24 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 01:51:59 PM
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!
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 01:54:10 PM
Quote from: Gups on April 19, 2011, 10:11:24 AM
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.
:lmfao:
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!
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:02:08 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 01:51:59 PM
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!"
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:02:08 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 01:35:23 PM
Really? The NKVD, who was in charge of the prisoner's couldn't get trucks or supplies from the Army.
Oh well, if the left hand could not get stuff from the right hand, then I guess that makes it ok to just kill them all. :lmfao:
Did you include the 3/5 factor for the relative worth of a Russian life?
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:04:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:02:08 PM
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.
Don't bother. Berkut isn't interested in facts, he's just trying to fight the "tribals", like me who doesn't have any connection to Russia.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:03:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 01:54:10 PM
Quote from: Gups on April 19, 2011, 10:11:24 AM
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.
:lmfao:
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!
Are you interested in discussing this, or you interested in being a jackass?
I was responding to Gups's point that Soviet POWs were executed en masse upon liberation. While I'm in no way arguing that Soviets treated their own POWs humanely, to say that Soviet POWs were just executed upon liberation is vastly exaggerating. You know, it's possible to point out exaggerations without defending what did happen.
Get a grip, please.
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2011, 02:05:24 PM
Did you include the 3/5 factor for the relative worth of a Russian life?
It really does fucking suck to be a Soviet soldier.
I wonder what the odds of an 19 year old infantryman in some rifle division on May 30th 1941 being alive come 1946 were....has to be pretty terrible.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:08:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:03:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 01:54:10 PM
Quote from: Gups on April 19, 2011, 10:11:24 AM
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.
:lmfao:
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!
Are you interested in discussing this, or you interested in being a jackass?
I was responding to Gups's point that Soviet POWs were executed en masse upon liberation. While I'm in no way arguing that Soviets treated their own POWs humanely, to say that Soviet POWs were just executed upon liberation is vastly exaggerating. You know, it's possible to point out exaggerations without defending what did happen.
Get a grip, please.
It is not exaggerating at all - many Soviet POWs were in fact executed upon repatriation. Not to mention plenty of civilians, women and children.
The only way this would be an exaggeration is if someone claimed that all of them were - but no such claim has been made.
Which makes one wonder why you feel the need to apparently faux defend Soviet practices in regards to POWs.
Execution would almost seem like a better option than being alive, which in many cases meant being black-listed and sent to new camps.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:04:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:02:08 PM
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.
QuoteThose held in Soviet-occupied territory fared far worse. Officially, the Soviet Union took 2,388,000 Germans and 1,097,000 combatants from other European nations as prisoners during and just after the war. More than a million of the German captives died.
More than 1 million out of a little over 2 million. That is quite a bit more than 15%.
http://www.historynet.com/german-pows-and-the-art-of-survival.htm (http://www.historynet.com/german-pows-and-the-art-of-survival.htm)
I believe you claimed that "most" of them were. While according to Wikipedia. 15% went to Gulags and 22% went to labor battalions.
The Black Book of Communism stated
QuoteThe Black Book of Communism provides different numbers: 19.1% of ex-POWs were sent to penal battalions of the Red Army, 14.5% were sent to forced labour "reconstruction battalions" (usually for two years), and 360,000 people (about 8%) were sentenced to ten to twenty years in the Gulag.[44] The survivors were released during the general amnesty for all POWs and accused collaborators in 1955 on the wave of De-Stalinization following his death in 1953.
But I guess in Berkut world that actually makes up more then half. Cue Berkut laughing in ignorance.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:08:30 PM
I wonder what the odds of an 19 year old infantryman in some rifle division on May 30th 1941 being alive come 1946 were....has to be pretty terrible.
It was pretty brutal. See Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945.
http://www.amazon.com/Ivans-War-Life-Death-1939-1945/dp/0805074554
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/books/15grim.html
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:16:06 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:04:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:02:08 PM
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.
QuoteThose held in Soviet-occupied territory fared far worse. Officially, the Soviet Union took 2,388,000 Germans and 1,097,000 combatants from other European nations as prisoners during and just after the war. More than a million of the German captives died.
More than 1 million out of a little over 2 million. That is quite a bit more than 15%.
http://www.historynet.com/german-pows-and-the-art-of-survival.htm (http://www.historynet.com/german-pows-and-the-art-of-survival.htm)
Those aren't the only stats. I've seen much lower, like less then 400,000 out of over 3 million.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:11:03 PM
Which makes one wonder why you feel the need to apparently faux defend Soviet practices in regards to POWs.
Similarly, it makes one wonder why you're so zealous to equate Soviets to the Nazis. Surely it just can't be a tribal propaganda of its own, can be?
I'm not trying to defend the Soviets, I'm just trying to keep things in perspective by refuting to common myths, which seemed to be rooted in Cold War propaganda. One, German POWs in general didn't have it nearly as bad as Soviet POWs did, even if both situations were far from enviable. Two, Soviets did not repress most of their own who did surrender and survive the camps.
Notice how I am not claiming that the German POWs who did die in Soviet hands deserved it, or how repatriated Soviet POWs who did get executed or sent to the camps deserved it.
It should be possible to point out that, for example, only 1 million died instead of 10 millions claimed by someone, without defending the deaths of the 1 million. Otherwise, once someone kills even one person unlawfully, everyone else can inflate the body count up to a billion without being challenged, which would be at the very least lead to bad knowledge of history.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 02:16:55 PM
I believe you claimed that "most" of them were. While according to Wikipedia. 15% went to Gulags and 22% went to labor battalions.
The Black Book of Communism stated
QuoteThe Black Book of Communism provides different numbers: 19.1% of ex-POWs were sent to penal battalions of the Red Army, 14.5% were sent to forced labour "reconstruction battalions" (usually for two years), and 360,000 people (about 8%) were sentenced to ten to twenty years in the Gulag.[44] The survivors were released during the general amnesty for all POWs and accused collaborators in 1955 on the wave of De-Stalinization following his death in 1953.
But I guess in Berkut world that actually makes up more then half. Cue Berkut laughing in ignorance.
Uhh, no, I made no claim at all about the numbers, other than that there were a lot of them.
I certianly do not think it was anywhere near 50%.
Although it is rather funny that your source says...lets see, this is kind of complex math...hmmm....
19.1% sent to penal battalions....
14.5% to forced labor camps...
Well, that alone right there is lets see...carry the three...some 35% being punished for the crime of being captured...
Yeah, nothing to see here, move along.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:18:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:11:03 PM
Which makes one wonder why you feel the need to apparently faux defend Soviet practices in regards to POWs.
Similarly, it makes one wonder why you're so zealous to equate Soviets to the Nazis. Surely it just can't be a tribal propaganda of its own, can be?
I'm not trying to defend the Soviets, I'm just trying to keep things in perspective by refuting to common myths, which seemed to be rooted in Cold War propaganda. One, German POWs in general didn't have it nearly as bad as Soviet POWs did, even if both situations were far from enviable. Two, Soviets did not repress most of their own who did surrender and survive the camps.
Notice how I am not claiming that the German POWs who did die in Soviet hands deserved it, or how repatriated Soviet POWs who did get executed or sent to the camps deserved it.
It should be possible to point out that, for example, only 1 million died instead of 10 millions claimed by someone, without defending the deaths of the 1 million. Otherwise, once someone kills even one person unlawfully, everyone else can inflate the body count up to a billion without being challenged, which would be at the very least lead to bad knowledge of history.
Someone claimed that 10 million out of 3.5 million were killed?
I can see why that would upset you.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:20:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 02:16:55 PM
I believe you claimed that "most" of them were. While according to Wikipedia. 15% went to Gulags and 22% went to labor battalions.
The Black Book of Communism stated
QuoteThe Black Book of Communism provides different numbers: 19.1% of ex-POWs were sent to penal battalions of the Red Army, 14.5% were sent to forced labour "reconstruction battalions" (usually for two years), and 360,000 people (about 8%) were sentenced to ten to twenty years in the Gulag.[44] The survivors were released during the general amnesty for all POWs and accused collaborators in 1955 on the wave of De-Stalinization following his death in 1953.
But I guess in Berkut world that actually makes up more then half. Cue Berkut laughing in ignorance.
Uhh, no, I made no claim at all about the numbers, other than that there were a lot of them.
I certianly do not think it was anywhere near 50%.
Although it is rather funny that your source says...lets see, this is kind of complex math...hmmm....
19.1% sent to penal battalions....
14.5% to forced labor camps...
Well, that alone right there is lets see...carry the three...some 35% being punished for the crime of being captured...
Yeah, nothing to see here, move along.
QuoteHey, 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!
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:08:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2011, 02:05:24 PM
Did you include the 3/5 factor for the relative worth of a Russian life?
It really does fucking suck to be a Soviet soldier.
I wonder what the odds of an 19 year old infantryman in some rifle division on May 30th 1941 being alive come 1946 were....has to be pretty terrible.
My wife's maternal grandfather died, as far as anyone knows, on the very first day of Barbarossa - at least, he was a soldier serving in the Red Army in occupied Soviet Poland on the front lines, and he was never heard from again.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:21:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:18:28 PM
It should be possible to point out that, for example, only 1 million died instead of 10 millions claimed by someone, without defending the deaths of the 1 million. Otherwise, once someone kills even one person unlawfully, everyone else can inflate the body count up to a billion without being challenged, which would be at the very least lead to bad knowledge of history.
Someone claimed that 10 million out of 3.5 million were killed?
I can see why that would upset you.
No need to troll. Please note the phrase "for example". That phrase denotes that a hypothetical situation is about to be discussed.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:18:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:11:03 PM
Which makes one wonder why you feel the need to apparently faux defend Soviet practices in regards to POWs.
Similarly, it makes one wonder why you're so zealous to equate Soviets to the Nazis. Surely it just can't be a tribal propaganda of its own, can be?
Huh?
Why would I care to do that? I am citing numbers and facts - are you disputing the fact that the Soviet Union was responsible for the deaths of well over a million POWs in their hands?
If not, then what is your contention with my position that both sides were largely equivalent in intent? Both sides treated their prisoners with either completely callous disregard for their well being
at best or actively tried to kill them after extracting as much labor from them as possible.
This resulting in about a million dead Germans (out of 2+ million taken) and 3.3 million dead Soviets/Poles/etc ( out of some 5.5 million taken). The Germans certainly took a lot more prisoners, and even at that they killed more of them - but trying to conclude that there was a difference in kind in how the two regimes treated their prisoners is a bit hard to swallow.
All these numbers are pretty rough, of course. But they would have to be VERY off for the differences to really indicate much of anything that would cause an objective observer to think "Oh yeah, the Soviets really did treat their prisoners much better than the Germans..."
You are arguing for a pretty thin distinction between degrees of horrific.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:27:48 PM
Why would I care to do that? I am citing numbers and facts - are you disputing the fact that the Soviet Union was responsible for the deaths of well over a million POWs in their hands?
As a matter of fact, yes, I am disputing it.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:27:48 PM
All these numbers are pretty rough, of course. But they would have to be VERY off for the differences to really indicate much of anything that would cause an objective observer to think "Oh yeah, the Soviets really did treat their prisoners much better than the Germans..."
You are arguing for a pretty thin distinction between degrees of horrific.
Yes. But your numbers could very well be VERY off.
Take for instance this
QuoteAccording to a book by Anne Applebaum, the official Soviet number was 570,000 deaths (the mortality rate is between 14% and 30%, depending on low and high estimates of deaths and total POW numbers).
Or
QuoteRűdiger Overmans and British historian Richard Overy say that 374,000 out of 3.3 million German prisoners of war died in Soviet labor camps
Another example:
230,000 Poles taken captive by the USSR in their invasion of Poland (the first one, before they were fighting the Germans).
82,000 survived.
Tell me again how it is "offensive" to suggest that the Soviets were just as brutal as the Germans in their treatment of POWs?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 02:33:40 PM
QuoteRűdiger Overmans and British historian Richard Overy say that 374,000 out of 3.3 million German prisoners of war died in Soviet labor camps
OTOH many terminally ill POWs were removed to the burial sites outside the camps shortly before they died. This may impact the numbers a bit.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:34:13 PM
Another example:
230,000 Poles taken captive by the USSR in their invasion of Poland (the first one, before they were fighting the Germans).
82,000 survived.
Tell me again how it is "offensive" to suggest that the Soviets were just as brutal as the Germans in their treatment of POWs?
You're grasping at Poles, Berk.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:27:48 PM
Why would I care to do that? I am citing numbers and facts - are you disputing the fact that the Soviet Union was responsible for the deaths of well over a million POWs in their hands?
As a matter of fact, yes, I am disputing it.
:lmfao:
Of course - better to deny the numbers than accept that your conclusion might be wrong.
I suppose you have a source then?
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:38:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:27:48 PM
Why would I care to do that? I am citing numbers and facts - are you disputing the fact that the Soviet Union was responsible for the deaths of well over a million POWs in their hands?
As a matter of fact, yes, I am disputing it.
:lmfao:
Of course - better to deny the numbers than accept that your conclusion might be wrong.
I suppose you have a source then?
Do you have
your source? As for the numbers as I remember them, see Raz's post.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:41:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:38:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:27:48 PM
Why would I care to do that? I am citing numbers and facts - are you disputing the fact that the Soviet Union was responsible for the deaths of well over a million POWs in their hands?
As a matter of fact, yes, I am disputing it.
:lmfao:
Of course - better to deny the numbers than accept that your conclusion might be wrong.
I suppose you have a source then?
Do you have your source? As for the numbers as I remember them, see Raz's post.
So your source is Raz?
I think we are done here.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:42:05 PM
So your source is Raz?
I think we are done here.
Again with the trolling? Raz was not presenting the results of his own original research. Rather he was quoting other researchers.
And Berkut has already shown himself to be disingenuous with numbers.
QuoteUhh, no, I made no claim at all about the numbers, other than that there were a lot of them.
I certianly do not think it was anywhere near 50%.
A few posts earlier
QuoteHey, 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!
Berkut is done with the debate, quit kicking the dead horse. He held out politely for a long time, but finally our obnoxiousness wore him down. :(
Raz, why are you lying?
You are quoting me paraphrasing someone else, and further quoting me even in the paraphrase stating that the numbers are "probably not more than 50%", so why would you insist that I said I thought it was more than 50%, even after I explicitly stated that I do not think that is the case?
How can I be more clear than to say "No, I do not think that more than 50% of Soviet POWs sent back to the USSR were punished"?
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:48:06 PM
Berkut is done with the debate, quit kicking the dead horse. He held out politely for a long time, but finally our obnoxiousness wore him down. :(
Wow, your willingness to join even Raz in what is clearly a fabrication of what I have said says a lot about your integrity DG. Nothing new when it comes to your "debate style", sadly.
I stated with perfect clarity that I do not think what Raz claims I said, you read it, and still cheer him on. At least he has the "oh, but I am kind of nuts excuse".
Good job, as usual, turning this into a shit flinging exercise once your conclusions were demolished.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:50:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:48:06 PM
Berkut is done with the debate, quit kicking the dead horse. He held out politely for a long time, but finally our obnoxiousness wore him down. :(
Wow, your willingness to join even Raz in what is clearly a fabrication of what I have said says a lot about your integrity DG. Nothing new when it comes to your "debate style", sadly.
I stated with perfect clarity that I do not think what Raz claims I said, you read it, and still cheer him on. At least he has the "oh, but I am kind of nuts excuse".
Good job, as usual, turning this into a shit flinging exercise once your conclusions were demolished.
This debate says nothing about my integrity. The fact that you went into this with guns blazing, and then got out with tail tucked between your legs once you were challenged, calling me a liar as a parting argument, does say something about you. Quite frankly, based on your sorry performance in this thread, you lack any sort of credibility to call me a liar or an abusive debater. You likewise lack the credibility to declare yourself a winner.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:48:23 PM
Raz, why are you lying?
You are quoting me paraphrasing someone else, and further quoting me even in the paraphrase stating that the numbers are "probably not more than 50%", so why would you insist that I said I thought it was more than 50%, even after I explicitly stated that I do not think that is the case?
How can I be more clear than to say "No, I do not think that more than 50% of Soviet POWs sent back to the USSR were punished"?
How can I be lying? I'm taking two of your quotes on the same subject and showing they are completely inconsistent. One where you claim something and one where you claim never to have made that original claim.
Lets try to move this back to a more rational basis.
DG, where would you place the actions of the Germans in respect to their treatment of POWs, and where would you place the actions of the USSR on the same scale, considering the totality of that treatment?
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.
They are both well into the "You guys are fucking sick bastards that exemplify just how horrible humans can actually be to one another". If the Soviets were slightly less horrible, it is a matter of choosing between pretty thin differences. They most certainly made it clear that if they found it expedient, they had zero compunction about simply murdering any number of people - just like the Nazis.
My suspicion is that the differences in the numbers are more related to differences in how many people each regime decided were more useful dead than alive, rather than any actual moral differences in the standards they used. In other words, I don't think there were many groups either regime thought "Well, we would rather them all be dead, but that would be wrong, so we won't just kill them".
Both regimes made it clear that genocide was an acceptable tool of the state when it suited them.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:59:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 02:50:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 02:48:06 PM
Berkut is done with the debate, quit kicking the dead horse. He held out politely for a long time, but finally our obnoxiousness wore him down. :(
Wow, your willingness to join even Raz in what is clearly a fabrication of what I have said says a lot about your integrity DG. Nothing new when it comes to your "debate style", sadly.
I stated with perfect clarity that I do not think what Raz claims I said, you read it, and still cheer him on. At least he has the "oh, but I am kind of nuts excuse".
Good job, as usual, turning this into a shit flinging exercise once your conclusions were demolished.
This debate says nothing about my integrity. The fact that you went into this with guns blazing, and then got out with tail tucked between your legs once you were challenged, calling me a liar as a parting argument, does say something about you. Quite frankly, based on your sorry performance in this thread, you lack any sort of credibility to call me a liar or an abusive debater. You likewise lack the credibility to declare yourself a winner.
:lmfao:
I would note that the Germans were dealing with sub human scum, but I suspect this argument though pristine would fall on deaf ears.
Quote from: Slargos on April 19, 2011, 03:08:07 PM
I would note that the Germans were dealing with sub human scum, but I suspect this argument though pristine would fall on deaf ears.
I would respond, but I think Raz might take me quoting you as me saying it, then repeating it over and over while DG cheers him on.
Oh.
Crap.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 03:06:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 03:11:39 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 19, 2011, 03:08:07 PM
I would note that the Germans were dealing with sub human scum, but I suspect this argument though pristine would fall on deaf ears.
I would respond, but I think Raz might take me quoting you as me saying it, then repeating it over and over while DG cheers him on.
Oh.
Crap.
Too late.
One - of - us.
One - of - us.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 02:59:55 PM
How can I be lying? I'm taking two of your quotes on the same subject and showing they are completely inconsistent. One where you claim something and one where you claim never to have made that original claim.
You should go back and re-read what you are quoting from.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2011, 03:20:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 02:59:55 PM
How can I be lying? I'm taking two of your quotes on the same subject and showing they are completely inconsistent. One where you claim something and one where you claim never to have made that original claim.
You should go back and re-read what you are quoting from.
So I should read it as Berkut agreeing with DGuller?
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 03:18:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 03:06:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 03:28:03 PM
So I should read it as Berkut agreeing with DGuller?
You should realize that the point you are attempting to make is not accurate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2011, 03:32:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 03:28:03 PM
So I should read it as Berkut agreeing with DGuller?
You should realize that the point you are attempting to make is not accurate.
Oh, what point is that Oh, master of Operation Compass?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2011, 03:32:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 03:28:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 03:33:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2011, 03:32:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2011, 03:28:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 03:30:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 03:18:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 03:06:39 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 03:36:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 03:30:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 03:18:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 03:06:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 03:43:10 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 03:49:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 03:43:10 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 19, 2011, 04:33:11 PM
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!
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 07:43:21 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 08:00:16 PM
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.
:lol: was my post completely overlooked?
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 10:20:39 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2011, 11:57:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 10:20:39 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 08:06:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 08:00:16 PM
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.
QuoteYour 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?
QuoteNo 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.
Quote from: Slargos on April 20, 2011, 07:56:01 AM
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?
I am pretty sure nothing I have said could be construed as defending Nazis. :P
Quote from: Berkut on April 20, 2011, 08:00:02 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 20, 2011, 07:56:01 AM
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?
I am pretty sure nothing I have said could be construed as defending Nazis. :P
I'm just trying out a new pair of shoes. They are comfortable. Everyone's wearing them so there must be something to the style.
Quote from: Berkut on April 20, 2011, 07:51:37 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2011, 11:57:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 10:20:39 AM
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.
I didn't say that Stalingrad deaths didn't count. I just explained why Stalingrad was an aberration and no indicative of the fate of the German soldiers in general. Even including Stalingrad statistics, the odds for Germans were still multiple times better than the odds for the Soviets. Yet again you're attributing something I didn't argue to me. If you had a good argument, you probably wouldn't have to resort to such slimy tactics.
Quote from: DGuller on April 20, 2011, 08:32:44 AM
I didn't say that Stalingrad deaths didn't count. I just explained why Stalingrad was an aberration and no indicative of the fate of the German soldiers in general.
Right - because "Stalingrad is an aberration and not indicative of the fate of German soldiers in general" is not at all saying that Stalingrad doesn't count.
:lmfao:
Quote
Even including Stalingrad statistics, the odds for Germans were still multiple times better than the odds for the Soviets.
Multiple times? 50% is bad, 67% is worse, but I don't think I would call that "multiple times" better. In any case, they are both stunningly bad enough that I wouldn't comfort myself any thinking "Gee, getting captured and worked until half of us is dead is bad, but at least it isn't as bad as being captured and worked until 2.3rds of us are dead!" and then actually state that you are preciously
offended at anyone saying they were both pretty bad.
Quote
If you had a good argument, you probably wouldn't have to resort to such slimy tactics.
You mean like ad homs, and cheering on Raz's lying? Slimy tactics like that?
Quote from: Berkut on April 20, 2011, 08:40:02 AM
Right - because "Stalingrad is an aberration and not indicative of the fate of German soldiers in general" is not at all saying that Stalingrad doesn't count.
:lmfao:
:huh: That's right, it's not saying that at all. Please re-read the post where I first talked about Stalingrad, and note the context. The context was that Yi was inferring about the fate of Germans in Soviet hands from the Stalingrad example. Clarifying that Stalingrad is not indicative of Germans' odds of survival in Soviet captivity was not saying that it doesn't count, it's just saying that it's well outside of the average. Some number may be very far from the average, but still be counted in the average.
Quote
Multiple times? 50% is bad, 67% is worse, but I don't think I would call that "multiple times" better. In any case, they are both stunningly bad enough that I wouldn't comfort myself any thinking "Gee, getting captured and worked until half of us is dead is bad, but at least it isn't as bad as being captured and worked until 2.3rds of us are dead!" and then actually state that you are preciously offended at anyone saying they were both pretty bad.
You're acting as if your 50% is undisputed, or even sourced. The only sourced numbers indicate 15% death rate, so yes, 15% is multiple times less than 67%.
Anyway, I've stated my point enough times, and you haven't come close to challenging it without radically twisting what I said. If you haven't managed to come up with a convincing counter-argument by now, odds are none would be forthcoming.
This tit-for-tat can go on for weeks, and I don't have time for this bullshit. Feel free to make a triumphant last word post, I'm not worried about you having any credibility left in this thread for it to make a difference.
Victory to the Nazis! :)
Quote from: DGuller on April 20, 2011, 09:56:51 AM
you haven't come close to challenging it
Feel free to make a triumphant last word post, I'm not worried about you having any credibility left in this thread for it to make a difference.
:lmfao: You don't even realize how hypocritical this post is, do you?
Par for the course, I guess. You are, if nothing else, predictable.
Quote from: DGuller on April 20, 2011, 09:50:33 AM
You're acting as if your 50% is undisputed, or even sourced. The only sourced numbers indicate 15% death rate, so yes, 15% is multiple times less than 67%.
That is simply a lie - I sourced the 50% claim. Military History Magazine, German POWs and the Art of Survival, July 17th, 2007. I even was kind enough to provide a link.
I assume you didn't actually read Raz's "source" since it made it rather clear that even the author of the source did not consider the Soviet claims particularly credible, and suspected they were off by as much as 1 million men.
But then, you made it pretty obvious you were arguing from your conclusions from the beginning.
Quote from: The Brain on April 20, 2011, 10:00:48 AM
Victory to the Nazis! :)
Count on the Swede to cheer them on! :mad:
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2011, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 19, 2011, 04:33:11 PM
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!
:face:
soviet repression of statistics: some comments, michael ellman
europe-asia studiesQuoteThe policy of releasing 'unfit for work ballast' was a cost-cutting measure which was intended to save on food consumption and on guards and other personnel, and hence reduce the deficit and improve productivity in the Gulag. It increased 'efficiency' (i.e. the ratio of output to inputs) while simultaneously improving the financial results and the mortality statistics. (Similarly, after the war, German POWs who were invalids or very ill were released before the able-bodied. From an economic point of view this was entirely rational and optimised the results of utilising the POWs.) Wheatcroft correctly drew attention to the fact that senior officials were concerned about high mortality and that 'incidents of high mortality were often investigated'.13 This, however, did not necessarily lead to an improvement in conditions, since camp bosses could improve their mortality statistics by releasing those about to die. In fact, the bosses of the Gulag as a whole were keen to improve the mortality statistics this way. An instruction of 2 April 1943 by the head of the Gulag forbade including deaths of released former prisoners in Gulag mortality statistics.'4 (This is not the only example of the use of mortality data as success indicators leading to misleading mortality statistics. The postwar filtration statistics, which purport to show that as of 1 March 1946, out of the 4.2 million people checked, 58% had been sent home, include those who died in the filtration camps among those 'sent home'.15)
review: prisoners of war and internees in the second world war, ilse pautsch
contemporary european historyQuoteStefan Karner introduces us to the world of the Soviet POW camps in 'Lagergruppe Stalingrad/Volgograd' (the Stalingrad/Volgagrad group of camps), which uses Russian sources. The largest single group interned in these camps consisted of some 93,000 German soldiers who had survived the Battle of Stalingrad. The conditions were so terrible that two-thirds of the prisoners succumbed; in the Beketovka section 40,000 of the 50-60,000 inmates died. Most of the deaths were put down to dystrophy or dropsy - both symptoms of extreme malnutrition. Able-bodied prisoners were put to work in industry and road-building, but their capacity to work was so low that in 1945 the camp commandants tried to stabilise the prisoners' condition by increasing their rations, meeting with only limited success.
The situation changed when sick prisoners, and those unable to work, began to be repatriated, and there was a steep rise in criminal convictions. Most of these convictions, which generally carried a sentence of 25 years' forced labour, were for membership of a particular Wehrmacht unit or of the Waffen-SS. Strangely enough, the mere hopelessness engendered by such a sentence goaded the prisoners into protests and demands for better living and working conditions since they had nothing more to lose. Not until 1955 were the Stalingrad/Volgagrad camps closed and the last German prisoners released. The political and diplomatic efforts which procured the return home of the last German POWs in Soviet hands are the subject of Michael Borchard's chapter, 'Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in der Sowjetunion' (German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union). Borchard approaches this difficult theme with commendable objectivity, based on extensive research in archives in both the Federal Republic and the former East Germany, together with US, British and French collections. Regrettably, there is no evaluation of the Russian sources which have been available since 1991.
Borchard demonstrates how a fundamentally humanitarian problem turned into a political one that could be solved only by political means. He also highlights the very different ways in which it was tackled in the two Germanies. A turning point was the announcement by the Soviet news agency Tass, on 4 May 1950, that only about 13,000 'war criminals' still remained in Soviet camps. While the true number of German POWs in the Soviet Union had never been definitely established, this could only mean that the fate of up to one and a half million German soldiers was unexplained and would doubtless always remain so. Between Tass's declaration and the death of Stalin in 1953, the subject of POWs was never mentioned in public in East Germany or raised in its exchanges with the Soviet Union.
maybe more paragraphs and highlighting will get raz and dg's attention, but then maybe not. i can see why the russian would want to believe in soviet sources, but why raz--who so often recalls the time when cc cited fiction as his source :hmm:
Quote from: LaCroix on April 20, 2011, 12:01:19 PM
maybe more paragraphs and highlighting will get raz and dg's attention, but then maybe not.
Once you devolve the discussion into shit flinging, it becomes very hard to backtrack and admit you might have been wrong. It is a good reason (beyond simple integrity and courtesy) to not let a discussion turn that unpleasant to begin with - it doesn't really leave you an out.
But then, I suppose it depends on your purpose to begin with - I kind of like actually
learning things, but I know that for many Languish isn't really about that. :P
It is interesting to look at those numbers - 1.5 million men unaccounted for, and the Soviets admit they have 13,000 of them.
Compare that to the amount of stress the US went through over 2000 unaccounted from Vietnam MIAs...
What a stunning disappointment that must have been to find out that practically none of those 1.5 million missing men were still alive, or going to ever come home.
On the other hand, the Germans killed about 10-20 times as many Soviets as that number as a result of their war. Pretty hard to have much sympathy for them, no matter how horrific the Soviets were...
However, I don't give the Soviets any slack for "The Germans had it coming". While the Germans probably DID have it coming (to the extent that any generality like that can make any sense at all), things like Katyn make it pretty clear the Soviets were not killing as any kind of retribution, but simply because it was expedient to do so.
they kept up with that stalingrad argument for so long that i thought they must have some source for all their claims of "well! the purebred aryan simply fought for so long that by the time the merciful rus was upon him.. he could only perish." maybe they confused stalingrad with auschwitz :)
Quote from: LaCroix on April 20, 2011, 12:33:09 PM
they kept up with that stalingrad argument for so long that i thought they must have some source for all their claims of "well! the purebred aryan simply fought for so long that by the time the merciful rus was upon him.. he could only perish." maybe they confused stalingrad with auschwitz :)
I thought they would give that up when I pointed out that of the 90k who surrendered, only ~30k died in the following 6 weeks or so. Kind of hard to blame the other 50k deaths on conditions at surrender when they apparently managed to live for months after the surrender before perishing from their hunger and illness they had when captured. They must have been pretty hardy to survive those first few months, only to die over the next several years. Including nearly 8 years AFTER the war ended.
:lol: i must have skimmed over that
Quote from: LaCroix on April 20, 2011, 12:49:53 PM
:lol: i must have skimmed over that
You weren't the only one!