The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Russian Reaction BlogTeasers
Rapewhistling for Hitler
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

About two thirds of the USSR’s 27 million casualties were civilians – that is, almost 10% of its prewar population. Had those percentages been applied to Nazi Germany, it would lost 8 million people – an order of magnitude than the 400,000 civilians it lost due to Allied strategic bombing, and the 600,000 who died during the expulsions of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe (the vast majority of which were carried out by local authorities, not the Red Army or the NKVD).

About 3.3 million out of 5.7 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody (compared to 15% of German POWs in the half-starved USSR, and low single digit figures for Allied POWs in Nazi Germany). Had the Soviets treated its 4.2 million German POWs as harshly, with a death rate of 60%, the German number of military dead would have risen from 5.3 million to around 7.3 million. That’s not far off the figure of 8.7 million Soviet military deaths (9.2 million taking into account unregistered militia in 1941).

It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest. If we count probabilities, assuming there was a 50% chance of Nazi victory over the USSR in 1941-42, and a 50% chance of Generalplan Ost being implemented in its full scale, that translates to around 200 million times 25% equals 50 million additional deaths. This means that in the average of all possible timelines, about 75 million Soviet citizens died, or 37.5% of its prewar population. That translates to around 30 million if these percentages are applied to Germany and its East European diaspora.

And yet for some people – for the most part, the most Rusophobic neocons and Cold Warriors, the more Nazi elements of the Alt Right, and deranged Poles and Balts who don’t quite realize what Hitler had in store for them – the Soviet rape of about 2 million women in Eastern Germany at the end of the war is supposed to be a really huge, defining war crime, even something that delegitimizes the overall Soviet victory.*

How many rapes is one death/murder “worth”? My intuition is that murder is quite a lot worse, perhaps by an order of magnitude if I had to quantify it, and I suspect that most people will agree. It just so happens that so do sentencing guidelines. The typical term for murder in the US is 30 years to life (which might functionally translate to an average of 50 years). The average term for rape is 10 years, of which about 5 are served. This is a differential of five. It also happens to be almost exactly the differential between the murder rate in the US (~5 cases / 100,000 anually) and the rate of rape and sexual assault (~30 / 100,000 annually, as per police records and self-victimization surveys). Let us then provisionally estimate that rape is on average 20% as “bad” as murder. (Note: I actually think it’s considerably less, because sentencing for murder is range constricted by biological ageing. And the homicide problem is usually considered to be worse than the sexual violence one, even though there are usually far fewer of them than there are rapes).

Therefore, let’s say 2 million rapes translates to 400,000 deaths. Compare this to 27 million Soviet civilian deaths (of which two thirds were civilians) in a war started by Nazi Germany, or the 75 million or so Soviet deaths across all timelines. Even assuming that the worst estimates of the Red Army rapes are accurate – they were still, at most, equivalent to far less than 1% of the Nazi crimes against Russia.

Now to be sure you can argue that not all “murders” are equal, especially in war. Direct genocide, like the gassings of Jews or the massacres of Belorussian villagers, seems to be worse than deaths incurred by incidental effects of war, such as bombings of industrial facilities or famine incurred due to the stresses of the war effort, which in turn are worse than military deaths, since society tends to consider soldiers as pretty much “fair game” (though it is questionable to what extent this can be applied to conscripts on the Eastern Front, who did not even get the theoretical possibility of opting out by applying for a “conscientious objector” status at the cost of their social reputation, as in the less “total” conflict of World War I). But there are many different types of rapes as well. There were traumatic gang rapes, to military brothels relying on considerable degrees of coercion, to women semi-voluntarily hooking up with one particular soldier in return for security, or just trading their bodies for food.

dyukov-what-soviets-fought-for Furthermore, contrary to the myth of the “clean Wehrmacht” spread by retired Nazi generals and their wehraboo admirers after the war, there was plenty of rape amongst German soldiers in the USSR. For instance, here is a quote from historian Alexander Dyukov’s 2007 book “What the Soviet People Fought For”:

Rape continued, and acquired an organized character. From time to time “hunting groups” ventured out of Wehrmacht positions. “We ventured out to the village near Rozhdestvenno near Gatchina,” said Peter Schuber, a private who was at the Seversky airport, “We had orders to bring girls to the officers. We did the operation successfully, surrounding all the houses. We grabbed a truckload of girls. The officers held the girls all night, and gave them to us soldiers in the morning.”

In the large cities, permanent brothels were organized. This was standard Wehrmacht practice. “There were military brothels, called Puff,” recalls SS officer Avenir Benningsen, “They were present on almost all fronts. Girls from all Europe, all nationalities, gathered up from all camps. By the way, the two condoms regularly handed out to men and officers were indispensable posessions.” But whereas in the European countries the Wehrmacht brothels were staffed more or less voluntarily, in the USSR there were no such considerations. Girls and women were forcibly rounded up, in scenes seared into the memories of people undergoing the occupation. In Smolensk, for instance, women were dragged off by the arms, by the hair, dragged along the pavement, into the officers’ brothel in one of the hotels. Those who refused to remain there were shot.

After Red Army soldiers drove the Germans out of Kerch, they encoutered a terrible sight: “In the courtyard of the prison there was a shapeless heap of naked female bodies, horrifically mutilated by the fascists.”

ORDER IT NOW

So even if we are to tally sexual crimes completely separately, the rapes of the Wehrmacht carried an organized, long-term character – similar to the Japanese Army’s abuse of Chinese and Korean comfort women – whereas Red Army rapes happened in a concentrated orgy of violence in the last few months of the war. That fury in turn was fueled by a regrettable but very understandable hatred for the death and devastation the Germans had wreaked in the USSR, made all the more inexplicable by the overwhelming prosperity of the Germans relative to the ramshackle poverty of Soviet life.

Incidentally, soon after the war, as the follow-up to his “toast to the Russian people,” Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia, in which a similar number died). Why? Because the USSR was exporting grain to support its new Communist client states, including East Germany. (Functionally, Stalin agreed with the Nazis that German lives were worth more than Russian lives). This one event alone is by utilitarian metrics considerably more horrific than all the Red Army rapes in Germany.

The real “Soviet Story“: Stalin mutilates Russia. Hitler mutilates Russia. Stalin mutilates Hitler, then mutilates Russia some more. Russophobe ideologues conclude that Russia is as bad as Hitler (if not worse).

Just people who insist on questioning the lethality of Zyklon B or how many people the shower rooms in Auschwitz could accomodate tend to have motives that are suspect, to put it mildly, so it is a pretty good bet that anyone who consistently gives primacy to the Red Army rapes and looting in Germany when discussing the moral weightings of the USSR vs. Nazi Germany might sooner be looking to replay Hitler’s/Stalin’s joint genocide against Russia.

* I would note that there are questions about whether there actually were that many Red Army rapes in Germany; for instance, there are arguments that they are based on unrealistic extrapolations from a small sample of abortion statistics. I haven’t studied this issue in any depth myself and will assume that the conventional mass rape narrative is broadly correct. If this is not the case and there actually were much fewer rapes, that makes the main argument even stronger.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Rape, Soviet Union, World War II 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Wait till Frau Merkel unleashes her imported army of wretched Refuse from teeming shores against Russia. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/rapewhistling-for-hitler/#comment-1865939
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Incidentally, soon after the war, as the follow-up to his “toast to the Russian people,” Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia). Why? Because the USSR was exporting grain to support its new Communist client states, including East Germany. (Functionally, Stalin agreed with the Nazis that German lives were worth more than Russian lives). This one event alone is by utilitarian metrics considerably more horrific than all the Red Army rapes in Germany

    I knew about the 1947-1948 famine but didn’t realize that the Soviets were actually exporting grain to Germany during the famine. That surprises me since I knew that the Soviets stripped the East German economy and Czechoslovak economies of their industrial infrastructure as part of the war reparations (which might explain why East Germany started out in 1950 so far behind the west). Why would they couple a generally harsh treatment of East Germany in 1945-1950 with grain exports?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    That surprises me since I knew that the Soviets stripped the East German economy and Czechoslovak economies
     
    I have trouble imagining that this was the case for Czechoslovakia, it wasn't a defeated enemy state like e.g. Hungary after all. It only drifted completely into the Soviet orbit with the communist coup in early 1948.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Stalin's purpose was to get all of Europe, make it communist, just in 1948 the USA got the picture, and began help also.
  3. You’re of course mostly factually right, but I don’t quite get the point of this post. My impression would be that an undifferentiated view of WW2 era Red army soldiers as a sort of Mongol horde of rapists is much less common now than it would have been 30 or 40 years ago. It’s true that very occasionally that view does still come up in mainstream publications, but does anybody with real influence consistently promote that view today (the only potentially important people on your list would be the “most russophobic neocons”, “deranged” Polish/Baltic nationalists and the Nazi segment of the alt-right are rather marginal)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parsifal
    Anthony Beevor pushes that rubbish regularly, as does Max Hastings.
    , @AnotherDad

    You’re of course mostly factually right, but I don’t quite get the point of this post.
     
    That's where i'm at too. Where are all these people--*any* of these people--making some sort of equivalence claim based on these rapes?

    The equivalence claim Hilter/Stalin that I hear is always based on Stalin's *overall* record including the police state, the induced famines, the Gulag, invasions of other nations and his part in bringing on the War. Most of that record is suffering inflicted on the Russians themselves.

    The truth is that most people's attitude toward the mass rapes is--I think--roughly "Unfortunate, but a lot of really bad shit happened--way worse than this. If you survived the war, count your blessings and move on." Of course, that's not to denigrate anyone's personal experience. If a German woman, or Russian woman hates Russians or Germans because of rape, or a German, Russian, Brit, French, Dutch, Czech, Ukrainian, Balt, Polack, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Malay, Filipino ... hates this or that sort of people because of nasty stuff that happened to them or their family, hey I get it. That's human nature. War is hell.
    , @Cato
    The Soviets were equal opportunity rapists, and did not limit themselves to Germans. For example, they raped Danish women in the liberation of Bornholm. But then, Americans were equally indiscriminate: thousands of French women were raped by GIs during the Normandy invasion. War turns men into animals.
    , @The Westphalian Khan
    We're on UNZ Review, important people like neocons don't read Mr. Karlin, the Polish/Baltic Nationalists and the Deranged Nazi fringe of the alt-right is mostly who this article was intended for.
  4. Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia). Why?

    I don’t know where you got this idea that the famine of 1947 was caused by grain supplies to East Germany. I just hope it wasn’t SiP, because it’s not a good source of info about anything.

    There were famines in many countries after the war. The one in the Netherlands is famous partly because Audry Hepburn experienced it as a kid.

    It would have been surprising if there were no food shortages in the USSR then, after such an ordeal. If such a war befell the UK, there would have been a famine there too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    Maybe someone can correct me, but I think there was food rationing in the UK for quite a few years after the war.
    , @Parsifal
    The UK was on meat and sugar rations until well into the 1950s.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Grain was being exported to East Germany and Poland. This was enabled by high grain collection quotas. If the quotas had been lower, there would have certainly been fewer Soviet deaths. But then fewer exports of course.

    The Dutch famine of 1944-45!? Totally incomparable, except insofar as both were artificially created by totalitarian regimes. 20,000/10 million = 0.2% of the Dutch population due to a wartime blockade. In the 1947 Soviet famine, 500,000/100 million = 0.5% of the Russian population died in peacetime.

    Yes Britain was on rations postwar, but it was a still a consumer paradise relative to the USSR.
  5. Another excellent book that kills the “clean Wehrmacht” myth is “Third Reich at War” by Richard Evans. He shows that the German practice of taking local women to serve in brothels or simple outright rape started already in Poland in late 1939. And Evans is no Germanophobe, far from it.

    Read More
  6. @German_reader
    You're of course mostly factually right, but I don't quite get the point of this post. My impression would be that an undifferentiated view of WW2 era Red army soldiers as a sort of Mongol horde of rapists is much less common now than it would have been 30 or 40 years ago. It's true that very occasionally that view does still come up in mainstream publications, but does anybody with real influence consistently promote that view today (the only potentially important people on your list would be the "most russophobic neocons", "deranged" Polish/Baltic nationalists and the Nazi segment of the alt-right are rather marginal)?

    Anthony Beevor pushes that rubbish regularly, as does Max Hastings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I don't read their books, they're mostly popular trash anyway (Max Hastings however is also quite anti-German and seems to regard WW1 imperial Germany as pretty much on the same level as Nazi Germany, if I understand correctly).
    Anyway, at the risk of becoming persona non grata here, it seems undisputable to me that Red army soldiers did commit a substantial number of rapes in 1944/45 (exact numbers of course will never be known; in any case it seems clear though that this wasn't some sort of official policy ordered from above, and it eventually did die down when disciplinary measures were taken. Probably it also wasn't surprising, given the nature of the war in the East which had of course been started by Germany). Most people today care very little about that though, even in Germany (I certainly don't care much). Alt-right Nazis are hardly representative.
  7. @Glossy
    Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia). Why?

    I don't know where you got this idea that the famine of 1947 was caused by grain supplies to East Germany. I just hope it wasn't SiP, because it's not a good source of info about anything.

    There were famines in many countries after the war. The one in the Netherlands is famous partly because Audry Hepburn experienced it as a kid.

    It would have been surprising if there were no food shortages in the USSR then, after such an ordeal. If such a war befell the UK, there would have been a famine there too.

    Maybe someone can correct me, but I think there was food rationing in the UK for quite a few years after the war.

    Read More
  8. @Glossy
    Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia). Why?

    I don't know where you got this idea that the famine of 1947 was caused by grain supplies to East Germany. I just hope it wasn't SiP, because it's not a good source of info about anything.

    There were famines in many countries after the war. The one in the Netherlands is famous partly because Audry Hepburn experienced it as a kid.

    It would have been surprising if there were no food shortages in the USSR then, after such an ordeal. If such a war befell the UK, there would have been a famine there too.

    The UK was on meat and sugar rations until well into the 1950s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    And bread rationing didn't even begin until after the war in Britain.
    , @Eustace Tilley (not)
    It's a shame they didn't stay on them permanently. A study (I read about this decades ago, so interested readers will have to do their own research here) has shown that during WWII, while Denmark was under meat rationing, the health of the population actually went up.
  9. @Parsifal
    Anthony Beevor pushes that rubbish regularly, as does Max Hastings.

    I don’t read their books, they’re mostly popular trash anyway (Max Hastings however is also quite anti-German and seems to regard WW1 imperial Germany as pretty much on the same level as Nazi Germany, if I understand correctly).
    Anyway, at the risk of becoming persona non grata here, it seems undisputable to me that Red army soldiers did commit a substantial number of rapes in 1944/45 (exact numbers of course will never be known; in any case it seems clear though that this wasn’t some sort of official policy ordered from above, and it eventually did die down when disciplinary measures were taken. Probably it also wasn’t surprising, given the nature of the war in the East which had of course been started by Germany). Most people today care very little about that though, even in Germany (I certainly don’t care much). Alt-right Nazis are hardly representative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    The indoctrinated 'German reader' said:

    "Probably it also wasn’t surprising, given the nature of the war in the East which had of course been started by Germany".

    No it wasn't.

    Germany's attack on the USSR was pre-emptive / preventive and easily demonstrated as such.
    see:
    'Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
    , @5371
    Of course it was ordered from above, otherwise the same thing would have happened in Austria, Hungary and Romania, the inhabitants of all of which had participated in the invasion of the USSR.
    , @HdC
    Kindly read the book entitled Icebreaker, which explains the why if the invasion of the Soviet Union. The reasons given make the German invasion much, MUCH, more compelling than the USA invasions of various countries over the last 100 odd years or so. HdC
  10. @Hector_St_Clare
    Incidentally, soon after the war, as the follow-up to his “toast to the Russian people,” Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia). Why? Because the USSR was exporting grain to support its new Communist client states, including East Germany. (Functionally, Stalin agreed with the Nazis that German lives were worth more than Russian lives). This one event alone is by utilitarian metrics considerably more horrific than all the Red Army rapes in Germany

    I knew about the 1947-1948 famine but didn't realize that the Soviets were actually exporting grain to Germany during the famine. That surprises me since I knew that the Soviets stripped the East German economy and Czechoslovak economies of their industrial infrastructure as part of the war reparations (which might explain why East Germany started out in 1950 so far behind the west). Why would they couple a generally harsh treatment of East Germany in 1945-1950 with grain exports?

    That surprises me since I knew that the Soviets stripped the East German economy and Czechoslovak economies

    I have trouble imagining that this was the case for Czechoslovakia, it wasn’t a defeated enemy state like e.g. Hungary after all. It only drifted completely into the Soviet orbit with the communist coup in early 1948.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hector_St_Clare
    Slovakia had joined with the German invasion of the USSR, but fair point, I may be misremembering. The Soviets definitely were stripping East Germany of its industrial resources between 1945-1950 though.
  11. @Glossy
    Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia). Why?

    I don't know where you got this idea that the famine of 1947 was caused by grain supplies to East Germany. I just hope it wasn't SiP, because it's not a good source of info about anything.

    There were famines in many countries after the war. The one in the Netherlands is famous partly because Audry Hepburn experienced it as a kid.

    It would have been surprising if there were no food shortages in the USSR then, after such an ordeal. If such a war befell the UK, there would have been a famine there too.

    Grain was being exported to East Germany and Poland. This was enabled by high grain collection quotas. If the quotas had been lower, there would have certainly been fewer Soviet deaths. But then fewer exports of course.

    The Dutch famine of 1944-45!? Totally incomparable, except insofar as both were artificially created by totalitarian regimes. 20,000/10 million = 0.2% of the Dutch population due to a wartime blockade. In the 1947 Soviet famine, 500,000/100 million = 0.5% of the Russian population died in peacetime.

    Yes Britain was on rations postwar, but it was a still a consumer paradise relative to the USSR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    If we divide the percentage of the Soviet population killed during the war by the percentage of the British population killed, we'll get a rough estimate of the difference in the severity of the two countries' war-time experience. If we then multiply a measure of the severity of post-war British food rationing (e.g. decrease in kids' heights) by the severity-of-war coefficient obtained in the previous exercise, half of Britain would probably go missing from our scenario. In other words, it seems likely to me that the USSR managed the hand it was dealt better than Britain did.

    By the way, the Brits still had an empire then, most of which hasn't been bombed during the war. They couldn't import some meet and sugar from the colonies?

    And I've never read anything about Soviet grain exports right after the war. Not saying it didn't happen. Well, if this assertion comes from SiP, it probably didn't.

    If it did, I don't know how much was exported.

    How do I know about post-war British food rationing? Beatles' biographies. They also grew up cold. There was a shortage of heating materials.
    , @Anon
    In the case of Stalin's grain exports, it was deemed 'necessary'. He had to hold onto Eastern Europe and East Germany, and that meant he had to feed them. He wasn't doing it for vanity.
    In contrast, Mao acted vainly when he shipped grain and foodstuff to Eastern Europe during the Great Leap Forward when so many Chinese were starving. It was a publicity stunt that did nothing for China.

    Stalin was ruthless but also more purposeful in his brutality. The forced-collectivization of agriculture was especially cruel because the grain requisitioned were sold to the West while many in the USSR, especially in Ukraine, starved. This led to mass famine, but the Soviets got lots of machinery in exchange for the grains, and this kicked off industrialization. So, the Soviets still got something out of the horror. In contrast, Mao's harebrained schemes not only led to mass death but total economic collapse.
  12. Anatoly Karlin said:

    “It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.”

    No it’s not, and you have no proof.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jonathan Revusky
    • Disagree: German_reader
    • Replies: @Daniel H
    >>Anatoly Karlin said:

    “It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.”

    No it’s not, and you have no proof.<<

    How about "Hitler's Table Talk" for evidence. From the mouth of the devil himself. The document is considered an authentic account of Hitler's after dinner musings. He lays out quite specifically what his intentions for the east - all the way to the Volga - were. As per the document, Hitler intended to do precisely what Karlin says he was going to do. And, if anything, Hitler was a man of his word.

    http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/HTableTalk.pdf

    , @Lex
    Germans were already running trials in 1942 like Aktion Zamość.
  13. “No it’s not, and you have no proof.”

    You’re rather obsessive with your Holocaust denial and Nazi apologetics. It’s not like you’re going to persuade anybody who doesn’t already agree with you anyway.

    Read More
  14. you are wrong to claim stalin was exporting grain to newly socialist states, perhaps you read biased historians, in fact the answer is given by Beria, Stalin believed a war is near and was creating large reserves. Beria was also wrong claiming Stalin was wrongly building food deposits. Actually Churchill proposed such attack on USSR and such war could have taken place if the US would have accepted. Also guilty of many of the red army crimes were propagandists many of which were liquidated through the purges of the late 40s. Many soviet civilians died fighting as workers brigades or woman brigades and many died because the guerilas of the red army were using them as shields. certainly the axis did crimes against soviet civilians too of all types

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Actually Churchill proposed such attack on USSR
     
    Churchill was out of power in 1947/48.
  15. @histBuff
    you are wrong to claim stalin was exporting grain to newly socialist states, perhaps you read biased historians, in fact the answer is given by Beria, Stalin believed a war is near and was creating large reserves. Beria was also wrong claiming Stalin was wrongly building food deposits. Actually Churchill proposed such attack on USSR and such war could have taken place if the US would have accepted. Also guilty of many of the red army crimes were propagandists many of which were liquidated through the purges of the late 40s. Many soviet civilians died fighting as workers brigades or woman brigades and many died because the guerilas of the red army were using them as shields. certainly the axis did crimes against soviet civilians too of all types

    Actually Churchill proposed such attack on USSR

    Churchill was out of power in 1947/48.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Churchill proposed such attack on USSR in 1945. The plan was denominated "Operation Unthinkable":

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

  16. @German_reader
    I don't read their books, they're mostly popular trash anyway (Max Hastings however is also quite anti-German and seems to regard WW1 imperial Germany as pretty much on the same level as Nazi Germany, if I understand correctly).
    Anyway, at the risk of becoming persona non grata here, it seems undisputable to me that Red army soldiers did commit a substantial number of rapes in 1944/45 (exact numbers of course will never be known; in any case it seems clear though that this wasn't some sort of official policy ordered from above, and it eventually did die down when disciplinary measures were taken. Probably it also wasn't surprising, given the nature of the war in the East which had of course been started by Germany). Most people today care very little about that though, even in Germany (I certainly don't care much). Alt-right Nazis are hardly representative.

    The indoctrinated ‘German reader’ said:

    “Probably it also wasn’t surprising, given the nature of the war in the East which had of course been started by Germany”.

    No it wasn’t.

    Germany’s attack on the USSR was pre-emptive / preventive and easily demonstrated as such.
    see:
    ‘Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    The only people who still take "Suvorov" seriously are (1) people who haven't read anything about the Eastern Front outside Internet forums and (2) Nazis.

    As someone whose website is a Holocaust "debate" forum I suppose you fit the bill perfectly.
    , @gwynedd1
    whatever. The Germans were only too helpful in creating the Soviet regime in the first place. Granted it made perfect sense at the time, but it was their own chickens coming home to roost. I mean when you help put in a regime calling for worldwide revolution...
  17. “for the most part, …, and deranged Poles and Balts who don’t quite realize what Hitler had in store for them – the Soviet rape of about 2 million women in Eastern Germany at the end of the war is supposed to be a really huge, defining war crime, even something that delegitimizes the overall Soviet victory.”

    LOL ROTFL

    A. Karlin is straw-manning as usual.

    In my whole over 40 year life as Pole in Poland, I have never met a Pole who cared even a bit about Russians raping German women at the end of the war .
    (They cared about Russians raping polish women, and yes raping is eastern way of combating).

    Those deranged Poles are anti Russian and equalize Bolshevik Russians with Nazi Germans because the Russians were even worse then Germans.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD

    It is estimated that Polish losses in the Ukrainian SSR were about 30%, while in the Belorussian SSR… the Polish minority was almost completely annihilated

    So you do not need parallel dimension to see 30-90% genocide of a nation – 100% civilians.
    It was done by Russians and the victims were Poles.

    In 1939 allies from hell, Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia attacked Poland.
    And Russians at once started another Polish operation to ethnically clear Russia of all Poles.
    As did Germans, although significantly slower and milder (probably because the Germans were fighting on too many fronts.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939%E2%80%931946)

    Genocide of Poles in Russia was stopped by German invasion.

    After Russian victory Stalin decided to relocate Poles to occupied Poland instead of killing them. But it was done because Russians became afraid of American might and were afraid such a genocide would have force Americans to invade Russia.

    Germans killed more Poles during World War II, but Russians killed more Poles by percentage.

    Poles know what future Russians and Germans had for Poles:
    Total Annihilation.
    Germans were more successful by numbers.
    Russians were more successful by percentage.

    Furthermore Germans apologized and regret (even if not sincerely).
    And Russians are proud of killing Polish and glorify war criminals equal or surpassing to Nazis.

    That is the reason Poles are anti Russian. And not some bogus rape issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    But it was done because Russians became afraid of American might and were afraid such a genocide would have force Americans to invade Russia.

    You're hysterical. The only thing that prevented the US from starting WWIII with the USSR was the nuclear deterrent.

    The only reason why you're not flooded with Muslims and Africans now is that the USSR protected you from the liberalism that leads to that.

    Poland allied with Nazi Germany itself. It got a part of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis invaded it. This was Poland's own equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

    The main reason Poles hate Russia so much is that a long time ago Russia took away Poland's empire.

    There was a centuries-long struggle to unite the region. Poland was winning this struggle for a while and then it lost it to Russia. Poland could have been the entire thing that Russia later became - it could have filled that same geographical space, played that same superpower role - but that didn't happen. And not because you were too nice, but because you tried to get everything and failed.

    , @ussr andy
    Those things are reasons to be anti-Soviet, if anything. Communism wasn't a cakewalk least of all for Russians themselves.

    Furthermore Germans apologized (...) And Russians are proud
     
    nope, it's just that acknowledging the numerous official condemnations of Stalinism would entail having to distinguish between Russian and Soviet, and make it so much harder to Russophobically ramble on about them half-Mongol mongrels while pretending to be rational.
    , @anarchyst
    You are correct. My Polish friends who lived in Poland during the war described the Germans as being very polite, asking them to stay indoors until the troops moved through their area.
    Of course, there was little sympathy for the jewish Bolshevik communist commissars who ruled over them. Quite often, they were "outed" to the Germans. All Polish people (gentiles) HATED the jewish Bolsheviks who ruled over them and had no problem in informing the Germans where they were at. Life under German occupation was preferable to life under jewish Bolshevik communism. Of course, that all changed when Roosevelt gave Poland to the communists.
    , @gerad

    Germans were more successful by numbers.
    Russians were more successful by percentage.
     
    Bullshit you lowlife sack of shit. The Russians killed a very low number and percentage of Polands you dipshit.

    And Russians are proud of killing Polish and glorify war criminals equal or surpassing to Nazis.

     

    Russians are proud of liberating Poland, who were on the point of annihilation...and Russia sacrificed 600000 of its men to do so you lowlife cunt
  18. @Anatoly Karlin
    Grain was being exported to East Germany and Poland. This was enabled by high grain collection quotas. If the quotas had been lower, there would have certainly been fewer Soviet deaths. But then fewer exports of course.

    The Dutch famine of 1944-45!? Totally incomparable, except insofar as both were artificially created by totalitarian regimes. 20,000/10 million = 0.2% of the Dutch population due to a wartime blockade. In the 1947 Soviet famine, 500,000/100 million = 0.5% of the Russian population died in peacetime.

    Yes Britain was on rations postwar, but it was a still a consumer paradise relative to the USSR.

    If we divide the percentage of the Soviet population killed during the war by the percentage of the British population killed, we’ll get a rough estimate of the difference in the severity of the two countries’ war-time experience. If we then multiply a measure of the severity of post-war British food rationing (e.g. decrease in kids’ heights) by the severity-of-war coefficient obtained in the previous exercise, half of Britain would probably go missing from our scenario. In other words, it seems likely to me that the USSR managed the hand it was dealt better than Britain did.

    By the way, the Brits still had an empire then, most of which hasn’t been bombed during the war. They couldn’t import some meet and sugar from the colonies?

    And I’ve never read anything about Soviet grain exports right after the war. Not saying it didn’t happen. Well, if this assertion comes from SiP, it probably didn’t.

    If it did, I don’t know how much was exported.

    How do I know about post-war British food rationing? Beatles’ biographies. They also grew up cold. There was a shortage of heating materials.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    Well, and anyone who's seen 1950s Italian movies has an idea of how miserable Italy was then. Again, severity of the war compared to the USSR: low.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    No, it's not SiP, it's even on the Wikipedia page about the famine, and a quick Google search confirms it (e.g. here). In fairness, however, it appears that while there were exports they were considerably lower than during the 1932-33 famine, and fell to near zero when the leadership began to notice people were starving.
    , @Hector_St_Clare
    Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn't that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?
  19. : Excellent post!

    Indeed, I just have one question for you–what exactly is your source for the 75% figure?

    Read More
  20. @Glossy
    If we divide the percentage of the Soviet population killed during the war by the percentage of the British population killed, we'll get a rough estimate of the difference in the severity of the two countries' war-time experience. If we then multiply a measure of the severity of post-war British food rationing (e.g. decrease in kids' heights) by the severity-of-war coefficient obtained in the previous exercise, half of Britain would probably go missing from our scenario. In other words, it seems likely to me that the USSR managed the hand it was dealt better than Britain did.

    By the way, the Brits still had an empire then, most of which hasn't been bombed during the war. They couldn't import some meet and sugar from the colonies?

    And I've never read anything about Soviet grain exports right after the war. Not saying it didn't happen. Well, if this assertion comes from SiP, it probably didn't.

    If it did, I don't know how much was exported.

    How do I know about post-war British food rationing? Beatles' biographies. They also grew up cold. There was a shortage of heating materials.

    Well, and anyone who’s seen 1950s Italian movies has an idea of how miserable Italy was then. Again, severity of the war compared to the USSR: low.

    Read More
  21. : Also, a bit off-topic, but what would the Soviet Union’s population have been in 1991 if it wasn’t for World War II and Stalinist collectivization and famines? Would 375 million (as opposed to 290 million) be a plausible estimate for this? Or is that a bit too high?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    It very much depends on the kind of regime(s) that would have run Russia in one's hypothetical scenario. If the revolution didn't happen and Russia remained more conservative than the West, the current population would have been very high. If the tsars liberalized politically, culturally and in every other way, gradually surrendering power to the Duma, etc., the birth rate would have converged with those in the West. Spain and southern Italy aren't core-European either, but they're a part of the Western cultural system, so they have extremely low birth rates.
  22. About the famine of 1947, see

    http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/famine/ellman1947.pdf

    The 1947 Soviet famine and the entitlement approach to famines
    Michael Ellman

    This paper presents an analysis of the economics of the 1947 Soviet famine, using
    data from recently declassified archives. It is argued that the best estimate that can
    currently be given of the number of excess deaths is the range 1·0–1·5 million. The
    demographic loss was greater. During the famine, surplus stocks in the hands of the
    state seem to have been sufficient to have fed all those who died of starvation. The
    famine was a FAD2
    (preventable food availability decline) famine, which occurred
    because a drought caused a bad harvest and hence reduced food availability, but, had
    the priorities of the government been different, there might have been no famine (or
    a much smaller one) despite the drought. The selection of victims can be understood
    in terms of the entitlement approach.

    [...]

    Conclusions

    The 1947 (more precisely 1946–8) famine was the fourth and last Soviet famine. It
    began in July 1946, reached its peak in February–August 1947 and then quickly dimin-
    ished in intensity, although there were still some famine deaths in 1948.

    The best estimate of excess deaths that can currently be given is the range 1,000,000—
    1,500,000. The range is relatively wide because of the uncertain relationship between
    registered mortality and actual mortality. The largest number of excess deaths was in
    Russia, followed by Ukraine and Moldova. In percentage terms, the largest number of
    excess deaths was in Moldova and the smallest in Russia.

    The demographic loss was greater than the number of excess deaths since it also
    includes the fall in the birthrate compared with what it might have been under non-
    famine conditions. According to a present-day Russian historian, the demographic loss
    in Russia was three times the number of excess deaths.

    The level of grain stocks at the end of the agricultural year 1946–7 seems to have been
    in excess of the minimum level of stocks required to maintain the rationing system.
    Surplus stocks seem to have been sufficient to have fed all those who died of starvation
    or starvation-induced disease in the agricultural year 1946–7. This was still more the
    case with the victims who died in the agricultural year 1947–8.

    It is not true that the level of grain stocks in the hands of the state was constant or
    increased during the famine period. Stocks fell during the main famine period (the
    agricultural year 1946–7). Nor is it true that grain exports increased in the agricultural
    year 1946–7. They declined then.

    It is not true that the Soviet authorities paid no attention to famine relief. They did
    undertake some famine relief, but not enough to prevent large scale mortality from
    starvation and starvation-related diseases. They also permitted substantial foreign
    help. Nor is it true that they ignored the needs of agriculture. They increased seed loans
    in 1947 to enable the spring sowing to go ahead smoothly despite the shortage of seed
    at the farms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin
    to continue the previous post

    The 1947 famine was a FAD 2
    famine. Food availability fell sharply because of a
    drought in 1946 but official policy made the situation worse than it need have been.
    Hence
    (a) it is an additional example for the thesis that FAD famines were important in the
    twentieth century and an additional counterexample for the thesis that they were
    not,1 and
    (b) there was no inevitable link between the drought and the famine. Had the policies
    of the government with respect to taxes and procurements, stocks and inter-
    national trade, been different from what they actually were, there might have been
    no famine, or only a much smaller one, despite the drought.

    The Joseph–Sen policy of fighting famine by establishing large food supplies in the
    hands of the state, is frequently effective. However, there can be cases where it is not so,
    particularly for groups the feeding of which is not a priority of the state. The Soviet
    1947 (more precisely 1946–8) famine is one such case. Where (part of) the stocks in
    the hands of the state are the subsistence requirements of the peasantry, obtained by
    coercion, the peasantry are excluded from the rationing system, and the state exports
    grain and holds excess stocks during the famine, then building up or maintaining large
    state supplies may worsen the famine, at any rate among the peasantry, rather than
    reducing mortality. The same may apply, in other famines, not to the peasantry but to
    ethnic/religious groups different from the group/s which hold/s state power.

    From a positive point of view, stress on the role of public action in eliminating famines
    is one-sided. Famines are frequently caused (or exacerbated) by public action.

    Soviet experience in the post-Stalin period shows that a free press and a liberal
    democratic political system are not necessary to eliminate famines.

    The selection of famine victims in the USSR in 1946–8 can be understood in terms of
    the entitlement approach. Those who died were those who in the Soviet system had no
    entitlement to food (such as rural dependants). Those who did have an entitlement to
    food (the beneficiaries—mostly urban state employees—of the rationing system)
    usually survived. The famine deaths were not a direct impact of a natural disaster, but
    were mediated both by Soviet economic policy and by the Soviet entitlement system.

    Study of the 1947 (more accurately 1946–8) Soviet famine and its relationship to
    current economic discussion provides yet another illustration of the fact that (Ellman,
    1994, p. 18) ‘inductive generalisations based on experience in one part of the world are
    not necessarily valid in general’
     
  23. @Mr. XYZ
    @Anatoly Karlin: Also, a bit off-topic, but what would the Soviet Union's population have been in 1991 if it wasn't for World War II and Stalinist collectivization and famines? Would 375 million (as opposed to 290 million) be a plausible estimate for this? Or is that a bit too high?

    It very much depends on the kind of regime(s) that would have run Russia in one’s hypothetical scenario. If the revolution didn’t happen and Russia remained more conservative than the West, the current population would have been very high. If the tsars liberalized politically, culturally and in every other way, gradually surrendering power to the Duma, etc., the birth rate would have converged with those in the West. Spain and southern Italy aren’t core-European either, but they’re a part of the Western cultural system, so they have extremely low birth rates.

    Read More
  24. @Glossy
    If we divide the percentage of the Soviet population killed during the war by the percentage of the British population killed, we'll get a rough estimate of the difference in the severity of the two countries' war-time experience. If we then multiply a measure of the severity of post-war British food rationing (e.g. decrease in kids' heights) by the severity-of-war coefficient obtained in the previous exercise, half of Britain would probably go missing from our scenario. In other words, it seems likely to me that the USSR managed the hand it was dealt better than Britain did.

    By the way, the Brits still had an empire then, most of which hasn't been bombed during the war. They couldn't import some meet and sugar from the colonies?

    And I've never read anything about Soviet grain exports right after the war. Not saying it didn't happen. Well, if this assertion comes from SiP, it probably didn't.

    If it did, I don't know how much was exported.

    How do I know about post-war British food rationing? Beatles' biographies. They also grew up cold. There was a shortage of heating materials.

    No, it’s not SiP, it’s even on the Wikipedia page about the famine, and a quick Google search confirms it (e.g. here). In fairness, however, it appears that while there were exports they were considerably lower than during the 1932-33 famine, and fell to near zero when the leadership began to notice people were starving.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    In fairness, however, it appears that while there were exports they were considerably lower than during the 1932-33 famine, and fell to near zero when the leadership began to notice people were starving.

    Which supports the argument that the nature of the USSR changed fundamentally in the mid-30s. That's why there were no more artificial famines, no more churches blown up, no more social liberaism, etc. after that point. I'm assuming that the famine of 1947 was not artificial.
  25. @German_reader

    That surprises me since I knew that the Soviets stripped the East German economy and Czechoslovak economies
     
    I have trouble imagining that this was the case for Czechoslovakia, it wasn't a defeated enemy state like e.g. Hungary after all. It only drifted completely into the Soviet orbit with the communist coup in early 1948.

    Slovakia had joined with the German invasion of the USSR, but fair point, I may be misremembering. The Soviets definitely were stripping East Germany of its industrial resources between 1945-1950 though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Slovakia wasn't very industrialized though...industry was concentrated mostly in what today is the Czech republic.
    Maybe you're right though, and the Soviets did dismantle some Czech industrial installations...I don't really know, it just would surprise me. You're certainly right about East Germany though.
  26. @Darin
    About the famine of 1947, see
    http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/famine/ellman1947.pdf


    The 1947 Soviet famine and the entitlement approach to famines
    Michael Ellman

    This paper presents an analysis of the economics of the 1947 Soviet famine, using
    data from recently declassified archives. It is argued that the best estimate that can
    currently be given of the number of excess deaths is the range 1·0–1·5 million. The
    demographic loss was greater. During the famine, surplus stocks in the hands of the
    state seem to have been sufficient to have fed all those who died of starvation. The
    famine was a FAD2
    (preventable food availability decline) famine, which occurred
    because a drought caused a bad harvest and hence reduced food availability, but, had
    the priorities of the government been different, there might have been no famine (or
    a much smaller one) despite the drought. The selection of victims can be understood
    in terms of the entitlement approach.
     
    [...]


    Conclusions

    The 1947 (more precisely 1946–8) famine was the fourth and last Soviet famine. It
    began in July 1946, reached its peak in February–August 1947 and then quickly dimin-
    ished in intensity, although there were still some famine deaths in 1948.

    The best estimate of excess deaths that can currently be given is the range 1,000,000—
    1,500,000. The range is relatively wide because of the uncertain relationship between
    registered mortality and actual mortality. The largest number of excess deaths was in
    Russia, followed by Ukraine and Moldova. In percentage terms, the largest number of
    excess deaths was in Moldova and the smallest in Russia.

    The demographic loss was greater than the number of excess deaths since it also
    includes the fall in the birthrate compared with what it might have been under non-
    famine conditions. According to a present-day Russian historian, the demographic loss
    in Russia was three times the number of excess deaths.

    The level of grain stocks at the end of the agricultural year 1946–7 seems to have been
    in excess of the minimum level of stocks required to maintain the rationing system.
    Surplus stocks seem to have been sufficient to have fed all those who died of starvation
    or starvation-induced disease in the agricultural year 1946–7. This was still more the
    case with the victims who died in the agricultural year 1947–8.

    It is not true that the level of grain stocks in the hands of the state was constant or
    increased during the famine period. Stocks fell during the main famine period (the
    agricultural year 1946–7). Nor is it true that grain exports increased in the agricultural
    year 1946–7. They declined then.

    It is not true that the Soviet authorities paid no attention to famine relief. They did
    undertake some famine relief, but not enough to prevent large scale mortality from
    starvation and starvation-related diseases. They also permitted substantial foreign
    help. Nor is it true that they ignored the needs of agriculture. They increased seed loans
    in 1947 to enable the spring sowing to go ahead smoothly despite the shortage of seed
    at the farms.
     

    to continue the previous post

    The 1947 famine was a FAD 2
    famine. Food availability fell sharply because of a
    drought in 1946 but official policy made the situation worse than it need have been.
    Hence
    (a) it is an additional example for the thesis that FAD famines were important in the
    twentieth century and an additional counterexample for the thesis that they were
    not,1 and
    (b) there was no inevitable link between the drought and the famine. Had the policies
    of the government with respect to taxes and procurements, stocks and inter-
    national trade, been different from what they actually were, there might have been
    no famine, or only a much smaller one, despite the drought.

    The Joseph–Sen policy of fighting famine by establishing large food supplies in the
    hands of the state, is frequently effective. However, there can be cases where it is not so,
    particularly for groups the feeding of which is not a priority of the state. The Soviet
    1947 (more precisely 1946–8) famine is one such case. Where (part of) the stocks in
    the hands of the state are the subsistence requirements of the peasantry, obtained by
    coercion, the peasantry are excluded from the rationing system, and the state exports
    grain and holds excess stocks during the famine, then building up or maintaining large
    state supplies may worsen the famine, at any rate among the peasantry, rather than
    reducing mortality. The same may apply, in other famines, not to the peasantry but to
    ethnic/religious groups different from the group/s which hold/s state power.

    From a positive point of view, stress on the role of public action in eliminating famines
    is one-sided. Famines are frequently caused (or exacerbated) by public action.

    Soviet experience in the post-Stalin period shows that a free press and a liberal
    democratic political system are not necessary to eliminate famines.

    The selection of famine victims in the USSR in 1946–8 can be understood in terms of
    the entitlement approach. Those who died were those who in the Soviet system had no
    entitlement to food (such as rural dependants). Those who did have an entitlement to
    food (the beneficiaries—mostly urban state employees—of the rationing system)
    usually survived. The famine deaths were not a direct impact of a natural disaster, but
    were mediated both by Soviet economic policy and by the Soviet entitlement system.

    Study of the 1947 (more accurately 1946–8) Soviet famine and its relationship to
    current economic discussion provides yet another illustration of the fact that (Ellman,
    1994, p. 18) ‘inductive generalisations based on experience in one part of the world are
    not necessarily valid in general’

    Read More
  27. @Glossy
    If we divide the percentage of the Soviet population killed during the war by the percentage of the British population killed, we'll get a rough estimate of the difference in the severity of the two countries' war-time experience. If we then multiply a measure of the severity of post-war British food rationing (e.g. decrease in kids' heights) by the severity-of-war coefficient obtained in the previous exercise, half of Britain would probably go missing from our scenario. In other words, it seems likely to me that the USSR managed the hand it was dealt better than Britain did.

    By the way, the Brits still had an empire then, most of which hasn't been bombed during the war. They couldn't import some meet and sugar from the colonies?

    And I've never read anything about Soviet grain exports right after the war. Not saying it didn't happen. Well, if this assertion comes from SiP, it probably didn't.

    If it did, I don't know how much was exported.

    How do I know about post-war British food rationing? Beatles' biographies. They also grew up cold. There was a shortage of heating materials.

    Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn’t that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    I didn't know that.
    , @James N. Kennett

    Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn’t that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?
     
    Yes, unfortunately it is true. Britain imported wheat from India so that bread need not be rationed in Britain. After the war, it was impossible to justify this action, and bread was rationed. A million Indians had died of starvation.

    All combatants in WWII committed war crimes. It is pointless to try to excuse these crimes by saying the Nazis did worse, even to the point of computing how many rapes equal one murder. We did what we did. Let us be honest about our countries' crimes, as well as those of our enemies, in the hope that we will learn never to fight each other again.
    , @iffen
    Britain actually had a famine on their watch


    Cue Irish partisans.
  28. @Hector_St_Clare
    Slovakia had joined with the German invasion of the USSR, but fair point, I may be misremembering. The Soviets definitely were stripping East Germany of its industrial resources between 1945-1950 though.

    Slovakia wasn’t very industrialized though…industry was concentrated mostly in what today is the Czech republic.
    Maybe you’re right though, and the Soviets did dismantle some Czech industrial installations…I don’t really know, it just would surprise me. You’re certainly right about East Germany though.

    Read More
  29. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Unlike the times of Mongol Conquests and other great invasions/wars that ancient reports are dubious and deaths are less than what historians find out, the World Wars had more accurate ways to calculate deaths and they had more accurate numbers in their reports. But then veiled interests and propaganda at that time and now are even more blatant than in ancient times, with numbers being inflated or diminished.
    .
    Take the Rape of Berlin, for example. Its numbers showed up pretty recently and only taking account the passages of one hospital counting abortions and victims of rape, using that as basis for dubious calculations to reach the 2 million number.
    .
    Or the Holodomor that accounts only ukrainian lands, sometimes ignoring the effects of famine and confiscation in other places inside Russia. Most important, the belief that the most brutal confiscations were straight out enforced instead of a consequence of farmers that were secretly getting rid of most of their grains ahead of time or some of them even destroying it and killing livestock just to not let it get into officers’ hands.
    .
    Even the deaths by the secret service in disclosed documents do not mirror the exaggerate numbers gave by mainstream sources.
    .
    There’s no doubt that the Soviet Union in war time, given proper research and calculations, is still a system that killed millions unjustly directly or indirectly, but mainstream media likes to inflate numbers to give an extra indignation and make sure people knows how horrible the system is. In fact, no one in World War II is exempt of a large number of deaths (again, be it direct or indirect), even victims like China where its own soldiers would raze villages and take the opportunity to throw more blame on japanese that were already condemned for their own confirmed mass killings against chinese people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
    "even victims like China where its own soldiers would raze villages and take the opportunity to throw more blame on japanese that were already condemned for their own confirmed mass killings against chinese people."

    Can you substantiate claim?

    Was that the Nationalists or the PLA? (Such behavior is totally out of character with the PLA).
    , @dfordoom

    even victims like China where its own soldiers would raze villages and take the opportunity to throw more blame on japanese that were already condemned for their own confirmed mass killings against chinese people.
     
    Didn't the Kuomintang deliberately cause flooding on a massive scale that killed enormous numbers of their own people?

    In WW2 no-one was innocent.
  30. @Hector_St_Clare
    Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn't that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?

    I didn’t know that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    It was quite a major event:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

    One of the reasons why Churchill (who took a rather cold-hearted attitude towards the famine, since he didn't much care for Indians anyway) isn't that popular in India.
    , @22pp22
    From wiki.

    One reason for the high excess mortality of 1943–45 was a clash between soaring population levels and a shortage of land in Bengal, and a longstanding history of stagnant agricultural productivity in India. Bengal was very densely populated.[F] Moreover, according to census figures, its population had been increasing at an accelerating rate: in ten-year periods, the rate of growth started at 2.8% from 1911 to 1921, then increased to 7.3% from 1921 to 1931, and soared to 20.3% from 1931 to 1941. Bengal's population rose by 43% (from 42.1 million to 60.3 million) between 1901 and 1941, while India's population as a whole increased by 37% over the same period.

    Britain wasn't importing rice in huge quantities from Bengal and much of its merchant fleet was at the bottom of the Atlantic. The grain came from North America.

    The Britophobia is almost as silly as the Russophobia.

  31. When one calls oneself the good guys, in this case the Soviet Union, and then these deeds occur then obviously one is going to be called out on this. One can come up will kinds of statistics to say that it is not very important, but in the end it did happen and 2 million rapes is simply a gigantic number that cannot be ignored.

    I also have ask, they are having those immortal brigade marches in Russia where people show pictures of their ww2 ancestors, in light of so many Russian soldiers being rapists has it not occurred to these people that a lot of those they are honoring are rapists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    They hate and resent the Germans so much that they are fine with honoring their rapist grandfathers and great-grandfathers. I might feel the same way if I were Russian, but I'm not and I don't.

    Russians would have done the same and worse to all of Germany, and all of western and central Europe, if they had not been so severely damaged by the Germans and then deterred and faced-off by the US.
    , @ussr andy

    in light of so many Russian soldiers being rapists has it not occurred to these people that a lot of those they are honoring are rapists.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnE1YULrqxY
    , @5371
    If you are human and not a bot, some of your own ancestors were rapists and murderers. Perhaps you should kill yourself to atone for this fact.
    , @Dreadnought
    Because those people laid down their lives to protect their families ( and hence their descendants ) from a military power which pulverized 25+ million people ( most of them civilians ), and did so in inhumane ways, to put it mildly. I know that today's eurocommies demand that an upstanding citizen must crywank himself to sleep every night over the plight of some other peoples, but I'm sure you're acquainted with HBD and realize that eurocommie philosophy is thankfully confined to a small slice of our globe.
    , @Thea
    The US and GB like to portray themselves as the real heroes and "good guys" of Ww2 with really no public criticism of unflattering facts.

    Most of the Russians' ancestor veterans likely died long before the march to Berlin, anyhow. Are they somehow guilty of those crimes still?

  32. @Glossy
    I didn't know that.

    It was quite a major event:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

    One of the reasons why Churchill (who took a rather cold-hearted attitude towards the famine, since he didn’t much care for Indians anyway) isn’t that popular in India.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    One of the reasons why Churchill (who took a rather cold-hearted attitude towards the famine, since he didn’t much care for Indians anyway) isn’t that popular in India.
     
    Churchill wasn't that popular in Britain. He was an unelected prime minister. As soon as they had the opportunity the Brits turfed him out.

    The myth of Churchill as the much-loved wartime leader is mostly just that, myth.
  33. : I am talking about a Russian regime which would have pursued large-scale industrialization but one which would have also been capitalist and which wouldn’t have been willing to cause the deaths of large numbers of its own people. (As for democracy, such a Russian regime might or might not have been democratic.)

    Read More
  34. There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia as much as possible, even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin’s treatment of foreigners was worse than Hitler’s. Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism, while Russia hasn’t. Also, while Stalin wasn’t as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn’t a bad man that’s a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue).

    At the end of the day its all about dissing nationalism and promoting liberalism and internationalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hector_St_Clare
    Also, while Stalin wasn’t as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn’t a bad man that’s a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue).

    I'm a Bukharin fan myself, but I would agree with you that Trotsky and Stalin both sort of sucked, and in the last analysis Stalin was probably better for the Soviet Union than Trotsky would have been, even if he was more personally vicious.

    With Trotsky I would expect comparable famines (b/c of the push to rapid collectivization / industrialization) plus another global war.
    , @fnn
    it's more than that-the Germans have agreed to exterminate themselves.
  35. @Wally
    The indoctrinated 'German reader' said:

    "Probably it also wasn’t surprising, given the nature of the war in the East which had of course been started by Germany".

    No it wasn't.

    Germany's attack on the USSR was pre-emptive / preventive and easily demonstrated as such.
    see:
    'Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    The only people who still take “Suvorov” seriously are (1) people who haven’t read anything about the Eastern Front outside Internet forums and (2) Nazis.

    As someone whose website is a Holocaust “debate” forum I suppose you fit the bill perfectly.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor, Sam Shama
    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    “Suvorov” is taken seriously by many that do not fall into your slick categories. I'll grant that your type does not like “Suvorov” and I can quite understand why.
    , @Wally
    IOW, all you have is childish name calling.

    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    Let's get down to business, show us the excavated huge mass graves that are alleged.

    Tell us how the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers supposedly worked.

    Why do the aerial photos of Auschwitz from the period NOT show what is alleged they should be showing?

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:
    " The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history."
    Congressional Record, appendix, v.95, sec.14, 6/15/49

    - "All but two of the Germans [on trial at Nuremberg], in the 139 cases that we investigated, had their testicles kicked in beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators:" 23.1.49, The Sunday Pictorial (quoted in For Those Who Cannot Speak (ref. 27), p.21.The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months..The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. American judge, van Roden

    The 'holocaust' narrative doesn't hold up to scrutiny so the usual enemies of free speech call for more censorship of the internet.
    , @Ramaski
    "The only people who still take “Suvorov” seriously are (1) people who haven’t read anything about the Eastern Front outside Internet forums and (2) Nazis."

    Really? Historian Mark Solonin takes him seriously and he's been reading through the Russian archives for a very long time. And he is certainly not a Nazi.

    His website has compelling documentation:
    http://www.solonin.org/en/article_comrade-stalins-three-plans
  36. @Stupid Ivan

    "for the most part, ..., and deranged Poles and Balts who don’t quite realize what Hitler had in store for them – the Soviet rape of about 2 million women in Eastern Germany at the end of the war is supposed to be a really huge, defining war crime, even something that delegitimizes the overall Soviet victory."
     
    LOL ROTFL

    A. Karlin is straw-manning as usual.

    In my whole over 40 year life as Pole in Poland, I have never met a Pole who cared even a bit about Russians raping German women at the end of the war .
    (They cared about Russians raping polish women, and yes raping is eastern way of combating).

    Those deranged Poles are anti Russian and equalize Bolshevik Russians with Nazi Germans because the Russians were even worse then Germans.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD

    It is estimated that Polish losses in the Ukrainian SSR were about 30%, while in the Belorussian SSR... the Polish minority was almost completely annihilated

    So you do not need parallel dimension to see 30-90% genocide of a nation - 100% civilians.
    It was done by Russians and the victims were Poles.

    In 1939 allies from hell, Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia attacked Poland.
    And Russians at once started another Polish operation to ethnically clear Russia of all Poles.
    As did Germans, although significantly slower and milder (probably because the Germans were fighting on too many fronts.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939%E2%80%931946)

    Genocide of Poles in Russia was stopped by German invasion.

    After Russian victory Stalin decided to relocate Poles to occupied Poland instead of killing them. But it was done because Russians became afraid of American might and were afraid such a genocide would have force Americans to invade Russia.

    Germans killed more Poles during World War II, but Russians killed more Poles by percentage.

    Poles know what future Russians and Germans had for Poles:
    Total Annihilation.
    Germans were more successful by numbers.
    Russians were more successful by percentage.

    Furthermore Germans apologized and regret (even if not sincerely).
    And Russians are proud of killing Polish and glorify war criminals equal or surpassing to Nazis.

    That is the reason Poles are anti Russian. And not some bogus rape issue.

    But it was done because Russians became afraid of American might and were afraid such a genocide would have force Americans to invade Russia.

    You’re hysterical. The only thing that prevented the US from starting WWIII with the USSR was the nuclear deterrent.

    The only reason why you’re not flooded with Muslims and Africans now is that the USSR protected you from the liberalism that leads to that.

    Poland allied with Nazi Germany itself. It got a part of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis invaded it. This was Poland’s own equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

    The main reason Poles hate Russia so much is that a long time ago Russia took away Poland’s empire.

    There was a centuries-long struggle to unite the region. Poland was winning this struggle for a while and then it lost it to Russia. Poland could have been the entire thing that Russia later became – it could have filled that same geographical space, played that same superpower role – but that didn’t happen. And not because you were too nice, but because you tried to get everything and failed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    First of all, the Polish don't hate Russia. They, along
    with the people in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lthuania,
    and Ukraine, distrust Russia, and can you blame them?
    Russia, because of its size, has been a destabilizing factor
    in European politics for at least 300 years, always meddling
    in other nations' politics (and failing, France being the latest
    example). Basically, the sense in Poland is that nothing good
    comes from the East - the Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Turks,
    and then the Russians (although the fact that the Russians
    were ruled by Germans like Catherine the Great is a mitigating
    circumstance). The Katyn massacre during WW II in which
    20,000 of the Polish intelligentsia (university graduates,
    professors, lawyers, doctors, incl. film director Andrzej Wajda's
    father) were executed by the Soviets is the latest example.
    The hate seems to come more from the Russian nationalists on
    this forum like Karlin himself who never misses a chance to
    make a nasty comment about Poland (or Ukraine or the Balts).

    None of this is necessary. The Russians should recognize that the Polish
    and the Russians are blood relatives, and the fact that Russia is finally
    ruled by Russians is a good omen. Many famous Russians have Polish
    ancestry. Need I mention Glinka, Malevich (Malewicz), Tsiolkovski
    (Ciołkowski), Stravinsky (Strawiński) who in the 1920s visited Warsaw
    several times seeking Polish citizenship and actually spoke some Polish,
    the mathematician Lobachevsky (Łobaczewski), ballet dancer Nijinsky
    (Niżyński), Shostakovich (Szostakowicz), etc. Conversely, names ending
    in -ow, -ew, and -in are quite common in Poland. More than 10,000
    Russians live in Poland, they love it there, and more are coming due to
    the labor shortage.
    , @Parbes
    Great post, right on the mark... Congrats!
    , @szopen

    Poland allied with Nazi Germany itself. It got a part of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis invaded it. This was Poland’s own equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
     
    No. This is completely incomparable.

    (1) There was a pact signed by Germany/USSR, no such pact signed by Poland/Germany
    (2) Poland acted without agreement with Germany, USSR acted with agreement with Germany
    (3) Poland was not coordinating action with Germany, USSR coordinated military actions with Germany.
    (4) Czechoslovakia proposed to Poland first to solve the border questions, no such proposals from Poland to USSR

    In other words, this is the most stupid soviet propaganda. Moreover, Poland had no non-aggression pact with Czechoslovakia, while we had non-aggression pact with USSR.
    , @Anon 2
    Re: Zaolzie (Cieszyn Silesia) I've known many Czechs,
    and this was such a minor matter in Polish-Czech relations
    that it virtually never comes up in conversation. If anything,
    the Czechs feel a bit embarrassed that Warsaw was completely
    destroyed during the Warsaw Uprising of August 1944 whereas
    Prague hardly suffered any damage during the war. For example,
    Kundera talks about it in the early part of his great novel The Unbearable
    Lightness of Being. By the way, Ewa Farna, a famous Polish-Czech
    singer grew up in Zaolzie in a Polish family but now she spends
    most of her time in Poland, but she is equally fluent in Polish and Czech.

    With the Oder-Neisse border, Poland regained roughly the borders
    it had around 1025 AD (we can quarrel about the details here but
    that's not the point), and is now able to enjoy a new closeness to
    Czechia and Lusatia (what remains of Polabian Slavs in eastern
    Germany). No people are closer linguistically (and genetically) than
    the Czechs, Poles, and Lusatians (northern Lusatians speak a language
    very close to Polish), all being western Slavs. The Czechs could speak
    Czech and the Poles Polish, and they would understand perhaps 70% of
    what's being said. With spoken Russian the level of comprehension by
    a Pole is perhaps 30%, with spoken Ukrainian maybe 40%. Reading levels
    of comprehension are perhaps higher by 10%. Moreover, Poland owes
    the fact that it was accepted into western Christendom to Bohemia, so that's
    another reason for closeness between the two countries
    , @Anon

    You’re hysterical. The only thing that prevented the US from starting WWIII with the USSR was the nuclear deterrent.
     
    It's interesting that this is the Russian perspective, because it's a perfect mirror to our perspective, whereby our nuclear weapons were the only thing keeping the Red hordes (considering potential Warsaw pact numerical superiority) from sweeping to the Rhine and precipitating a communist take-over of Western Europe, hence our support and training of "stay-behind" anticommunist guerillas all over NATO.

    I guess Russians looked at our bombing of Japan as evidence of our will to go to the extreme, while we thought our not threatening anyone with nuclear destruction between '45 and '49 should have demonstrated to the world our lack of aggressive intentions. But, after all, Truman was in power then and not so unsympathetic to the communists as later Presidents would be.
    , @Kilo 4/11
    "The only thing that prevented the US from starting WWIII with the USSR was the nuclear deterrent."

    World War Three? Who else would have been on the Soviet Side? No, it would have been a U. S./USSR war. And there was no "nuclear deterrent" until August 29, 1949, when the Soviets explode their first bomb. What kept the United States from following General Patton's advice was America's yearning for peace.
    , @Ramaski
    In the late 30's, Germany repeatedly tried to get Poland to join the anti-comintern pact (see Diplomat In Berlin 1933 — 1939, the collected papers of Polish Ambassador Jozef Lipski). Poland honorably and courageously refused, and in so doing ultimately forced German aggression into a fatal two-front war. The USSR on the other hand, disgracefully started WWII by forming an alliance with Germany and invading Poland. Those are the facts.
  37. @neutral
    When one calls oneself the good guys, in this case the Soviet Union, and then these deeds occur then obviously one is going to be called out on this. One can come up will kinds of statistics to say that it is not very important, but in the end it did happen and 2 million rapes is simply a gigantic number that cannot be ignored.

    I also have ask, they are having those immortal brigade marches in Russia where people show pictures of their ww2 ancestors, in light of so many Russian soldiers being rapists has it not occurred to these people that a lot of those they are honoring are rapists.

    They hate and resent the Germans so much that they are fine with honoring their rapist grandfathers and great-grandfathers. I might feel the same way if I were Russian, but I’m not and I don’t.

    Russians would have done the same and worse to all of Germany, and all of western and central Europe, if they had not been so severely damaged by the Germans and then deterred and faced-off by the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {They hate and resent the Germans so much that they are fine with honoring their rapist grandfathers and great-grandfathers. I might feel the same way if I were Russian, but I’m not and I don’t.}

    They are honoring grandfathers and great-grandfathers who saved their ethnos - Slavic peoples - from extermination at the hands of the Nazi genocidal invaders. The Red Army did not enter Germany to rape: yeah, rape is a terrible crime and it should not have happened. But Nazi German men did far, far, far worse to Slavic peoples: no need to re-list all their crimes here.

    One more thing: although it does not excuse the crimes against the German women, let us not forget that most of those same young women were lining up streets in Berlin only 3-4 years prior to cheer the SS mass-murderers on their way to Soviet Union to murder, rape, destroy, burn, kill, starve, .....
    Those women knew their men were invading a foreign country.
    Those women knew their men were going there to exterminate Slavs.

    {Russians would have done the same and worse to all of Germany, and all of western and central Europe, if they had not been so severely damaged by the Germans and then deterred and faced-off by the US.}

    Another anti-Russian/anti-Soviet lie.

    In fact Russians/Soviets were very forgiving of the Germans, considering what Germans had done to them and what they were planning to do, if Nazis won: extermination of all Soviet people - overwhelmingly Slavs - West of the Urals.

    When the Red Army entered Germany it was around 15 million strong.
    Soviet war time production was at its peak.
    Those Red Army troops were battle-tough from years of fighting the best military force in the world of the day. By the time Soviets entered Germany, the mighty Wehrmacht was reduced to 14-15 year old boys and senior citizens who were thrown at the Red Army steamroller flooding into Germany. (they were of course brushed aside).

    The Red Army could have raised (East) Germany to the ground if they wanted to: nothing and nobody could stop them. A 1,000 Desdens.

    btw: Russians supposedly are fine honoring rapists.
    Are people in England and US fine honoring their Air Force crews for deliberately fire-bombing German civilian targets and cooking civilians to death, including children, as they did in Dresden?

    Are people in US fine honoring US Air Force crews who firebombed Tokyo and burnt to death anywhere from 100K to 200K of Tokyo's civilians?
    How about the USAF air crews which bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
    My understanding is that men who did those bombings are officially honorable military men who served their country.

  38. @unpc downunder
    There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia as much as possible, even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin's treatment of foreigners was worse than Hitler's. Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism, while Russia hasn't. Also, while Stalin wasn't as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn't a bad man that's a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue).

    At the end of the day its all about dissing nationalism and promoting liberalism and internationalism.

    Also, while Stalin wasn’t as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn’t a bad man that’s a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue).

    I’m a Bukharin fan myself, but I would agree with you that Trotsky and Stalin both sort of sucked, and in the last analysis Stalin was probably better for the Soviet Union than Trotsky would have been, even if he was more personally vicious.

    With Trotsky I would expect comparable famines (b/c of the push to rapid collectivization / industrialization) plus another global war.

    Read More
  39. Stalin loved Russians and self identified as a Russian. My understanding is that he is still fairly popular in contemporary Russia and Putin is regarded as very pro Stalin even while he (Putin) has heaped criticism on the more cosmopolitan pre Stalin Bolsheviks.

    This also doesn’t mesh with your anti Ukraine position: nobody did more to clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism than did Stalin. He starved 7 million of them to death.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @iffen
    This also doesn’t mesh with your anti Ukraine position

    Ukrainians are Russians, they just don't know it.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    (1) Stalin loved everyone (when convenient).

    I explained the roots of modern Russia's unfortunate Stalinophilia here: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/tribal-stalinism/

    (2) You seem to be under the impression that Russian nationalists are anti-Ukrainian psychopaths. This is incorrect. To the extent that we view Russians and Ukrainians as one people - and it is a central plank of our memeplex - we consider crimes against "them" to be crimes against us. There are certainly a few exceptions, and the conflict has brought out some of the worst sentiments of both sides, but this does not invalidate the general point.

    While Stalin did clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism - that is, made it haram like Russian nationalism was from 1918 - he continued promoting a separate Ukrainian identity (a much larger share of books published in Ukraine in the 1930s were in Ukrainian than even during 1920s). At the same time, the famines infused that identity with a not unjustified persecution complex. Stalin was arguably even worse for long-term Russian unity than the Old Bolsheviks.
  40. @Stupid Ivan

    "for the most part, ..., and deranged Poles and Balts who don’t quite realize what Hitler had in store for them – the Soviet rape of about 2 million women in Eastern Germany at the end of the war is supposed to be a really huge, defining war crime, even something that delegitimizes the overall Soviet victory."
     
    LOL ROTFL

    A. Karlin is straw-manning as usual.

    In my whole over 40 year life as Pole in Poland, I have never met a Pole who cared even a bit about Russians raping German women at the end of the war .
    (They cared about Russians raping polish women, and yes raping is eastern way of combating).

    Those deranged Poles are anti Russian and equalize Bolshevik Russians with Nazi Germans because the Russians were even worse then Germans.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD

    It is estimated that Polish losses in the Ukrainian SSR were about 30%, while in the Belorussian SSR... the Polish minority was almost completely annihilated

    So you do not need parallel dimension to see 30-90% genocide of a nation - 100% civilians.
    It was done by Russians and the victims were Poles.

    In 1939 allies from hell, Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia attacked Poland.
    And Russians at once started another Polish operation to ethnically clear Russia of all Poles.
    As did Germans, although significantly slower and milder (probably because the Germans were fighting on too many fronts.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939%E2%80%931946)

    Genocide of Poles in Russia was stopped by German invasion.

    After Russian victory Stalin decided to relocate Poles to occupied Poland instead of killing them. But it was done because Russians became afraid of American might and were afraid such a genocide would have force Americans to invade Russia.

    Germans killed more Poles during World War II, but Russians killed more Poles by percentage.

    Poles know what future Russians and Germans had for Poles:
    Total Annihilation.
    Germans were more successful by numbers.
    Russians were more successful by percentage.

    Furthermore Germans apologized and regret (even if not sincerely).
    And Russians are proud of killing Polish and glorify war criminals equal or surpassing to Nazis.

    That is the reason Poles are anti Russian. And not some bogus rape issue.

    Those things are reasons to be anti-Soviet, if anything. Communism wasn’t a cakewalk least of all for Russians themselves.

    Furthermore Germans apologized (…) And Russians are proud

    nope, it’s just that acknowledging the numerous official condemnations of Stalinism would entail having to distinguish between Russian and Soviet, and make it so much harder to Russophobically ramble on about them half-Mongol mongrels while pretending to be rational.

    Read More
  41. @Hector_St_Clare
    Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn't that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?

    Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn’t that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?

    Yes, unfortunately it is true. Britain imported wheat from India so that bread need not be rationed in Britain. After the war, it was impossible to justify this action, and bread was rationed. A million Indians had died of starvation.

    All combatants in WWII committed war crimes. It is pointless to try to excuse these crimes by saying the Nazis did worse, even to the point of computing how many rapes equal one murder. We did what we did. Let us be honest about our countries’ crimes, as well as those of our enemies, in the hope that we will learn never to fight each other again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    A million Indians had died of starvation.
     
    According to Wikipedia, it was 2.1 million, though they mention in a footnote that while it was initially estimated lower, this is the consensus among most historians, and there are some considerably higher estimates, too:

    This total, calculated by Maharatna (1992), reflects scholarly consensus (Ó Gráda 2007, p. 19). Initial official estimates of the Government of India (1945, pp. 109–110) indicated around 1.5 million deaths in excess of the average mortality rate, out of Bengal's then estimated population of 60.3 million. The widely cited results of A. Sen (1980) and A. Sen (1981a, pp. 196–202) used a variety of means to arrive at an estimate of between 2.7 and 3 million; Greenough (1982, pp. 299–309) suggested that Sen's figures should be raised to between 3.5 and 3.8 million. See either Maharatna (1996) or Dyson & Maharatna (1991) for a detailed review of the data and the various estimates made.
     
    , @animalogic
    Excellent point, re war crimes.
    I might add that in the immediate post war period it has been speculated* that the US/UK accidentally deliberately killed some hundreds of thousands of German POW's by starvation/exposure.
    * can't recall title of the book.
    , @Anonymous
    "We did what we did"
    Don't you see, you continue doing it, you vile evil basterds!!


    "in the hope that we will learn never to fight each other again."
    Yes, the only thing which matters is you *spit* not fight each other (meaning whites) again. Never-mind spreading death, destruction, suffering, and instigating "fights" among others, most preferably non-whites.

    Yes, you have learnt your lesson quite well.

    Ah, if only I could get to see scum like you kicking and screaming at the gates of hell. What a sight it will be to behold.
  42. @neutral
    When one calls oneself the good guys, in this case the Soviet Union, and then these deeds occur then obviously one is going to be called out on this. One can come up will kinds of statistics to say that it is not very important, but in the end it did happen and 2 million rapes is simply a gigantic number that cannot be ignored.

    I also have ask, they are having those immortal brigade marches in Russia where people show pictures of their ww2 ancestors, in light of so many Russian soldiers being rapists has it not occurred to these people that a lot of those they are honoring are rapists.

    in light of so many Russian soldiers being rapists has it not occurred to these people that a lot of those they are honoring are rapists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    So that's what Phillip Giraldi sounds like in real life.
    , @Kilo 4/11
    The best reply to this type of chick would have been for him to point to his bottles, ask her which one she likes, and offer her a drink on the house. Instead of taking her seriously, he should have kept up a sexist patter about how it's a shame she's alone, she needs a man to take care of her, she could look really good if she'd put on some makeup and wear something tight-fitting - all interspersed with suggestions that they go in the back where they can be more comfortable, because he really enjoys talking to her and wants to hear her story ...
  43. @Anatoly Karlin
    No, it's not SiP, it's even on the Wikipedia page about the famine, and a quick Google search confirms it (e.g. here). In fairness, however, it appears that while there were exports they were considerably lower than during the 1932-33 famine, and fell to near zero when the leadership began to notice people were starving.

    In fairness, however, it appears that while there were exports they were considerably lower than during the 1932-33 famine, and fell to near zero when the leadership began to notice people were starving.

    Which supports the argument that the nature of the USSR changed fundamentally in the mid-30s. That’s why there were no more artificial famines, no more churches blown up, no more social liberaism, etc. after that point. I’m assuming that the famine of 1947 was not artificial.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Which supports the argument that the nature of the USSR changed fundamentally in the mid-30s. That’s why there were no more artificial famines, no more churches blown up, no more social liberaism, etc. after that point.
     
    Usual idiocy.

    If the Nazis had won and all their plans were fulfilled by, say, 1955, someone like glossy would say - Nazi Germany has changed fundamentally. No more Jews being killed, no more Slavs being killed or expelled. And no more war. It's actually a very nice place.
  44. @Hector_St_Clare
    Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn't that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?

    Britain actually had a famine on their watch

    Cue Irish partisans.

    Read More
  45. @Greasy William
    Stalin loved Russians and self identified as a Russian. My understanding is that he is still fairly popular in contemporary Russia and Putin is regarded as very pro Stalin even while he (Putin) has heaped criticism on the more cosmopolitan pre Stalin Bolsheviks.

    This also doesn't mesh with your anti Ukraine position: nobody did more to clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism than did Stalin. He starved 7 million of them to death.

    This also doesn’t mesh with your anti Ukraine position

    Ukrainians are Russians, they just don’t know it.

    Read More
  46. @Wally
    Anatoly Karlin said:

    "It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest."

    No it's not, and you have no proof.

    >>Anatoly Karlin said:

    “It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.”

    No it’s not, and you have no proof.<<

    How about "Hitler's Table Talk" for evidence. From the mouth of the devil himself. The document is considered an authentic account of Hitler's after dinner musings. He lays out quite specifically what his intentions for the east – all the way to the Volga – were. As per the document, Hitler intended to do precisely what Karlin says he was going to do. And, if anything, Hitler was a man of his word.

    http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/HTableTalk.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    Help me out, I can't find the relevant passages.
    , @Miro23

    How about "Hitler's Table Talk" for evidence. From the mouth of the devil himself. The document is considered an authentic account of Hitler's after dinner musings. He lays out quite specifically what his intentions for the east – all the way to the Volga – were. As per the document, Hitler intended to do precisely what Karlin says he was going to do. And, if anything, Hitler was a man of his word.
     
    The conversations were mostly transcribed in the evenings between July 1941 and November 1944 (the greater part to September 1942) at his two Eastern headquarters, Rastenburg (Wolfschanze) in East Prussia and later at Winnitza (Werwolf) in the Ukraine, while the invasion of Russia was in progress.

    His future "Eastern Empire" was the central topic and there's no doubt what part the Slavs would play in it.


    (25) "I see there (Russia) the greatest possibilities for the creation of an empire of worldwide importance." - "The country we are engaged in conquering will be a source of raw materials for us, and a market for our products, but we shall take good care not to industrialize it." (53) "To exploit the Ukraine properly - that new Indian Empire - I need only peace in the West."
     

    (20) "We'll supply the Ukrainians with scarves, glass beads and everything that colonial peoples like. The Germans - this is essential - will have to constitute among themselves a closed society, like a fortress. The least of our stable-lads must be superior to any native." (11) "We'll take the Southern part of the Ukraine, especially the Crimea, and make it an exclusively German colony. There'll be no harm in pushing out the population that's there now. The German colonist must be the soldier-peasant and for that I'll take professional soldiers, whatever their line may have been previously."
     

    (17) "The German colonist ought to live on handsome, spacious farms. The German services will be lodged in marvelous buildings, the governors in palaces. Beneath the shelter of the administrative services, we shall gradually organize all that is indispensable to the maintenance of a certain standard of living. All around the city to a depth of thirty to forty kilometers we shall have a belt of handsome villages connected by the best roads. What exists beyond that will be another world, in which we mean to let the Russians live as they like. It is merely necessary that we should rule them."
     

    (1) "In the eyes of the Russian, the principle support of civilisation is vodka. His ideal consists of never doing anything except the indispensable."
     

    (281) "As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pigstys; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilising him, goes straight off into a concentration camp!"
     
    His plan to demolish Moscow and St Petersburg:

    (617) "The foundation of St. Petersburg by Peter the Great was a fatal event in the history of Europe; and St. Petersburg must therefore disappear utterly from the earth's surface. Moscow too. Then the Russians will retire to Siberia."
     
    Later in the text he admits that the invasion is having more problems than anticipated:

    (162) "Sunday will be the 1st March (1942). Boys, you can't imagine what that means to me - how much the last three months have worn out my strength, tested my nervous resistance. I can tell you that during the first two weeks of December, we lost a thousand tanks and had two thousand locomotives out of operation." .... "Now that January and February are past, our enemies can give up the hope of our suffering the fate of Napoleon."
     

    (300) "For us things are much more simple, for in most cases we have no choice. In the East if I don't attack, the Russians will gain the initiative. We have constantly faced the danger of being annihilated."
     
    , @Wally
    So where's the quotes that say Hitler intended to kill "75% of the Soviet population".

    I'm waiting.
    , @Jeremy Cooper

    How about "Hitler's Table Talk" for evidence.
     
    I think it's been pretty convincingly shown that Hitler's Table Talk can't be relied upon. See Mikail Nillson's 2016 article on it. Nonetheless, it's not too hard to find anti-Slav ravings in Mein Kampf. One example,

    "For the Russian State was not organized by the constructive political talent of the Slav element in Russia, but was much more a marvellous exemplification of the capacity for State-building possessed by the Germanic element in a race of inferior worth."

    He doesn't exactly say "I want to kill them all," but once Hitler declares you racially inferior I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to ultimate intentions.
  47. @unpc downunder
    There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia as much as possible, even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin's treatment of foreigners was worse than Hitler's. Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism, while Russia hasn't. Also, while Stalin wasn't as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn't a bad man that's a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue).

    At the end of the day its all about dissing nationalism and promoting liberalism and internationalism.

    it’s more than that-the Germans have agreed to exterminate themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    it’s more than that-the Germans have agreed to exterminate themselves.
     
    This is the main reason for present-day Russophobia. Russians do not intend to exterminate themselves. They're so evil they'd even like to maintain their own culture. They even tolerate Christianity. They're monsters!
  48. @Glossy
    But it was done because Russians became afraid of American might and were afraid such a genocide would have force Americans to invade Russia.

    You're hysterical. The only thing that prevented the US from starting WWIII with the USSR was the nuclear deterrent.

    The only reason why you're not flooded with Muslims and Africans now is that the USSR protected you from the liberalism that leads to that.

    Poland allied with Nazi Germany itself. It got a part of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis invaded it. This was Poland's own equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

    The main reason Poles hate Russia so much is that a long time ago Russia took away Poland's empire.

    There was a centuries-long struggle to unite the region. Poland was winning this struggle for a while and then it lost it to Russia. Poland could have been the entire thing that Russia later became - it could have filled that same geographical space, played that same superpower role - but that didn't happen. And not because you were too nice, but because you tried to get everything and failed.

    First of all, the Polish don’t hate Russia. They, along
    with the people in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lthuania,
    and Ukraine, distrust Russia, and can you blame them?
    Russia, because of its size, has been a destabilizing factor
    in European politics for at least 300 years, always meddling
    in other nations’ politics (and failing, France being the latest
    example). Basically, the sense in Poland is that nothing good
    comes from the East – the Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Turks,
    and then the Russians (although the fact that the Russians
    were ruled by Germans like Catherine the Great is a mitigating
    circumstance). The Katyn massacre during WW II in which
    20,000 of the Polish intelligentsia (university graduates,
    professors, lawyers, doctors, incl. film director Andrzej Wajda’s
    father) were executed by the Soviets is the latest example.
    The hate seems to come more from the Russian nationalists on
    this forum like Karlin himself who never misses a chance to
    make a nasty comment about Poland (or Ukraine or the Balts).

    None of this is necessary. The Russians should recognize that the Polish
    and the Russians are blood relatives, and the fact that Russia is finally
    ruled by Russians is a good omen. Many famous Russians have Polish
    ancestry. Need I mention Glinka, Malevich (Malewicz), Tsiolkovski
    (Ciołkowski), Stravinsky (Strawiński) who in the 1920s visited Warsaw
    several times seeking Polish citizenship and actually spoke some Polish,
    the mathematician Lobachevsky (Łobaczewski), ballet dancer Nijinsky
    (Niżyński), Shostakovich (Szostakowicz), etc. Conversely, names ending
    in -ow, -ew, and -in are quite common in Poland. More than 10,000
    Russians live in Poland, they love it there, and more are coming due to
    the labor shortage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    Regarding Poland's imperial past: The Polish-Lithuanian
    Commonwealth can be understood as an early version of
    the United States. It was huge (on the Lithuanian side the
    border ran 50 miles from Moscow), stretched basically
    from the Baltic to the Black Sea. It was a highly decentralized
    federal republic like the U.S. It was multicultural - by 1550
    80% of the world's Jews (i.e., about 90% of the Ashkenazi
    Jews) lived in the Commonwealth (Res Publica or Rzeczpospolita),
    after they were expelled from England, France, Italy, German
    states, etc. It was expressly patterned after the Roman Republic.
    For example, Poland had an early version of Habeas Corpus
    several hundred years before England. It wasn't perfect but
    perfection is not available this side of paradise. One basic problem
    was that Poland was surrounded by autocratic powers, and not
    protected by two oceans. It was a democracy that refused to have
    a standing army (magnates had their own little armies) while the
    monarchy was weak by design. Pacifism was a strong undercurrent
    due to the Arian influence, so in a sense it was a utopian project
    that was bound to fail. The culture just wasn't there to promote
    conquest, like the conquest of Siberia, for what is Siberia if not
    a Russian colony?

    I think the Polish are good at working with people, and as
    result make good managers. Coach Mike Krzyzewski at Duke
    would be a good example. I think this is what attracted many
    people originally to the idea of the Commonwealth - a more
    humane alternative to Russia or Prussia. I recommend a book
    by the Polish Nobel laureate Czesław Miłosz entitled Native
    Realm (1959). He lived through WW I, then in interbellum Poland,
    then through WW II, and finally communism. He writes that
    the Polish typically exhibit moral restraint in times of war and
    stress in general, perhaps because of their Catholic upbringing.
    The Catholic Hapsburgs were not perfect but their rule was more
    humane than that of the Lutheran Prussians or Orthodox Russians.
    For over 100 years Poland was divided among those three powers,
    and could make comparisons. That's why there even is some residual
    nostalgia after the Hapsburg-ruled Central Europe
    , @AP
    Malevich (Malewicz) was a Ukrainian of Polish descent, not a Russian of Polish descent. He was from Ukraine and was primarily Ukrainian-speaking.
    , @annamaria
    Russians meddled in French elections? Are you sure? Have you checked the names and nationalities of the people who were the major meddlers? A hint - they were not from Russian Federation.
    Also, on a point of Russia being a "destabilizing factor in European politics for at least 300 years," could you enlighten us where Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania belong to some 200 hundred years ago and how independent these countries were? Also, how come that the alleged "meddler" had been involved in pushing out France, Britain, Poland, Germany from her own Russian territory? For a starter, you could read Leo Tolstoy' "The Sebastopol Sketches." And if you intend, like some passionate Israel-firster, to defend the above powers' aggressive interventions and meddling into Russian affairs (remember The Congress of Vienna, 1815?) by bringing in realpolitiks and other "historically convincing" factors, then what was the point of your post?
    , @Ahem...
    The Katyn massacre? 4500 Polish service personnel, officers and soldiers. The established fact.
    Meddling in elections,"France being the latest example"?. Says it all of where you coming from.
  49. @Daniel H
    >>Anatoly Karlin said:

    “It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.”

    No it’s not, and you have no proof.<<

    How about "Hitler's Table Talk" for evidence. From the mouth of the devil himself. The document is considered an authentic account of Hitler's after dinner musings. He lays out quite specifically what his intentions for the east - all the way to the Volga - were. As per the document, Hitler intended to do precisely what Karlin says he was going to do. And, if anything, Hitler was a man of his word.

    http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/HTableTalk.pdf

    Help me out, I can’t find the relevant passages.

    Read More
  50. @Parsifal
    The UK was on meat and sugar rations until well into the 1950s.

    And bread rationing didn’t even begin until after the war in Britain.

    Read More
  51. Do these women honestly look like they are in fear of being raped? Of course this could be highly choreographed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
    The rapes lasted for three days after victory. After that, Soviet soldiers were ordered to behave.
  52. @Bad (((Guy))) 2
    Do these women honestly look like they are in fear of being raped? Of course this could be highly choreographed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5i9k7s9X_A&t=30s

    The rapes lasted for three days after victory. After that, Soviet soldiers were ordered to behave.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bad (((Guy))) 2
    Well according to most sources that allege they happen they lasted for weeks and it was not until barracks were erected that they stopped happening. Can you give me a credible source to show they only lasted three days because that is the first time I have ever herd they only lasted three days.

    This could easily be proven of debunked using a dna tests(unless you believe in Todd Akin's theory). So why not someone try using that?
  53. @Anon 2
    First of all, the Polish don't hate Russia. They, along
    with the people in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lthuania,
    and Ukraine, distrust Russia, and can you blame them?
    Russia, because of its size, has been a destabilizing factor
    in European politics for at least 300 years, always meddling
    in other nations' politics (and failing, France being the latest
    example). Basically, the sense in Poland is that nothing good
    comes from the East - the Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Turks,
    and then the Russians (although the fact that the Russians
    were ruled by Germans like Catherine the Great is a mitigating
    circumstance). The Katyn massacre during WW II in which
    20,000 of the Polish intelligentsia (university graduates,
    professors, lawyers, doctors, incl. film director Andrzej Wajda's
    father) were executed by the Soviets is the latest example.
    The hate seems to come more from the Russian nationalists on
    this forum like Karlin himself who never misses a chance to
    make a nasty comment about Poland (or Ukraine or the Balts).

    None of this is necessary. The Russians should recognize that the Polish
    and the Russians are blood relatives, and the fact that Russia is finally
    ruled by Russians is a good omen. Many famous Russians have Polish
    ancestry. Need I mention Glinka, Malevich (Malewicz), Tsiolkovski
    (Ciołkowski), Stravinsky (Strawiński) who in the 1920s visited Warsaw
    several times seeking Polish citizenship and actually spoke some Polish,
    the mathematician Lobachevsky (Łobaczewski), ballet dancer Nijinsky
    (Niżyński), Shostakovich (Szostakowicz), etc. Conversely, names ending
    in -ow, -ew, and -in are quite common in Poland. More than 10,000
    Russians live in Poland, they love it there, and more are coming due to
    the labor shortage.

    Regarding Poland’s imperial past: The Polish-Lithuanian
    Commonwealth can be understood as an early version of
    the United States. It was huge (on the Lithuanian side the
    border ran 50 miles from Moscow), stretched basically
    from the Baltic to the Black Sea. It was a highly decentralized
    federal republic like the U.S. It was multicultural – by 1550
    80% of the world’s Jews (i.e., about 90% of the Ashkenazi
    Jews) lived in the Commonwealth (Res Publica or Rzeczpospolita),
    after they were expelled from England, France, Italy, German
    states, etc. It was expressly patterned after the Roman Republic.
    For example, Poland had an early version of Habeas Corpus
    several hundred years before England. It wasn’t perfect but
    perfection is not available this side of paradise. One basic problem
    was that Poland was surrounded by autocratic powers, and not
    protected by two oceans. It was a democracy that refused to have
    a standing army (magnates had their own little armies) while the
    monarchy was weak by design. Pacifism was a strong undercurrent
    due to the Arian influence, so in a sense it was a utopian project
    that was bound to fail. The culture just wasn’t there to promote
    conquest, like the conquest of Siberia, for what is Siberia if not
    a Russian colony?

    I think the Polish are good at working with people, and as
    result make good managers. Coach Mike Krzyzewski at Duke
    would be a good example. I think this is what attracted many
    people originally to the idea of the Commonwealth – a more
    humane alternative to Russia or Prussia. I recommend a book
    by the Polish Nobel laureate Czesław Miłosz entitled Native
    Realm (1959). He lived through WW I, then in interbellum Poland,
    then through WW II, and finally communism. He writes that
    the Polish typically exhibit moral restraint in times of war and
    stress in general, perhaps because of their Catholic upbringing.
    The Catholic Hapsburgs were not perfect but their rule was more
    humane than that of the Lutheran Prussians or Orthodox Russians.
    For over 100 years Poland was divided among those three powers,
    and could make comparisons. That’s why there even is some residual
    nostalgia after the Hapsburg-ruled Central Europe

    Read More
  54. @Anon 2
    First of all, the Polish don't hate Russia. They, along
    with the people in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lthuania,
    and Ukraine, distrust Russia, and can you blame them?
    Russia, because of its size, has been a destabilizing factor
    in European politics for at least 300 years, always meddling
    in other nations' politics (and failing, France being the latest
    example). Basically, the sense in Poland is that nothing good
    comes from the East - the Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Turks,
    and then the Russians (although the fact that the Russians
    were ruled by Germans like Catherine the Great is a mitigating
    circumstance). The Katyn massacre during WW II in which
    20,000 of the Polish intelligentsia (university graduates,
    professors, lawyers, doctors, incl. film director Andrzej Wajda's
    father) were executed by the Soviets is the latest example.
    The hate seems to come more from the Russian nationalists on
    this forum like Karlin himself who never misses a chance to
    make a nasty comment about Poland (or Ukraine or the Balts).

    None of this is necessary. The Russians should recognize that the Polish
    and the Russians are blood relatives, and the fact that Russia is finally
    ruled by Russians is a good omen. Many famous Russians have Polish
    ancestry. Need I mention Glinka, Malevich (Malewicz), Tsiolkovski
    (Ciołkowski), Stravinsky (Strawiński) who in the 1920s visited Warsaw
    several times seeking Polish citizenship and actually spoke some Polish,
    the mathematician Lobachevsky (Łobaczewski), ballet dancer Nijinsky
    (Niżyński), Shostakovich (Szostakowicz), etc. Conversely, names ending
    in -ow, -ew, and -in are quite common in Poland. More than 10,000
    Russians live in Poland, they love it there, and more are coming due to
    the labor shortage.

    Malevich (Malewicz) was a Ukrainian of Polish descent, not a Russian of Polish descent. He was from Ukraine and was primarily Ukrainian-speaking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    LOL at "primarily Ukrainian-speaking" Malevich. He was a Pole who spoke Russian 95% of the time and LARPed as a Ukrainian for a couple of weeks when he was bored.
  55. It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population

    This may be a bit of an exaggeration, though the reality is bad enough.

    Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated, another 15% sent to Siberia. (so 65%-75% removed). 75% of Belarussians and 65% Ukrainians were to be removed. No food aid was the be sent to Siberia, to there would be starvation there until a “natural” self-sustaining population of 40 million or so would remain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated,
     
    Well, if Wikipedia says so, then it must be true, eh?
  56. @Glossy
    In fairness, however, it appears that while there were exports they were considerably lower than during the 1932-33 famine, and fell to near zero when the leadership began to notice people were starving.

    Which supports the argument that the nature of the USSR changed fundamentally in the mid-30s. That's why there were no more artificial famines, no more churches blown up, no more social liberaism, etc. after that point. I'm assuming that the famine of 1947 was not artificial.

    Which supports the argument that the nature of the USSR changed fundamentally in the mid-30s. That’s why there were no more artificial famines, no more churches blown up, no more social liberaism, etc. after that point.

    Usual idiocy.

    If the Nazis had won and all their plans were fulfilled by, say, 1955, someone like glossy would say – Nazi Germany has changed fundamentally. No more Jews being killed, no more Slavs being killed or expelled. And no more war. It’s actually a very nice place.

    Read More
  57. @Glossy
    But it was done because Russians became afraid of American might and were afraid such a genocide would have force Americans to invade Russia.

    You're hysterical. The only thing that prevented the US from starting WWIII with the USSR was the nuclear deterrent.

    The only reason why you're not flooded with Muslims and Africans now is that the USSR protected you from the liberalism that leads to that.

    Poland allied with Nazi Germany itself. It got a part of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis invaded it. This was Poland's own equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

    The main reason Poles hate Russia so much is that a long time ago Russia took away Poland's empire.

    There was a centuries-long struggle to unite the region. Poland was winning this struggle for a while and then it lost it to Russia. Poland could have been the entire thing that Russia later became - it could have filled that same geographical space, played that same superpower role - but that didn't happen. And not because you were too nice, but because you tried to get everything and failed.

    Great post, right on the mark… Congrats!

    Read More
  58. @James N. Kennett
    The rapes lasted for three days after victory. After that, Soviet soldiers were ordered to behave.

    Well according to most sources that allege they happen they lasted for weeks and it was not until barracks were erected that they stopped happening. Can you give me a credible source to show they only lasted three days because that is the first time I have ever herd they only lasted three days.

    This could easily be proven of debunked using a dna tests(unless you believe in Todd Akin’s theory). So why not someone try using that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
    This article reviews the book "Berlin: The Downfall, 1945" by Antony Beevor.

    After three days of mass rape, looting and killings in Berlin--underscored by women jumping off balconies and Nazis killing their own families to prevent their capture--the city became oddly quiet on the fourth day, Frintrop recalls.

    The officers and commanders had reined in their troops.

     

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-09-24/news/0209240344_1_raped-soviet-archives-red-army
  59. @Greasy William
    Stalin loved Russians and self identified as a Russian. My understanding is that he is still fairly popular in contemporary Russia and Putin is regarded as very pro Stalin even while he (Putin) has heaped criticism on the more cosmopolitan pre Stalin Bolsheviks.

    This also doesn't mesh with your anti Ukraine position: nobody did more to clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism than did Stalin. He starved 7 million of them to death.

    (1) Stalin loved everyone (when convenient).

    I explained the roots of modern Russia’s unfortunate Stalinophilia here: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/tribal-stalinism/

    (2) You seem to be under the impression that Russian nationalists are anti-Ukrainian psychopaths. This is incorrect. To the extent that we view Russians and Ukrainians as one people – and it is a central plank of our memeplex – we consider crimes against “them” to be crimes against us. There are certainly a few exceptions, and the conflict has brought out some of the worst sentiments of both sides, but this does not invalidate the general point.

    While Stalin did clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism – that is, made it haram like Russian nationalism was from 1918 – he continued promoting a separate Ukrainian identity (a much larger share of books published in Ukraine in the 1930s were in Ukrainian than even during 1920s). At the same time, the famines infused that identity with a not unjustified persecution complex. Stalin was arguably even worse for long-term Russian unity than the Old Bolsheviks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guy
    werent the Georgians the least deported people in the ussr?
    , @Mr. Hack

    (2) You seem to be under the impression that Russian nationalists are anti-Ukrainian psychopaths. This is incorrect. To the extent that we view Russians and Ukrainians as one people – and it is a central plank of our memeplex
     
    Would 'goofy' be more benign than 'psychopath' (it's really just a matter of degree, eh)? How can two separate nationalities be considered 'one people'? I've never been quite able to perform the mental gymnastics needed to understand such a concept. In my way of thinking, the Russian/Ukrainian situation is quite comparable t0 the Czech/Slovak one (nobody would call these two neighborly peoples as being one, now in the 21st century?). Both nations shared a common history during medieval times, pre-modern times and even Soviet times, but there still existed enough differences to form separate nations in the 20th century. In fact, they experienced an amicable divorce some 25 years ago and have since led friendly and productive lives as neighbors.
    Why can't this be the case between Ukraine and Russia?

    'Let my people go' Anatoly!

    , @Mr. Hack

    While Stalin did clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism – that is, made it haram like Russian nationalism was from 1918 – he continued promoting a separate Ukrainian identity (a much larger share of books published in Ukraine in the 1930s were in Ukrainian than even during 1920s).
     
    Not according to Bohdan Krawchenko:

    The biggest blow to Ukrainian-language publishing was delivered by the change in nationalities policies initiated in 1933-4. The 'forced Ukrainianization' of the book trade was attacked and internationalist education' was stressed. The following was offered as a concrete example of the new orientation: in 1934 the republic's publishing houses issued thirteen titles of Russian classical, as compared with three titles in the case of Ukrainian classical literature. By 1936, Ukrainian-language titles represented 56 percent of the total number of titles published in Ukraine. In 1940, this declined to 42 percent. A full circle was completed and the share of Ukrainian language titles in 1940 was the same as it had been in 1924, on the eve of Ukrainianization.
     
    https://archive.org/stream/socialchangenati00kraw/socialchangenati00kraw_djvu.txt

    In the realm of film production, things were even more bleak during this same period of time:


    The biggest film studio of Ukraine, Dovzhenko Film Studios (Kiev), explicitly shows the Soviet language policy of Russification even during the so-called policy of "korenizatsiya". A simple analysis of all studio productions which accounts for some 378 films shows that 338 films (88.9%) were produced either completely in the Russian language or the Ukrainian language could be heard in few episodes or in folkloristic scenes (such as songs) to distinct Ukrainian region. Only 22 (5.8%) films were produced in the Ukrainian language and language production of another 14 (3.7%) films was difficult to evaluate, while 6 (1.6%) films were really bilingual (Russian-Ukrainian).[10]


     

  60. @neutral
    When one calls oneself the good guys, in this case the Soviet Union, and then these deeds occur then obviously one is going to be called out on this. One can come up will kinds of statistics to say that it is not very important, but in the end it did happen and 2 million rapes is simply a gigantic number that cannot be ignored.

    I also have ask, they are having those immortal brigade marches in Russia where people show pictures of their ww2 ancestors, in light of so many Russian soldiers being rapists has it not occurred to these people that a lot of those they are honoring are rapists.

    If you are human and not a bot, some of your own ancestors were rapists and murderers. Perhaps you should kill yourself to atone for this fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    You seem to fail to understand the concept that I am not walking around with a sign saying that they are heroes. Those people on the other hand are behaving as if they were angels when in fact know that that person is rapist should make one be ashamed.
  61. @AP
    Malevich (Malewicz) was a Ukrainian of Polish descent, not a Russian of Polish descent. He was from Ukraine and was primarily Ukrainian-speaking.

    LOL at “primarily Ukrainian-speaking” Malevich. He was a Pole who spoke Russian 95% of the time and LARPed as a Ukrainian for a couple of weeks when he was bored.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    He was a Pole born in some village outside Ukraine; such Poles were generally assimilated to their surroundings and Ukrainian-speaking. His father worked in the sugar-processing industry and they moved around rural Ukraine. Malevich probably spoke Russian most of the time after he left Ukraine but not growing up. Rural Ukraine was about as Russian-speaking as Poland at that time.
  62. Nobody got suspicious reading about “SS officer Avenir Benningsen”?

    Read More
  63. I doubt the “famine of 1947″ actually qualifies as such. With some of the muh millions brigade saying 0.5 million, others 1 million or 1.5 million, I’m going to get in there with 0.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Khruschev seemed to be extremely concerned with this nonexistent famine. He wrote to Stalin requesting help, and mentioned it several times later, for example in his memoirs, but in around 1960 or 1961 he also mentioned it to a Chinese delegation, even going into gruesome details like cases of cannibalism. It was in the context of the then raging Chinese famine, and he offered his help to the Chinese delegation, who turned it down and denied that there was a famine in China at the time.

    It's usually difficult to estimate casualties of a famine, because the victims tend to be mostly children and the elderly, both of whom have usually already elevated, but, in the first half of the 20th century, rapidly decreasing mortality rates. Childbirths also tend to decrease during famine (and sometimes already ahead of it), which makes it even more difficult.

    For example estimates for the 1933 famine range between 0 and 10 million for Ukraine alone (based on different assumptions) with a most likely mean around 3-4 million using statistical methods alone (a crucial distinction, since we have non-statistical evidence that there was a serious famine at the time, so the number of victims cannot have been zero).

  64. Worth mentioning that the death rate was plenty high among those German POWs who were captured earlier in the war. Once their numbers became enormous and their usefulness apparent, it decreased.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    IHR has interesting quotes (from mainstream sources) on the dynamics of the POW conundrum on the Eastfront:
    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/teplyakov.html

    A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year -- June 1941-June 1942 -- when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    "When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    "Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans'."

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.
     

    Everybody agrees that Sov treatment of Axis POWs got better as war got better for thre REds, I'm sure many here think Conquest and Tolstoy are/were part of the world CIA-Nazi conspiracy that rules the world even today. Even to me, it makes Hitler sound shockingly humanitarian.
  65. I have to assume that the “average of all possible timelines” calculations are (very good) satire.

    Read More
  66. @neutral
    When one calls oneself the good guys, in this case the Soviet Union, and then these deeds occur then obviously one is going to be called out on this. One can come up will kinds of statistics to say that it is not very important, but in the end it did happen and 2 million rapes is simply a gigantic number that cannot be ignored.

    I also have ask, they are having those immortal brigade marches in Russia where people show pictures of their ww2 ancestors, in light of so many Russian soldiers being rapists has it not occurred to these people that a lot of those they are honoring are rapists.

    Because those people laid down their lives to protect their families ( and hence their descendants ) from a military power which pulverized 25+ million people ( most of them civilians ), and did so in inhumane ways, to put it mildly. I know that today’s eurocommies demand that an upstanding citizen must crywank himself to sleep every night over the plight of some other peoples, but I’m sure you’re acquainted with HBD and realize that eurocommie philosophy is thankfully confined to a small slice of our globe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    There is a big difference here between being a rapist and protecting ones families. If you and the others here think for one moment that this for one moment excuses the fact that some family member was a mass rapist and that it is ok to still praise then you are the one that has a view that is confined to a small slice.
  67. @5371
    Nobody got suspicious reading about "SS officer Avenir Benningsen"?

    According to Wikipedia, he was Stirltiz.

    Read More
  68. @5371
    I doubt the "famine of 1947" actually qualifies as such. With some of the muh millions brigade saying 0.5 million, others 1 million or 1.5 million, I'm going to get in there with 0.

    Khruschev seemed to be extremely concerned with this nonexistent famine. He wrote to Stalin requesting help, and mentioned it several times later, for example in his memoirs, but in around 1960 or 1961 he also mentioned it to a Chinese delegation, even going into gruesome details like cases of cannibalism. It was in the context of the then raging Chinese famine, and he offered his help to the Chinese delegation, who turned it down and denied that there was a famine in China at the time.

    It’s usually difficult to estimate casualties of a famine, because the victims tend to be mostly children and the elderly, both of whom have usually already elevated, but, in the first half of the 20th century, rapidly decreasing mortality rates. Childbirths also tend to decrease during famine (and sometimes already ahead of it), which makes it even more difficult.

    For example estimates for the 1933 famine range between 0 and 10 million for Ukraine alone (based on different assumptions) with a most likely mean around 3-4 million using statistical methods alone (a crucial distinction, since we have non-statistical evidence that there was a serious famine at the time, so the number of victims cannot have been zero).

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Some or all of these Khrushchev references, if authentic, might originate in confusion with the 1932-33 famine, or in his panicky reactions influenced by knowledge thereof. I agree with your general remarks on the difficulty of counting or even defining excess deaths.
  69. @Dreadnought
    Because those people laid down their lives to protect their families ( and hence their descendants ) from a military power which pulverized 25+ million people ( most of them civilians ), and did so in inhumane ways, to put it mildly. I know that today's eurocommies demand that an upstanding citizen must crywank himself to sleep every night over the plight of some other peoples, but I'm sure you're acquainted with HBD and realize that eurocommie philosophy is thankfully confined to a small slice of our globe.

    There is a big difference here between being a rapist and protecting ones families. If you and the others here think for one moment that this for one moment excuses the fact that some family member was a mass rapist and that it is ok to still praise then you are the one that has a view that is confined to a small slice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dreadnought
    Yeah, and its you who's equating them. People march to commemorate those who protected them from lovely ordeals in the Buchenwald. Nobody 's marching to commemorate Germans getting raped. If that triggers you, then so be it.
  70. @5371
    If you are human and not a bot, some of your own ancestors were rapists and murderers. Perhaps you should kill yourself to atone for this fact.

    You seem to fail to understand the concept that I am not walking around with a sign saying that they are heroes. Those people on the other hand are behaving as if they were angels when in fact know that that person is rapist should make one be ashamed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    But it's unreasonable to suppose that these people know or even suspect that their grandpas or great-grandpas were rapists. The fact that statistically there must be a considerable number (but probably still a minority) among them who were rapists doesn't change that.
  71. @neutral
    You seem to fail to understand the concept that I am not walking around with a sign saying that they are heroes. Those people on the other hand are behaving as if they were angels when in fact know that that person is rapist should make one be ashamed.

    But it’s unreasonable to suppose that these people know or even suspect that their grandpas or great-grandpas were rapists. The fact that statistically there must be a considerable number (but probably still a minority) among them who were rapists doesn’t change that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL
    How much of the Red Army actually marched on Berlin? And how many of them were rapists; all, most, or just some? Were the rapes confined to Germany, or did they happen in, for example, Poland, as well? Was it systematic, as per the stories of the Nazis above, or chaotic? For all the studies of the war, this particular phenomenon seems to have very little objective research available.

    This is an excellent post. In response to German Reader: I've noticed in the US, especially since the Russophobic propaganda campaign of the past few years, there is very much a tendency to equate Hitler with Stalin, and, by extension, Nazi Germany with the USSR. The mass rape meme is commonly used as evidence of such. So AK's point is very relevant, and well beyond the parties he mentions.
  72. @James N. Kennett

    Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn’t that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?
     
    Yes, unfortunately it is true. Britain imported wheat from India so that bread need not be rationed in Britain. After the war, it was impossible to justify this action, and bread was rationed. A million Indians had died of starvation.

    All combatants in WWII committed war crimes. It is pointless to try to excuse these crimes by saying the Nazis did worse, even to the point of computing how many rapes equal one murder. We did what we did. Let us be honest about our countries' crimes, as well as those of our enemies, in the hope that we will learn never to fight each other again.

    A million Indians had died of starvation.

    According to Wikipedia, it was 2.1 million, though they mention in a footnote that while it was initially estimated lower, this is the consensus among most historians, and there are some considerably higher estimates, too:

    This total, calculated by Maharatna (1992), reflects scholarly consensus (Ó Gráda 2007, p. 19). Initial official estimates of the Government of India (1945, pp. 109–110) indicated around 1.5 million deaths in excess of the average mortality rate, out of Bengal’s then estimated population of 60.3 million. The widely cited results of A. Sen (1980) and A. Sen (1981a, pp. 196–202) used a variety of means to arrive at an estimate of between 2.7 and 3 million; Greenough (1982, pp. 299–309) suggested that Sen’s figures should be raised to between 3.5 and 3.8 million. See either Maharatna (1996) or Dyson & Maharatna (1991) for a detailed review of the data and the various estimates made.

    Read More
  73. @reiner Tor
    But it's unreasonable to suppose that these people know or even suspect that their grandpas or great-grandpas were rapists. The fact that statistically there must be a considerable number (but probably still a minority) among them who were rapists doesn't change that.

    How much of the Red Army actually marched on Berlin? And how many of them were rapists; all, most, or just some? Were the rapes confined to Germany, or did they happen in, for example, Poland, as well? Was it systematic, as per the stories of the Nazis above, or chaotic? For all the studies of the war, this particular phenomenon seems to have very little objective research available.

    This is an excellent post. In response to German Reader: I’ve noticed in the US, especially since the Russophobic propaganda campaign of the past few years, there is very much a tendency to equate Hitler with Stalin, and, by extension, Nazi Germany with the USSR. The mass rape meme is commonly used as evidence of such. So AK’s point is very relevant, and well beyond the parties he mentions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    You are going to have to be more specific here, who is saying this, the neocon propaganda is mostly about how Putin kills journalists, hacks elections and forbids gay pride. Since the (((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they are not going to raise this as an issue. The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that are absolutely opposed to neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.
    , @German_reader
    I don't really believe anybody in the US and UK cares about German women raped by the Red army or uses that as a prominent argument against Russia. I've always had the impression that the predominant attitude towards dubious actions against German civilians during and after WW2 is "They got exactly what they deserved" (that is except in Germany itself, obviously). You can see this even in recent accounts, e.g. in Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands" whose ultimate chapter has justification of the mass expulsions of Germans after the end of the war as a prominent theme (and Snyder after all is a prominent critic of Putin's Russia).
    It's true however that some people in the West are still pushing the "Stalin's Soviet Union just as bad or even worse than Nazi Germany" narrative, e.g. many American conservatives still throw around Robert Conquest's estimates of many millions killed by Soviet repression - estimates which have long been disproven and been shown to be much too high. That's mostly unconnected to the issue of rape in 1944/45 though.
  74. @reiner Tor
    Khruschev seemed to be extremely concerned with this nonexistent famine. He wrote to Stalin requesting help, and mentioned it several times later, for example in his memoirs, but in around 1960 or 1961 he also mentioned it to a Chinese delegation, even going into gruesome details like cases of cannibalism. It was in the context of the then raging Chinese famine, and he offered his help to the Chinese delegation, who turned it down and denied that there was a famine in China at the time.

    It's usually difficult to estimate casualties of a famine, because the victims tend to be mostly children and the elderly, both of whom have usually already elevated, but, in the first half of the 20th century, rapidly decreasing mortality rates. Childbirths also tend to decrease during famine (and sometimes already ahead of it), which makes it even more difficult.

    For example estimates for the 1933 famine range between 0 and 10 million for Ukraine alone (based on different assumptions) with a most likely mean around 3-4 million using statistical methods alone (a crucial distinction, since we have non-statistical evidence that there was a serious famine at the time, so the number of victims cannot have been zero).

    Some or all of these Khrushchev references, if authentic, might originate in confusion with the 1932-33 famine, or in his panicky reactions influenced by knowledge thereof. I agree with your general remarks on the difficulty of counting or even defining excess deaths.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Some or all of these Khrushchev references, if authentic, might originate in confusion with the 1932-33 famine
     
    I read it in multiple sources, and everywhere he referred to 1946-47. Apparently Khrushchev was more concerned about this famine than the earlier one - perhaps he figured the 1933 famine was a natural consequence of collectivization and so probably in his view a necessary sacrifice, but no such justification could be given in 1947, especially after people have already suffered so badly during the war.

    his panicky reactions influenced by knowledge thereof
     
    In any event, Khrushchev is not the only source, so his mental instability cannot be a good explanation here. Stalin was not The Devil, but many bad things happened under his watch even in his later years.
  75. @5371
    LOL at "primarily Ukrainian-speaking" Malevich. He was a Pole who spoke Russian 95% of the time and LARPed as a Ukrainian for a couple of weeks when he was bored.

    He was a Pole born in some village outside Ukraine; such Poles were generally assimilated to their surroundings and Ukrainian-speaking. His father worked in the sugar-processing industry and they moved around rural Ukraine. Malevich probably spoke Russian most of the time after he left Ukraine but not growing up. Rural Ukraine was about as Russian-speaking as Poland at that time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    All this is interesting but frankly I don't know enough
    to make an informed judgment about Malevich
    (Malewicz)
  76. This statistic, 40% survival rate Soviet POW vs. 85% German, looks even worse when you consider that the USSR had won the war. Most of those Soviet POW who survived did so not due to any mercy on part of Germans but because they were liberated by the advancing Soviet Army. Had Germany prevailed, mortality rate among the Soviet POW would’ve been 90% ir more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    Stalin's Order No. 270.

    If ... "instead of organizing resistance to the enemy, some Red Army men prefer to surrender, they shall be destroyed by all possible means, both ground-based and from the air, whereas the families of the Red Army men who have been taken prisoner shall be deprived of the state allowance [that is, rations] and relief."

    The commanders and political officers ... "who surrender to the enemy shall be considered malicious deserters, whose families are liable to be arrested [just] as the families of deserters who have violated the oath and betrayed their Motherland."
  77. @5371
    Worth mentioning that the death rate was plenty high among those German POWs who were captured earlier in the war. Once their numbers became enormous and their usefulness apparent, it decreased.

    IHR has interesting quotes (from mainstream sources) on the dynamics of the POW conundrum on the Eastfront:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/teplyakov.html

    A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year — June 1941-June 1942 — when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    “When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other ‘Slav submen’ POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin’s own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot].”

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    “Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners’ postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: ‘There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans’.”

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.

    Everybody agrees that Sov treatment of Axis POWs got better as war got better for thre REds, I’m sure many here think Conquest and Tolstoy are/were part of the world CIA-Nazi conspiracy that rules the world even today. Even to me, it makes Hitler sound shockingly humanitarian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    it makes Hitler sound shockingly humanitarian
     
    He was simply concerned about the German prisoners, because unlike Stalin, he understood that under certain circumstances soldiers had little other options than to surrender, so he still considered German POWs of valuable racial stock. He was willing to care for Untermenschen if in return the Untermenschen cared for Germans.

    When comparing POW casualties, circumstances need to be taken into account. The Germans planned huge encirclement battles, but didn't plan how to feed the prisoners which must result (if successful) from such battles. This smacks of basically intentional genocide. On the other hand, it would've been possible to feed them by requisitioning food from the civilian population (the Germans had every right to do so), which probably would've resulted in more civilian deaths. I think we have to understand that the Germans didn't think starving enemy civilians or POWs to death was a war crime - since in the First World War the allies illegally (at least, the Germans had thought it was illegal) foodstuffs were not let through the blockade, resulting in a famine in Germany, so the Germans thought that then starving civilians to death must be permissible. I don't think they were totally unjustified, at least to an extent. Germany had food shortages (British civilians ate better than German civilians throughout the war, and the British starved to death a couple million Bengalis to do that...), and so why should they further restrict German rations only to feed Soviet POWs or civilians, when the Soviets refused to care for German POWs? In any event, German logistics were already overstretched, so feeding them from Germany or other parts of Europe was all but impossible.

    On the other hand, treatment of Soviet POWs improved after they realized they needed more workers. But, their usefulness was still limited, because they were less trained and less disciplined than German workers. While German POWs were more useful to the Soviets: they were highly disciplined and reliable with better training than Soviet workers, so actually they were more valuable workers than Soviet workers themselves. This means the Soviets were highly incentivized to keep their POWs well-fed.

    There is the issue of the very small percentage of Germans who survived captivity after being taken prisoner at Stalingrad. The issue is that they were already almost starved and/or frozen to death, and the Soviets initially underestimated the size of the German force caught in the pocket. They had no means of transportation (the trucks were needed elsewhere), so it was very difficult to get the prisoners to the nearest working train stations, usually they did it on foot. Many died already there, and frankly, I cannot see how anything better could be expected of the Soviets. Then the often very long train journey to POW camps followed, and the majority didn't survive to reach the camps. Again, probably it could've been better organized, but realistically, it was very difficult and so unlikely of the Soviets to do so. At the camps, conditions weren't that bad - as already per above, Germans were valuable workers, and so worth saving, but it was already too late for many.

    There were actually similar considerations for the German treatment of Soviet POWs in the encirclement battles. Most Soviet prisoners fell into German hands already exhausted, underfed, thirsty, and even giving them water was difficult to organize. They had to be taken to camps or train stations on foot, in the exhausting heat, with a shortage of personnel to guard them, so it wasn't exactly easy to care for them. Not that the Germans cared much, but still.
  78. @inertial
    This statistic, 40% survival rate Soviet POW vs. 85% German, looks even worse when you consider that the USSR had won the war. Most of those Soviet POW who survived did so not due to any mercy on part of Germans but because they were liberated by the advancing Soviet Army. Had Germany prevailed, mortality rate among the Soviet POW would've been 90% ir more.

    Stalin’s Order No. 270.

    If … “instead of organizing resistance to the enemy, some Red Army men prefer to surrender, they shall be destroyed by all possible means, both ground-based and from the air, whereas the families of the Red Army men who have been taken prisoner shall be deprived of the state allowance [that is, rations] and relief.”

    The commanders and political officers … “who surrender to the enemy shall be considered malicious deserters, whose families are liable to be arrested [just] as the families of deserters who have violated the oath and betrayed their Motherland.”

    Read More
  79. @neutral
    There is a big difference here between being a rapist and protecting ones families. If you and the others here think for one moment that this for one moment excuses the fact that some family member was a mass rapist and that it is ok to still praise then you are the one that has a view that is confined to a small slice.

    Yeah, and its you who’s equating them. People march to commemorate those who protected them from lovely ordeals in the Buchenwald. Nobody ‘s marching to commemorate Germans getting raped. If that triggers you, then so be it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    I am not equating them, they WERE rapists there is no dispute and people are celebrating them. If you and the others here have no problem with their parents or grand parents being rapists then go ahead and do so openly. Go ahead say the following: "I have no problem with rapists in my family", don't come with your cowardly excuses, say it or condemn it, but don't weasel yourself out of this.
  80. @Bad (((Guy))) 2
    Well according to most sources that allege they happen they lasted for weeks and it was not until barracks were erected that they stopped happening. Can you give me a credible source to show they only lasted three days because that is the first time I have ever herd they only lasted three days.

    This could easily be proven of debunked using a dna tests(unless you believe in Todd Akin's theory). So why not someone try using that?

    This article reviews the book “Berlin: The Downfall, 1945″ by Antony Beevor.

    After three days of mass rape, looting and killings in Berlin–underscored by women jumping off balconies and Nazis killing their own families to prevent their capture–the city became oddly quiet on the fourth day, Frintrop recalls.

    The officers and commanders had reined in their troops.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-09-24/news/0209240344_1_raped-soviet-archives-red-army

    Read More
  81. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @German_reader

    Actually Churchill proposed such attack on USSR
     
    Churchill was out of power in 1947/48.

    Churchill proposed such attack on USSR in 1945. The plan was denominated “Operation Unthinkable”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I know, but I don't think there ever was a serious chance of that being implemented. There was no way the British and Americans could have defeated the Red army in open battle, and besides much of the US and UK public in 1945 was still quite pro-Soviet.
  82. @Dreadnought
    Yeah, and its you who's equating them. People march to commemorate those who protected them from lovely ordeals in the Buchenwald. Nobody 's marching to commemorate Germans getting raped. If that triggers you, then so be it.

    I am not equating them, they WERE rapists there is no dispute and people are celebrating them. If you and the others here have no problem with their parents or grand parents being rapists then go ahead and do so openly. Go ahead say the following: “I have no problem with rapists in my family”, don’t come with your cowardly excuses, say it or condemn it, but don’t weasel yourself out of this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kilo 4/11
    And then of course, these same Red Army hero-worshippers will call you every kind of fascist if one dares to commemorate the Ukrainians and others who fought the Red Army in the UPA, OUN, and other formations.
  83. @JL
    How much of the Red Army actually marched on Berlin? And how many of them were rapists; all, most, or just some? Were the rapes confined to Germany, or did they happen in, for example, Poland, as well? Was it systematic, as per the stories of the Nazis above, or chaotic? For all the studies of the war, this particular phenomenon seems to have very little objective research available.

    This is an excellent post. In response to German Reader: I've noticed in the US, especially since the Russophobic propaganda campaign of the past few years, there is very much a tendency to equate Hitler with Stalin, and, by extension, Nazi Germany with the USSR. The mass rape meme is commonly used as evidence of such. So AK's point is very relevant, and well beyond the parties he mentions.

    You are going to have to be more specific here, who is saying this, the neocon propaganda is mostly about how Putin kills journalists, hacks elections and forbids gay pride. Since the (((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they are not going to raise this as an issue. The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that are absolutely opposed to neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @JL
    Sorry, I should have been more specific, I hear this from people on the other end of the megaphones, i.e. the normies to which I'm exposed during my brief visits to the US (I only spend a few weeks a year there). In my specific case, it's mostly East Coast liberals.

    I don't pay much attention to the US propaganda machine, so I can't name any specific sources. But, there seems to be a consensus formed between neocons, libtards, and cuckservatives vis a vis Russia. Among the ridiculous things I've heard are, "Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler" (whatever that even means) and "most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians." This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people. Where they come up with it, who knows?

    Since the (((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they are not going to raise this as an issue.
     
    The neocons are monsters who care only about world domination, and the submission of their subjects. To that end, they don't care about anyone raped or killed, even their own (((people))), if it furthers their goals. It's no problem for them to use this as a cudgel with which to beat on Russia. Perhaps you are confusing them with yourself, you think they have principals or that they stand for something. Just look at Ukraine, where Jewish Neocons and Nazis stand, quite literally, hand-in-hand.

    The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that are absolutely opposed to neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.
     
    Now you are going to have be a bit more specific, who are you talking about here?
  84. @anon
    Churchill proposed such attack on USSR in 1945. The plan was denominated "Operation Unthinkable":

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

    I know, but I don’t think there ever was a serious chance of that being implemented. There was no way the British and Americans could have defeated the Red army in open battle, and besides much of the US and UK public in 1945 was still quite pro-Soviet.

    Read More
  85. @Anatoly Karlin
    (1) Stalin loved everyone (when convenient).

    I explained the roots of modern Russia's unfortunate Stalinophilia here: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/tribal-stalinism/

    (2) You seem to be under the impression that Russian nationalists are anti-Ukrainian psychopaths. This is incorrect. To the extent that we view Russians and Ukrainians as one people - and it is a central plank of our memeplex - we consider crimes against "them" to be crimes against us. There are certainly a few exceptions, and the conflict has brought out some of the worst sentiments of both sides, but this does not invalidate the general point.

    While Stalin did clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism - that is, made it haram like Russian nationalism was from 1918 - he continued promoting a separate Ukrainian identity (a much larger share of books published in Ukraine in the 1930s were in Ukrainian than even during 1920s). At the same time, the famines infused that identity with a not unjustified persecution complex. Stalin was arguably even worse for long-term Russian unity than the Old Bolsheviks.

    werent the Georgians the least deported people in the ussr?

    Read More
  86. @JL
    How much of the Red Army actually marched on Berlin? And how many of them were rapists; all, most, or just some? Were the rapes confined to Germany, or did they happen in, for example, Poland, as well? Was it systematic, as per the stories of the Nazis above, or chaotic? For all the studies of the war, this particular phenomenon seems to have very little objective research available.

    This is an excellent post. In response to German Reader: I've noticed in the US, especially since the Russophobic propaganda campaign of the past few years, there is very much a tendency to equate Hitler with Stalin, and, by extension, Nazi Germany with the USSR. The mass rape meme is commonly used as evidence of such. So AK's point is very relevant, and well beyond the parties he mentions.

    I don’t really believe anybody in the US and UK cares about German women raped by the Red army or uses that as a prominent argument against Russia. I’ve always had the impression that the predominant attitude towards dubious actions against German civilians during and after WW2 is “They got exactly what they deserved” (that is except in Germany itself, obviously). You can see this even in recent accounts, e.g. in Timothy Snyder’s “Bloodlands” whose ultimate chapter has justification of the mass expulsions of Germans after the end of the war as a prominent theme (and Snyder after all is a prominent critic of Putin’s Russia).
    It’s true however that some people in the West are still pushing the “Stalin’s Soviet Union just as bad or even worse than Nazi Germany” narrative, e.g. many American conservatives still throw around Robert Conquest’s estimates of many millions killed by Soviet repression – estimates which have long been disproven and been shown to be much too high. That’s mostly unconnected to the issue of rape in 1944/45 though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    It ought to be pointed out that Germans were expelled from precisely those regions who had voted for the Nazis most strongly:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933#/media/File:NSDAP_Wahl_1933.svg

    There is no justification for raping and murdering people, particularly civilians, and certainly many non-Nazis were expelled alongside their Nazi neighbors. But of all the tragedies of the second world war, German regions with strong Nazi support being turned into Russian and Polish ones are among the least non-just.
    , @JL
    It seems to me there's been a sea change in the US over the past few years and perhaps you're missing it. Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest opponents. Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping up in propaganda directed at liberals. And, of course, most of the Cold Warrior conservatives have never changed their views, so they are essentially in cahoots. The neocons backed Clinton for President after all.

    Americans are particularly susceptible to propaganda, which is, admittedly, all-consuming and very effective. Do they really, deep down, actually care about German women raped during WW2? Most likely not, but they do to the extent that they are told to care about it and can use it for moral equivalency purposes. As for Snyder, "Bloodlands" came out pretty early on in the Ukraine crisis, before the anti-Russia campaign was in full gear. It took a little while for Jews to get on board with being on the same side as the Nazis.
  87. @German_reader
    I don't really believe anybody in the US and UK cares about German women raped by the Red army or uses that as a prominent argument against Russia. I've always had the impression that the predominant attitude towards dubious actions against German civilians during and after WW2 is "They got exactly what they deserved" (that is except in Germany itself, obviously). You can see this even in recent accounts, e.g. in Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands" whose ultimate chapter has justification of the mass expulsions of Germans after the end of the war as a prominent theme (and Snyder after all is a prominent critic of Putin's Russia).
    It's true however that some people in the West are still pushing the "Stalin's Soviet Union just as bad or even worse than Nazi Germany" narrative, e.g. many American conservatives still throw around Robert Conquest's estimates of many millions killed by Soviet repression - estimates which have long been disproven and been shown to be much too high. That's mostly unconnected to the issue of rape in 1944/45 though.

    It ought to be pointed out that Germans were expelled from precisely those regions who had voted for the Nazis most strongly:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933#/media/File:NSDAP_Wahl_1933.svg

    There is no justification for raping and murdering people, particularly civilians, and certainly many non-Nazis were expelled alongside their Nazi neighbors. But of all the tragedies of the second world war, German regions with strong Nazi support being turned into Russian and Polish ones are among the least non-just.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I'm not interested in having a discussion about Germany's lost Eastern territories (and you needn't worry, I'm not in favour of war with Poland for getting them back). In any case, I can understand the argument that the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe was a precondition for the peace Europe has enjoyed since 1945, and a logical consequence of the way the Nazis had used German minorities for their project. I regard Poland's historical claims to many of the territories they got as laughable, but that probably was the price to be paid for Germany's aggression and crimes. In any case, the issue is long settled and irrelevant today.
    What irritated me about Snyder's book, was not so much the argument itself, but his tone and vehemence. But if it makes you happy, I was even more irritated by his treatment of figures like Jakub Berman in post-war Poland...there was little indication that these were quite unpleasant figures who in some cases had members of Armia Krajowa persecuted and executed. Instead there was a lengthy discussion of how they were afraid of Stalin's antisemitism. Apparently Snyder had a very specific audience in mind.
    , @5371
    Expelling these people from their homes was a poor way of demonstrating the unfounded nature of the fear of invasion which caused a somewhat higher percentage of them to vote DNVP and then NSDAP in the first place. There would be more honesty and dignity in simply saying "Vae victis." But then nobody expects honesty or dignity from the partisans of a cause espoused by vermin like "Timati" Snyder.
  88. @AP
    It ought to be pointed out that Germans were expelled from precisely those regions who had voted for the Nazis most strongly:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933#/media/File:NSDAP_Wahl_1933.svg

    There is no justification for raping and murdering people, particularly civilians, and certainly many non-Nazis were expelled alongside their Nazi neighbors. But of all the tragedies of the second world war, German regions with strong Nazi support being turned into Russian and Polish ones are among the least non-just.

    I’m not interested in having a discussion about Germany’s lost Eastern territories (and you needn’t worry, I’m not in favour of war with Poland for getting them back). In any case, I can understand the argument that the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe was a precondition for the peace Europe has enjoyed since 1945, and a logical consequence of the way the Nazis had used German minorities for their project. I regard Poland’s historical claims to many of the territories they got as laughable, but that probably was the price to be paid for Germany’s aggression and crimes. In any case, the issue is long settled and irrelevant today.
    What irritated me about Snyder’s book, was not so much the argument itself, but his tone and vehemence. But if it makes you happy, I was even more irritated by his treatment of figures like Jakub Berman in post-war Poland…there was little indication that these were quite unpleasant figures who in some cases had members of Armia Krajowa persecuted and executed. Instead there was a lengthy discussion of how they were afraid of Stalin’s antisemitism. Apparently Snyder had a very specific audience in mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I regard Poland’s historical claims to many of the territories they got as laughable, but that probably was the price to be paid for Germany’s aggression and crimes.
     
    That's pretty much the way I see it. And the people who paid for these crimes were exactly those who voted for the Nazis in the first place. The non-Nazi voting Germans in Bavaria and the Rhineland weren't cleared off their territory.

    Basically - the most hardcore pro-Nazi regions ceased to exist as German territories.

    The next pro-Nazi tier of territories were forced to live under the Communists for 40 years.

    Areas that didn't vote for Nazis had nice lives as BRD.
    , @Kilo 4/11
    "You’re however right the territories beyond the Oder were strongly pro-Nazi (also quite backwards in their general social structure, with all those large landowners).
    Anyway, there is little point to discussing these matters today imo."

    I would very much like to discuss these matters, because my relatives from the German speaking Banat of today's Romania, west of Timisoara, (Temesvar, Temeschburg, Austria Hungary, when my grandparents emigrated to America in 1906) were probably removed after the war. At any rate, when I went there on my ancestor search/pilgrimage in 1991, and when, after much examination of old maps, I finally found St. Mihai Germain (German St. Michael), Grandpa’s birthplace, nothing German remained but a row of empty cottages with German surnames above the doorways in one street. I recognized Jung, one of the cousins who sponsored my grandparents.

    As everyone seemed to be speaking Romanian, I didn't stay long. There was one old man, however, who just happened to be in his garden as I passed. He looked ... familiar, so I stopped. He was accompanied by perhaps a granddaughter, and I managed to get her to ask him if he was German. It felt like I was asking the poor man for his “papers” in some old noir movie. He said a few words - I recognized German - and then slipped behind the screen door of his back entrance. The glimpse I got of his face is still a poignant memory for me; fear or suspicion, yes, but also a touch, perhaps, of recognition ... It was a lovely old garden, the work of many generations; they were not peasants, nor were they “large landowners”, or if they had once had more land, at least they lived there and not in some city. I sensed he had a story, many stories, and just the ones I had come to hear - but I could not make myself press him for them.

    So if you can, would you tell me something about that area? Were they pro-Nazi? How did the post-war period affect them?

  89. @Anatoly Karlin
    (1) Stalin loved everyone (when convenient).

    I explained the roots of modern Russia's unfortunate Stalinophilia here: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/tribal-stalinism/

    (2) You seem to be under the impression that Russian nationalists are anti-Ukrainian psychopaths. This is incorrect. To the extent that we view Russians and Ukrainians as one people - and it is a central plank of our memeplex - we consider crimes against "them" to be crimes against us. There are certainly a few exceptions, and the conflict has brought out some of the worst sentiments of both sides, but this does not invalidate the general point.

    While Stalin did clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism - that is, made it haram like Russian nationalism was from 1918 - he continued promoting a separate Ukrainian identity (a much larger share of books published in Ukraine in the 1930s were in Ukrainian than even during 1920s). At the same time, the famines infused that identity with a not unjustified persecution complex. Stalin was arguably even worse for long-term Russian unity than the Old Bolsheviks.

    (2) You seem to be under the impression that Russian nationalists are anti-Ukrainian psychopaths. This is incorrect. To the extent that we view Russians and Ukrainians as one people – and it is a central plank of our memeplex

    Would ‘goofy’ be more benign than ‘psychopath’ (it’s really just a matter of degree, eh)? How can two separate nationalities be considered ‘one people’? I’ve never been quite able to perform the mental gymnastics needed to understand such a concept. In my way of thinking, the Russian/Ukrainian situation is quite comparable t0 the Czech/Slovak one (nobody would call these two neighborly peoples as being one, now in the 21st century?). Both nations shared a common history during medieval times, pre-modern times and even Soviet times, but there still existed enough differences to form separate nations in the 20th century. In fact, they experienced an amicable divorce some 25 years ago and have since led friendly and productive lives as neighbors.
    Why can’t this be the case between Ukraine and Russia?

    ‘Let my people go’ Anatoly!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kilo 4/11
    Beautifully and forcefully stated - and true. Sorry I missed this article when it came out, but very good to see you here. A guess on who AP is? A little bit like Dr. Preobrazhensky, but different. Now if Oknemfrod and Peter would show up, what a lineup!
    , @Cyrano
    As far as I know it was only the Mongol invasion that split Russia and Ukraine into 2 separate nations – they used to be one before that. Even today Russians affectionately refer to Ukrainians as Little Russians. But I guess you can’t hang a cow’s bell around pig’s neck (You see pigs are less graceful animals, is what I am getting at).

    I guess also what the phrase “little Russians” might mean is that given enough time the larvae which are called Ukrainians might blossom into beautiful butterflies – Great Russians, but it’s a vain hope.

    I know that I shouldn’t be biased, as a Slav both Ukrainians and Russians are brothers to me. But I have to show bias, because there is only one Slavic country that has ever amounted and will ever amount to anything, and it’s not Ukraine and it ain’t Poland either. You see, you don’t attain national greatness by kissing America’s arse, which is what the two afore mentioned nations think that the magic formula is.
  90. @Glossy
    But it was done because Russians became afraid of American might and were afraid such a genocide would have force Americans to invade Russia.

    You're hysterical. The only thing that prevented the US from starting WWIII with the USSR was the nuclear deterrent.

    The only reason why you're not flooded with Muslims and Africans now is that the USSR protected you from the liberalism that leads to that.

    Poland allied with Nazi Germany itself. It got a part of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis invaded it. This was Poland's own equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

    The main reason Poles hate Russia so much is that a long time ago Russia took away Poland's empire.

    There was a centuries-long struggle to unite the region. Poland was winning this struggle for a while and then it lost it to Russia. Poland could have been the entire thing that Russia later became - it could have filled that same geographical space, played that same superpower role - but that didn't happen. And not because you were too nice, but because you tried to get everything and failed.

    Poland allied with Nazi Germany itself. It got a part of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis invaded it. This was Poland’s own equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

    No. This is completely incomparable.

    (1) There was a pact signed by Germany/USSR, no such pact signed by Poland/Germany
    (2) Poland acted without agreement with Germany, USSR acted with agreement with Germany
    (3) Poland was not coordinating action with Germany, USSR coordinated military actions with Germany.
    (4) Czechoslovakia proposed to Poland first to solve the border questions, no such proposals from Poland to USSR

    In other words, this is the most stupid soviet propaganda. Moreover, Poland had no non-aggression pact with Czechoslovakia, while we had non-aggression pact with USSR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    This is the most stupid polish propaganda. Poland had a non-aggression pact with Germany, an observation which disposes of all your points at once.
  91. The whole Oder Neisse border was so arbitrary. Had the Oder river not existed would the Elbe have been the new border, or if the Oder was 150 miles east would that have been the border? Originally there was no Neisse adjunct and much of Silesia would have stayed German, with Breslau on the border.
    Can’t remember where but I read about Polish territorial demands/hopes from a defeated Germany from during the war and they were much more modest.
    Intresting question, in July 1945 when the Soviet occupation troops took over the western portion of what became East Germany (including cities like Leipzig and Magdeburg) from the British and Americans, two months after the fighting was over, how did they behave? I ask this because this was a case where the passions and feelings of revenge should have died down by then.

    Read More
  92. @szopen

    Poland allied with Nazi Germany itself. It got a part of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis invaded it. This was Poland’s own equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
     
    No. This is completely incomparable.

    (1) There was a pact signed by Germany/USSR, no such pact signed by Poland/Germany
    (2) Poland acted without agreement with Germany, USSR acted with agreement with Germany
    (3) Poland was not coordinating action with Germany, USSR coordinated military actions with Germany.
    (4) Czechoslovakia proposed to Poland first to solve the border questions, no such proposals from Poland to USSR

    In other words, this is the most stupid soviet propaganda. Moreover, Poland had no non-aggression pact with Czechoslovakia, while we had non-aggression pact with USSR.

    This is the most stupid polish propaganda. Poland had a non-aggression pact with Germany, an observation which disposes of all your points at once.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    THis is the most stupid comment ever.

    We had "non-aggression acts signed with both Germany and USSR.

    This act was not about cooperation, but about denouncing aggression in mutual relationships.

    In contrast, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was about how to divide the spoils of war.

    There is no similarity between alliance pacts, and non-aggression pacts. Only Soviet propagandists can make such errors, while convieniently forgetting about Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact.
    , @szopen
    Here is the full text of the non-aggression pact:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk01.asp

    What's in there which is comparable to the secret addendum to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?

    Also, remember that Hitler DID actually proposed alliance against USSR, and Poland _refused_.
  93. Question, the figure of about 20 million Soviet civilian deaths that AK references. What were their direct causes (German mistreatment, destruction of food infrastructure etc, massacres?) And have their been controversies about whether that number is too high or too low?
    Also, a survival rate of 85% of German prisoners of the Soviets. Did the Maschke comission come up with a similar number? IIRC their finding was a higher death rate.

    Read More
  94. @German_reader
    I'm not interested in having a discussion about Germany's lost Eastern territories (and you needn't worry, I'm not in favour of war with Poland for getting them back). In any case, I can understand the argument that the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe was a precondition for the peace Europe has enjoyed since 1945, and a logical consequence of the way the Nazis had used German minorities for their project. I regard Poland's historical claims to many of the territories they got as laughable, but that probably was the price to be paid for Germany's aggression and crimes. In any case, the issue is long settled and irrelevant today.
    What irritated me about Snyder's book, was not so much the argument itself, but his tone and vehemence. But if it makes you happy, I was even more irritated by his treatment of figures like Jakub Berman in post-war Poland...there was little indication that these were quite unpleasant figures who in some cases had members of Armia Krajowa persecuted and executed. Instead there was a lengthy discussion of how they were afraid of Stalin's antisemitism. Apparently Snyder had a very specific audience in mind.

    I regard Poland’s historical claims to many of the territories they got as laughable, but that probably was the price to be paid for Germany’s aggression and crimes.

    That’s pretty much the way I see it. And the people who paid for these crimes were exactly those who voted for the Nazis in the first place. The non-Nazi voting Germans in Bavaria and the Rhineland weren’t cleared off their territory.

    Basically – the most hardcore pro-Nazi regions ceased to exist as German territories.

    The next pro-Nazi tier of territories were forced to live under the Communists for 40 years.

    Areas that didn’t vote for Nazis had nice lives as BRD.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    The next pro-Nazi tier of territories were forced to live under the Communists for 40 years.
     
    I don't think the territory of the GDR was more pro-Nazi on the whole than many West German territories...like Lower Saxony (Hitler was naturalized in Braunschweig in 1932 which was already Nazi-dominated) or notoriously antisemitic Franconia. You're however right the territories beyond the Oder were strongly pro-Nazi (also quite backwards in their general social structure, with all those large landowners).
    Anyway, there is little point to discussing these matters today imo. Sorry if my previous post came across as unfriendly.
  95. @German_reader
    I don't read their books, they're mostly popular trash anyway (Max Hastings however is also quite anti-German and seems to regard WW1 imperial Germany as pretty much on the same level as Nazi Germany, if I understand correctly).
    Anyway, at the risk of becoming persona non grata here, it seems undisputable to me that Red army soldiers did commit a substantial number of rapes in 1944/45 (exact numbers of course will never be known; in any case it seems clear though that this wasn't some sort of official policy ordered from above, and it eventually did die down when disciplinary measures were taken. Probably it also wasn't surprising, given the nature of the war in the East which had of course been started by Germany). Most people today care very little about that though, even in Germany (I certainly don't care much). Alt-right Nazis are hardly representative.

    Of course it was ordered from above, otherwise the same thing would have happened in Austria, Hungary and Romania, the inhabitants of all of which had participated in the invasion of the USSR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I actually think there were quite a lot of rapes committed by Red army soldiers at least in Hungary as well which was also regarded as a defeated enemy state by the Soviets (Romania probably much less so because they switched sides). I also seem to recall that some Yugoslav communist (Milovan Djilas) complained to the Soviets about rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Yugoslavia, and similar in Poland.
    I've never heard of a convincing case that those rapes were ordered from above (instead of being tolerated, which seems to have been Stalin's attitude for some time). It's not like rape is an uncommon phenomenon in war after all, if you don't take disciplinary measures against it, many soldiers will do it. All the more so in a war like WW2 on the Eastern front where soldiers were brutalized and had to live with permanent expectation of their own death (iirc Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin were about as high as American losses in the entire war).
  96. @AP
    It ought to be pointed out that Germans were expelled from precisely those regions who had voted for the Nazis most strongly:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933#/media/File:NSDAP_Wahl_1933.svg

    There is no justification for raping and murdering people, particularly civilians, and certainly many non-Nazis were expelled alongside their Nazi neighbors. But of all the tragedies of the second world war, German regions with strong Nazi support being turned into Russian and Polish ones are among the least non-just.

    Expelling these people from their homes was a poor way of demonstrating the unfounded nature of the fear of invasion which caused a somewhat higher percentage of them to vote DNVP and then NSDAP in the first place. There would be more honesty and dignity in simply saying “Vae victis.” But then nobody expects honesty or dignity from the partisans of a cause espoused by vermin like “Timati” Snyder.

    Read More
  97. Basically, most regions that had lots of rural protestant voters were big Nazi support areas which fit the eastern territories pretty well. Catholic areas were mostly in the west.

    Read More
  98. @AP

    I regard Poland’s historical claims to many of the territories they got as laughable, but that probably was the price to be paid for Germany’s aggression and crimes.
     
    That's pretty much the way I see it. And the people who paid for these crimes were exactly those who voted for the Nazis in the first place. The non-Nazi voting Germans in Bavaria and the Rhineland weren't cleared off their territory.

    Basically - the most hardcore pro-Nazi regions ceased to exist as German territories.

    The next pro-Nazi tier of territories were forced to live under the Communists for 40 years.

    Areas that didn't vote for Nazis had nice lives as BRD.

    The next pro-Nazi tier of territories were forced to live under the Communists for 40 years.

    I don’t think the territory of the GDR was more pro-Nazi on the whole than many West German territories…like Lower Saxony (Hitler was naturalized in Braunschweig in 1932 which was already Nazi-dominated) or notoriously antisemitic Franconia. You’re however right the territories beyond the Oder were strongly pro-Nazi (also quite backwards in their general social structure, with all those large landowners).
    Anyway, there is little point to discussing these matters today imo. Sorry if my previous post came across as unfriendly.

    Read More
  99. @5371
    Of course it was ordered from above, otherwise the same thing would have happened in Austria, Hungary and Romania, the inhabitants of all of which had participated in the invasion of the USSR.

    I actually think there were quite a lot of rapes committed by Red army soldiers at least in Hungary as well which was also regarded as a defeated enemy state by the Soviets (Romania probably much less so because they switched sides). I also seem to recall that some Yugoslav communist (Milovan Djilas) complained to the Soviets about rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Yugoslavia, and similar in Poland.
    I’ve never heard of a convincing case that those rapes were ordered from above (instead of being tolerated, which seems to have been Stalin’s attitude for some time). It’s not like rape is an uncommon phenomenon in war after all, if you don’t take disciplinary measures against it, many soldiers will do it. All the more so in a war like WW2 on the Eastern front where soldiers were brutalized and had to live with permanent expectation of their own death (iirc Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin were about as high as American losses in the entire war).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    What do contemporary German nationalists think about Germany's borders? Do they want to regain Germany's lost territories even though Poles are also white? Are German Neo Nazis pro Russia and pro Putin like American Neo Nazis are?
    , @melanf

    iirc Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin were about as high as American losses in the entire war
     
    Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin - 70 000 (killed)
    American losses in the entire war - 400 000
    , @Kilo 4/11
    "some Yugoslav communist (Milovan Djilas) complained to the Soviets about rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Yugoslavia"

    Djilas, in Moscow with Tito to report to Stalin, was personally confronted by the dictator and reprimanded for daring to make this complaint. In fact, Stalin forced Djilas to drink (Djilas did not like to drink) a toast to the Red Army, made of a potent specialty liquor. It was at this dinner that Stalin remarked, according to Djilas, (in "Conversations With Stalin") that his troops should be allowed to "have a little fun with a woman" after all they'd been through.
  100. It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.

    Interesting. The basic assumption of the WW2 liberal-democracy foundation myth is that Nazism was an ‘evilness spiral’, which started off with small stuff, but became inevitably more crazy and evil and would have murdered half the world had it not been stopped. I knew that mainstream zionists shared this assumption, but I hadn’t realized that Russian nationalists did too.

    I’m no expert, but I tend more to the view that Nazi crimes were a product of the war, similar in principle – though not scale! – to allied war crimes, and that, had they won, they would have calmed down, much like the SU calmed down after the 1930s. I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern Europe wouldn’t have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages these had over liberal democracy). A lot depends, I suppose, on the willingness of Nazis who knew Hitler was a colossal whackjob to actually do something about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern Europe wouldn’t have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages these had over liberal democracy)
     
    I think that's overly optimistic. It would probably have been true for imperial Germany or for some "normal" German military dictatorship, but I see no reason why the Nazis would have stopped with their extermination project if they had won. After all they pursued it during the war even though it was obviously quite counter-productive.
    , @szopen
    Except Germans actually started to implement their plans already during the war. Kidnapping the children, expelling people, importing new settlers... I do not think any allies, including soviets, were kidnapping children, selecting which one had favourable racial characteristics, and sending "the unworthy" ones to perish in camps.

    Also, some of them was not really new. there were some fringe ultra-nationalists in Germany who agitated for expulsion of all Poles from Greater Poland area, for example.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    If you noticed I gave that as a probability.

    Also I do not think there is any unified Russian nationalist position on a topic as specific as Hitler's post-war plans.
    , @reiner Tor
    Hitler was a highly unusual dictator. His vision was a grandiose utopia of a huge Germanic empire from the Rhein (or a bit to the west of the Rhein) to the Ural mountains. It was to be populated exclusively by Germans, so they needed to get rid of the rest. Because the Slavs would presumably resent being deported from their ancestral homelands, killing them or starving large numbers of them to death was always an obvious solution, but the Nazis didn't think much about it until 1941.

    During wartime extreme solutions are also more likely and easier to implement. In peacetime, it's more difficult - we cannot be sure, what the Germans would've done after victory. It's even more difficult to imagine what they'd have done after Hitler died, which should've happened at one point in the 1950s or so. (I think it's still not sure if he really had Parkinson's or just a combination of some other diseases, stress, insomnia, etc.)

    The holocaust was a bit different in that it always seemed realistic to get rid of Jews without murdering each one of them. However, as the war went on, it became slowly realistic to kill all of them. At the same time, Hitler thought (not totally without justification, but reality was way more complex of course) that it was the Jews who pushed the US to war with Germany. Therefore, he wanted to use European Jews as hostages against the US Jews. However, after the US (in his mind, US Jews) started to ratchet up their efforts against him (Lend Lease, the immediate and seamless extension of Lend Lease to the USSR, etc.), he started to turn the screws ever more on his hostages, starting to murder some of them in 1941 (some sporadic mass murder had happened before already), and finally deciding on killing all of them probably in December 1941. (By that time, almost a million had already been killed.)

    Exterminating the Slavs would've been extremely difficult in wartime, and it's questionable if they would've done that in peacetime when journalists and people move more freely, but who knows? Until the early 1930s, probably very few people thought that a regime could easily survive collectivization and a mass famine of its own making that the Soviet regime caused in the 1930s and actually remain stable or even stronger than before. But that's what happened.
  101. @German_reader
    I actually think there were quite a lot of rapes committed by Red army soldiers at least in Hungary as well which was also regarded as a defeated enemy state by the Soviets (Romania probably much less so because they switched sides). I also seem to recall that some Yugoslav communist (Milovan Djilas) complained to the Soviets about rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Yugoslavia, and similar in Poland.
    I've never heard of a convincing case that those rapes were ordered from above (instead of being tolerated, which seems to have been Stalin's attitude for some time). It's not like rape is an uncommon phenomenon in war after all, if you don't take disciplinary measures against it, many soldiers will do it. All the more so in a war like WW2 on the Eastern front where soldiers were brutalized and had to live with permanent expectation of their own death (iirc Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin were about as high as American losses in the entire war).

    What do contemporary German nationalists think about Germany’s borders? Do they want to regain Germany’s lost territories even though Poles are also white? Are German Neo Nazis pro Russia and pro Putin like American Neo Nazis are?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Well, I suppose there are some fringe characters who fantasise about getting those territories back (there are some genuine Nazis around in Germany even today after all). But that's a marginal position. I don't think the average AfD voter for example cares about it. What's the point in getting agitated about territories that were lost a lifetime ago, when many cities in present-day Germany will soon have non-German majorities? And what's the point in caring about what some long-dead Red army soldier did in Berlin in 1945, when there are lots of Arab and African rapists around today who were invited by our own government?
    I don't know what German neo-Nazis think about Russia. The somewhat-nationalist opposition around the AfD though is more pro-Russian than the mainstream in a "We don't want unnecessary conflict with Russia, but mutually beneficial relations" sort of way.
  102. @Gabriel M

    It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.
     
    Interesting. The basic assumption of the WW2 liberal-democracy foundation myth is that Nazism was an 'evilness spiral', which started off with small stuff, but became inevitably more crazy and evil and would have murdered half the world had it not been stopped. I knew that mainstream zionists shared this assumption, but I hadn't realized that Russian nationalists did too.

    I'm no expert, but I tend more to the view that Nazi crimes were a product of the war, similar in principle - though not scale! - to allied war crimes, and that, had they won, they would have calmed down, much like the SU calmed down after the 1930s. I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern Europe wouldn't have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages these had over liberal democracy). A lot depends, I suppose, on the willingness of Nazis who knew Hitler was a colossal whackjob to actually do something about it.

    I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern Europe wouldn’t have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages these had over liberal democracy)

    I think that’s overly optimistic. It would probably have been true for imperial Germany or for some “normal” German military dictatorship, but I see no reason why the Nazis would have stopped with their extermination project if they had won. After all they pursued it during the war even though it was obviously quite counter-productive.

    Read More
  103. @Greasy William
    What do contemporary German nationalists think about Germany's borders? Do they want to regain Germany's lost territories even though Poles are also white? Are German Neo Nazis pro Russia and pro Putin like American Neo Nazis are?

    Well, I suppose there are some fringe characters who fantasise about getting those territories back (there are some genuine Nazis around in Germany even today after all). But that’s a marginal position. I don’t think the average AfD voter for example cares about it. What’s the point in getting agitated about territories that were lost a lifetime ago, when many cities in present-day Germany will soon have non-German majorities? And what’s the point in caring about what some long-dead Red army soldier did in Berlin in 1945, when there are lots of Arab and African rapists around today who were invited by our own government?
    I don’t know what German neo-Nazis think about Russia. The somewhat-nationalist opposition around the AfD though is more pro-Russian than the mainstream in a “We don’t want unnecessary conflict with Russia, but mutually beneficial relations” sort of way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record

    when many cities in present-day Germany will soon have non-German majorities
     
    Which are the the first ones likely to be?
  104. @German_reader
    I actually think there were quite a lot of rapes committed by Red army soldiers at least in Hungary as well which was also regarded as a defeated enemy state by the Soviets (Romania probably much less so because they switched sides). I also seem to recall that some Yugoslav communist (Milovan Djilas) complained to the Soviets about rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Yugoslavia, and similar in Poland.
    I've never heard of a convincing case that those rapes were ordered from above (instead of being tolerated, which seems to have been Stalin's attitude for some time). It's not like rape is an uncommon phenomenon in war after all, if you don't take disciplinary measures against it, many soldiers will do it. All the more so in a war like WW2 on the Eastern front where soldiers were brutalized and had to live with permanent expectation of their own death (iirc Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin were about as high as American losses in the entire war).

    iirc Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin were about as high as American losses in the entire war

    Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin – 70 000 (killed)
    American losses in the entire war – 400 000

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Ok, looks like I was wrong. It was still a lot more extreme than what American troops faced in the European theatre during WW2 (Hürtgenwald notwithstanding).
    , @Dreadnought
    That's including the Pacific theatre
  105. @melanf

    iirc Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin were about as high as American losses in the entire war
     
    Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin - 70 000 (killed)
    American losses in the entire war - 400 000

    Ok, looks like I was wrong. It was still a lot more extreme than what American troops faced in the European theatre during WW2 (Hürtgenwald notwithstanding).

    Read More
  106. A. Karlin:

    [P]eople who insist on questioning the lethality of Zyklon B or how many people the shower rooms in Auschwitz could accomodate tend to have motives that are suspect, to put it mildly

    I suggest it should be put in normal wording, instead of mildly, because, everyone‘s motives are a fair object of suspicion.
    Examples:
    (i) Why did my family fight against Nazi Germany? Young / poorly educated, therefore easily manipulated? Hey, Bulgarians avoided major confrontation with both Germany and USSR, + saved their Jews.
    (ii) Why do I raise a question such as (i)? Maybe I hold some personal grudge against a family member for something entirely different?
    (iii) Why do heads of allegedly free nations raise voices against “historical revision” («ревизия истории» in the words of Putin) as a threat to the civilized world, when revision is an essential part of study, including study of history? What’s this, a voice of freedom, or of Nazi-like Dark Ages? Suspicious, quite suspicious.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Kilo 4/11
    " What’s this, a voice of freedom, or of Nazi-like Dark Ages? Suspicious, quite suspicious."

    It is the voice of a knee jerk Russian chauvinist who equates any criticism of Russia with "fascism" and "nazis".
  107. @5371
    This is the most stupid polish propaganda. Poland had a non-aggression pact with Germany, an observation which disposes of all your points at once.

    THis is the most stupid comment ever.

    We had “non-aggression acts signed with both Germany and USSR.

    This act was not about cooperation, but about denouncing aggression in mutual relationships.

    In contrast, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was about how to divide the spoils of war.

    There is no similarity between alliance pacts, and non-aggression pacts. Only Soviet propagandists can make such errors, while convieniently forgetting about Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact.

    Read More
  108. @Gabriel M

    It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.
     
    Interesting. The basic assumption of the WW2 liberal-democracy foundation myth is that Nazism was an 'evilness spiral', which started off with small stuff, but became inevitably more crazy and evil and would have murdered half the world had it not been stopped. I knew that mainstream zionists shared this assumption, but I hadn't realized that Russian nationalists did too.

    I'm no expert, but I tend more to the view that Nazi crimes were a product of the war, similar in principle - though not scale! - to allied war crimes, and that, had they won, they would have calmed down, much like the SU calmed down after the 1930s. I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern Europe wouldn't have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages these had over liberal democracy). A lot depends, I suppose, on the willingness of Nazis who knew Hitler was a colossal whackjob to actually do something about it.

    Except Germans actually started to implement their plans already during the war. Kidnapping the children, expelling people, importing new settlers… I do not think any allies, including soviets, were kidnapping children, selecting which one had favourable racial characteristics, and sending “the unworthy” ones to perish in camps.

    Also, some of them was not really new. there were some fringe ultra-nationalists in Germany who agitated for expulsion of all Poles from Greater Poland area, for example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nador
    Actually, soviets did kidnap people. For example the cousin of my grandfather was kidnapped and taken to a forced labor camp in Siberia. She was about to buy some bread when Soviet soldiers happened to be there collecting people for forced labor. She wasn't even allowed to bring proper clothes with her.
  109. @5371
    This is the most stupid polish propaganda. Poland had a non-aggression pact with Germany, an observation which disposes of all your points at once.

    Here is the full text of the non-aggression pact:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk01.asp

    What’s in there which is comparable to the secret addendum to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?

    Also, remember that Hitler DID actually proposed alliance against USSR, and Poland _refused_.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Such an alliance would have been equivalent to Polish annexation by Germany, unlike a German-Soviet pact. The difference is one of geography, not morality.
  110. @szopen
    Here is the full text of the non-aggression pact:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk01.asp

    What's in there which is comparable to the secret addendum to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?

    Also, remember that Hitler DID actually proposed alliance against USSR, and Poland _refused_.

    Such an alliance would have been equivalent to Polish annexation by Germany, unlike a German-Soviet pact. The difference is one of geography, not morality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    So, you are saying "I will try resolve my conflicts with you using words, not force" is equivalent to "I will join you in killing your neighbour"? Nice logic.

    Once again, Poland had non-aggression pacts with both USSR and Germany. Such pacts are not the same as alliance. Poland was allied with France.

    Taking over Zaolzie was also different, because Poland took for example Bogumin, which was wanted by Germany (i.e. action was not coordinated and was in fact move AGAINST Germany), while Soviets and Germans divided their spoils ahead (and Soviets were helping Germans during the invasion).
  111. @Anatoly Karlin
    (1) Stalin loved everyone (when convenient).

    I explained the roots of modern Russia's unfortunate Stalinophilia here: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/tribal-stalinism/

    (2) You seem to be under the impression that Russian nationalists are anti-Ukrainian psychopaths. This is incorrect. To the extent that we view Russians and Ukrainians as one people - and it is a central plank of our memeplex - we consider crimes against "them" to be crimes against us. There are certainly a few exceptions, and the conflict has brought out some of the worst sentiments of both sides, but this does not invalidate the general point.

    While Stalin did clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism - that is, made it haram like Russian nationalism was from 1918 - he continued promoting a separate Ukrainian identity (a much larger share of books published in Ukraine in the 1930s were in Ukrainian than even during 1920s). At the same time, the famines infused that identity with a not unjustified persecution complex. Stalin was arguably even worse for long-term Russian unity than the Old Bolsheviks.

    While Stalin did clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism – that is, made it haram like Russian nationalism was from 1918 – he continued promoting a separate Ukrainian identity (a much larger share of books published in Ukraine in the 1930s were in Ukrainian than even during 1920s).

    Not according to Bohdan Krawchenko:

    The biggest blow to Ukrainian-language publishing was delivered by the change in nationalities policies initiated in 1933-4. The ‘forced Ukrainianization’ of the book trade was attacked and internationalist education’ was stressed. The following was offered as a concrete example of the new orientation: in 1934 the republic’s publishing houses issued thirteen titles of Russian classical, as compared with three titles in the case of Ukrainian classical literature. By 1936, Ukrainian-language titles represented 56 percent of the total number of titles published in Ukraine. In 1940, this declined to 42 percent. A full circle was completed and the share of Ukrainian language titles in 1940 was the same as it had been in 1924, on the eve of Ukrainianization.

    https://archive.org/stream/socialchangenati00kraw/socialchangenati00kraw_djvu.txt

    In the realm of film production, things were even more bleak during this same period of time:

    The biggest film studio of Ukraine, Dovzhenko Film Studios (Kiev), explicitly shows the Soviet language policy of Russification even during the so-called policy of “korenizatsiya”. A simple analysis of all studio productions which accounts for some 378 films shows that 338 films (88.9%) were produced either completely in the Russian language or the Ukrainian language could be heard in few episodes or in folkloristic scenes (such as songs) to distinct Ukrainian region. Only 22 (5.8%) films were produced in the Ukrainian language and language production of another 14 (3.7%) films was difficult to evaluate, while 6 (1.6%) films were really bilingual (Russian-Ukrainian).[10]

    Read More
  112. @szopen
    Except Germans actually started to implement their plans already during the war. Kidnapping the children, expelling people, importing new settlers... I do not think any allies, including soviets, were kidnapping children, selecting which one had favourable racial characteristics, and sending "the unworthy" ones to perish in camps.

    Also, some of them was not really new. there were some fringe ultra-nationalists in Germany who agitated for expulsion of all Poles from Greater Poland area, for example.

    Actually, soviets did kidnap people. For example the cousin of my grandfather was kidnapped and taken to a forced labor camp in Siberia. She was about to buy some bread when Soviet soldiers happened to be there collecting people for forced labor. She wasn’t even allowed to bring proper clothes with her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    You mean, your cousin was a child, who was kidnapped, beaten for speaking Russian and raised as another nationality? It's not about simply capturing people from the streets and sending them off for slave labour. I am specifically talking about kidnapping children (as in Lebensborn), selecting those who were "aryan looking" and raising them as Germans, while sending the rest to camps, where most of them died.
    , @Lex
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany
  113. @Gabriel M

    It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.
     
    Interesting. The basic assumption of the WW2 liberal-democracy foundation myth is that Nazism was an 'evilness spiral', which started off with small stuff, but became inevitably more crazy and evil and would have murdered half the world had it not been stopped. I knew that mainstream zionists shared this assumption, but I hadn't realized that Russian nationalists did too.

    I'm no expert, but I tend more to the view that Nazi crimes were a product of the war, similar in principle - though not scale! - to allied war crimes, and that, had they won, they would have calmed down, much like the SU calmed down after the 1930s. I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern Europe wouldn't have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages these had over liberal democracy). A lot depends, I suppose, on the willingness of Nazis who knew Hitler was a colossal whackjob to actually do something about it.

    If you noticed I gave that as a probability.

    Also I do not think there is any unified Russian nationalist position on a topic as specific as Hitler’s post-war plans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    The statistical graphs you relied on seem to corroborate what Krawchenko wrote. By about 1928 both the amount of separate themed books and the sheer volumes of books printed in Ukraine dropped precipitously, till about 1946 (1927 being a boon year for Ukrainian printed books) .

    Максимальний тираж у довоєнний період було надруковано в 1927 році – 65,354 млн примірників при кількості назв книг 2566 (середній тираж - ~25.5 тисяч).
     
    Ivanko, in his second graph, however, shows that the peak year was about 1937, even though underneath a few sentences he clearly states 1927???...

    This corresponds to the new approach relating to the new nationalities policy instigated in 1933-34, and continued throughout the war period and later. One might ask, who was that interested in reading any books during the famine of 1932-33, repressions of intellectuals and sheer wartime losses during WW2? Ivanko clearly points out that much of the written fair in Ukraine was political propaganda type books, not books of more common interest genres including 'detective, fiction, historical, art'.

    , @Gabriel M
    I think that your 'mathematicism' (did I make that up? I mean the logical parallel of scientism) is one of the most obvious weaknesses in your work. The entire concept of probability has no relevance whatsoever to non-repeatable events.
  114. @Mr. Hack

    While Stalin did clamp down on Ukrainian nationalism – that is, made it haram like Russian nationalism was from 1918 – he continued promoting a separate Ukrainian identity (a much larger share of books published in Ukraine in the 1930s were in Ukrainian than even during 1920s).
     
    Not according to Bohdan Krawchenko:

    The biggest blow to Ukrainian-language publishing was delivered by the change in nationalities policies initiated in 1933-4. The 'forced Ukrainianization' of the book trade was attacked and internationalist education' was stressed. The following was offered as a concrete example of the new orientation: in 1934 the republic's publishing houses issued thirteen titles of Russian classical, as compared with three titles in the case of Ukrainian classical literature. By 1936, Ukrainian-language titles represented 56 percent of the total number of titles published in Ukraine. In 1940, this declined to 42 percent. A full circle was completed and the share of Ukrainian language titles in 1940 was the same as it had been in 1924, on the eve of Ukrainianization.
     
    https://archive.org/stream/socialchangenati00kraw/socialchangenati00kraw_djvu.txt

    In the realm of film production, things were even more bleak during this same period of time:


    The biggest film studio of Ukraine, Dovzhenko Film Studios (Kiev), explicitly shows the Soviet language policy of Russification even during the so-called policy of "korenizatsiya". A simple analysis of all studio productions which accounts for some 378 films shows that 338 films (88.9%) were produced either completely in the Russian language or the Ukrainian language could be heard in few episodes or in folkloristic scenes (such as songs) to distinct Ukrainian region. Only 22 (5.8%) films were produced in the Ukrainian language and language production of another 14 (3.7%) films was difficult to evaluate, while 6 (1.6%) films were really bilingual (Russian-Ukrainian).[10]


     

    Okay, I was using these figures.

    Read More
  115. @melanf

    iirc Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin were about as high as American losses in the entire war
     
    Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin - 70 000 (killed)
    American losses in the entire war - 400 000

    That’s including the Pacific theatre

    Read More
  116. @Anatoly Karlin
    If you noticed I gave that as a probability.

    Also I do not think there is any unified Russian nationalist position on a topic as specific as Hitler's post-war plans.

    The statistical graphs you relied on seem to corroborate what Krawchenko wrote. By about 1928 both the amount of separate themed books and the sheer volumes of books printed in Ukraine dropped precipitously, till about 1946 (1927 being a boon year for Ukrainian printed books) .

    Максимальний тираж у довоєнний період було надруковано в 1927 році – 65,354 млн примірників при кількості назв книг 2566 (середній тираж – ~25.5 тисяч).

    Ivanko, in his second graph, however, shows that the peak year was about 1937, even though underneath a few sentences he clearly states 1927???…

    This corresponds to the new approach relating to the new nationalities policy instigated in 1933-34, and continued throughout the war period and later. One might ask, who was that interested in reading any books during the famine of 1932-33, repressions of intellectuals and sheer wartime losses during WW2? Ivanko clearly points out that much of the written fair in Ukraine was political propaganda type books, not books of more common interest genres including ‘detective, fiction, historical, art’.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    The first graph measures total book production.

    The second graph measures book variety (quantity of different titles).

    Quantity: More Russian books in early 1920s, though from a very low base, then Ukrainian ones overtake them Ukrainization started from the mid-20s: http://zhenziyou.livejournal.com/39918.html
    The books published in the 1930s were simpler on average, but they were still predominantly - even more so than in the late 20s - Ukrainian.

    Diversity of material: As proxied by the second graph. Again, much higher for the Russian language, until Ukrainization began. But the new pattern established then was preserved in the 1930s under Stalin, even though diversity fell for both languages.
  117. In evolutionary terms the whole point of warfare is to crush your enemies (kill or enslave them) and take their women.

    I see no reason to condemn either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union for their conduct on the Eastern Front here–except for Stalin starving an additional half million of his own people in order to prop up postwar client states.

    The Nazis deserve credit for a grand and daring vision of expansion, though of course they bit off more than they could chew.

    The Soviets were less ambitious, but in addition to scoring some pussy they solved their primary security challenge and carted off a lot of valuable physical and human capital.

    If anything America and Britain should be condemned for squandering our blood and treasure for no gain at all.

    Read More
    • Troll: German_reader
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I see no reason to condemn either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union for their conduct on the Eastern Front here
     
    I think barbarism should be condemned, although it's necessary to distinguish actual barbarism from propaganda.

    If anything America and Britain should be condemned for squandering our blood and treasure for no gain at all.
     
    You do have a point there as far as Britain is concerned. From Britain's point of view the war ended in total defeat. In practical terms Britain ceased to exist as a sovereign state in 1945.

    On the other hand the war was very good for the US. It established the US as the world's dominant imperial power and made a lot of money for a lot of people. From the point of view of ordinary Americans though it could be seen as futile. But then Roosevelt didn't care about ordinary Americans.
  118. @German_reader
    Well, I suppose there are some fringe characters who fantasise about getting those territories back (there are some genuine Nazis around in Germany even today after all). But that's a marginal position. I don't think the average AfD voter for example cares about it. What's the point in getting agitated about territories that were lost a lifetime ago, when many cities in present-day Germany will soon have non-German majorities? And what's the point in caring about what some long-dead Red army soldier did in Berlin in 1945, when there are lots of Arab and African rapists around today who were invited by our own government?
    I don't know what German neo-Nazis think about Russia. The somewhat-nationalist opposition around the AfD though is more pro-Russian than the mainstream in a "We don't want unnecessary conflict with Russia, but mutually beneficial relations" sort of way.

    when many cities in present-day Germany will soon have non-German majorities

    Which are the the first ones likely to be?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I think Offenbach already has close to 60% inhabitants mit Migrationshintergrund. Now the definition for Migrationshintergrund is pretty extensive (I suppose I would qualify for it), and it's true, there are of course many Europeans (Italians, Poles, people from the former Yugoslavia and the former USSR etc.) included in this. But still, the trend is clear...by current trends Germany will have about 7 million Muslims in 2030, and they will mostly be regionally concentrated in parts of the former West Germany. The entire Rhine-Main area is going to be pretty bad imo, and West German cities (plus Berlin which will be a total slum) in general.
  119. { I haven’t studied this issue in any depth myself and will assume that the conventional mass rape narrative is broadly correct. }

    Karlin:

    You say you haven’t studied this issue and assume that the …...’mass rape narrative is broadly correct’ in this article, yet in 2013 you wrote another article debunking the ‘mass rape narrative’: looks like you did quite a bit of studying of the subject in the previous article.

    [Translation: The Red Army “Rape of Germany” was Invented by Goebbels]

    http://akarlin.com/2013/05/red-army-rape-myth/

    Explanation please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Sure.

    First, I did not write that article. It was a translation of a Komsomolskaya Pravda transcript of a discussion between a historian and a journalist performed by the user "Moscow Exile," which was published at my (now defunct) Russian Spectrum media translations website. From the post meta:

    This Translation in Russian Spectrum about History, and tagged Military, Rape, Soviet Union, World War II, was written by Moscow Exile on May 9, 2013 .
     
    Moreover, I even linked that piece at the very bottom of this post. See the hyperlink in "If this is not the case and there actually were much fewer rapes, that makes the main argument even stronger." (Yes, I'm aware the hyperlink is broken. The Unz software automatically converts all my akarlin.com links to unz.com/akarlin ones, nothing I can do about it.)

    Problem: I don't consider reading one (or a few) articles about a subject to be studying it "in any depth."
  120. @AP
    He was a Pole born in some village outside Ukraine; such Poles were generally assimilated to their surroundings and Ukrainian-speaking. His father worked in the sugar-processing industry and they moved around rural Ukraine. Malevich probably spoke Russian most of the time after he left Ukraine but not growing up. Rural Ukraine was about as Russian-speaking as Poland at that time.

    All this is interesting but frankly I don’t know enough
    to make an informed judgment about Malevich
    (Malewicz)

    Read More
  121. @5371
    Such an alliance would have been equivalent to Polish annexation by Germany, unlike a German-Soviet pact. The difference is one of geography, not morality.

    So, you are saying “I will try resolve my conflicts with you using words, not force” is equivalent to “I will join you in killing your neighbour”? Nice logic.

    Once again, Poland had non-aggression pacts with both USSR and Germany. Such pacts are not the same as alliance. Poland was allied with France.

    Taking over Zaolzie was also different, because Poland took for example Bogumin, which was wanted by Germany (i.e. action was not coordinated and was in fact move AGAINST Germany), while Soviets and Germans divided their spoils ahead (and Soviets were helping Germans during the invasion).

    Read More
  122. @Nador
    Actually, soviets did kidnap people. For example the cousin of my grandfather was kidnapped and taken to a forced labor camp in Siberia. She was about to buy some bread when Soviet soldiers happened to be there collecting people for forced labor. She wasn't even allowed to bring proper clothes with her.

    You mean, your cousin was a child, who was kidnapped, beaten for speaking Russian and raised as another nationality? It’s not about simply capturing people from the streets and sending them off for slave labour. I am specifically talking about kidnapping children (as in Lebensborn), selecting those who were “aryan looking” and raising them as Germans, while sending the rest to camps, where most of them died.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nador
    She was 17 or 18 (and not my cousin, but my grandfather's). No, she was not raised as another national, but she was just snatched from the street, put on a truck, and off to Siberia. She was not beaten or raped for a racial utopia, just for being there (and being Hungarian)... So yes, it is different from what you had in mind, but I would still consider it kidnapping or enslaving if you prefer.
  123. OT, concerning the de-Germanification of German cities, at least according to stats, most of the non-Germans are at least other Europeans (Croats, Greeks, Italians, Poles, Rumanians etc), which is a big difference then London or Paris. Of course Merkel is helping to make things even more diverse.

    Read More
  124. @Glossy
    But it was done because Russians became afraid of American might and were afraid such a genocide would have force Americans to invade Russia.

    You're hysterical. The only thing that prevented the US from starting WWIII with the USSR was the nuclear deterrent.

    The only reason why you're not flooded with Muslims and Africans now is that the USSR protected you from the liberalism that leads to that.

    Poland allied with Nazi Germany itself. It got a part of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis invaded it. This was Poland's own equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

    The main reason Poles hate Russia so much is that a long time ago Russia took away Poland's empire.

    There was a centuries-long struggle to unite the region. Poland was winning this struggle for a while and then it lost it to Russia. Poland could have been the entire thing that Russia later became - it could have filled that same geographical space, played that same superpower role - but that didn't happen. And not because you were too nice, but because you tried to get everything and failed.

    Re: Zaolzie (Cieszyn Silesia) I’ve known many Czechs,
    and this was such a minor matter in Polish-Czech relations
    that it virtually never comes up in conversation. If anything,
    the Czechs feel a bit embarrassed that Warsaw was completely
    destroyed during the Warsaw Uprising of August 1944 whereas
    Prague hardly suffered any damage during the war. For example,
    Kundera talks about it in the early part of his great novel The Unbearable
    Lightness of Being. By the way, Ewa Farna, a famous Polish-Czech
    singer grew up in Zaolzie in a Polish family but now she spends
    most of her time in Poland, but she is equally fluent in Polish and Czech.

    With the Oder-Neisse border, Poland regained roughly the borders
    it had around 1025 AD (we can quarrel about the details here but
    that’s not the point), and is now able to enjoy a new closeness to
    Czechia and Lusatia (what remains of Polabian Slavs in eastern
    Germany). No people are closer linguistically (and genetically) than
    the Czechs, Poles, and Lusatians (northern Lusatians speak a language
    very close to Polish), all being western Slavs. The Czechs could speak
    Czech and the Poles Polish, and they would understand perhaps 70% of
    what’s being said. With spoken Russian the level of comprehension by
    a Pole is perhaps 30%, with spoken Ukrainian maybe 40%. Reading levels
    of comprehension are perhaps higher by 10%. Moreover, Poland owes
    the fact that it was accepted into western Christendom to Bohemia, so that’s
    another reason for closeness between the two countries

    Read More
  125. @Anatoly Karlin
    If you noticed I gave that as a probability.

    Also I do not think there is any unified Russian nationalist position on a topic as specific as Hitler's post-war plans.

    I think that your ‘mathematicism’ (did I make that up? I mean the logical parallel of scientism) is one of the most obvious weaknesses in your work. The entire concept of probability has no relevance whatsoever to non-repeatable events.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Why not?

    This is standard in philosophical work about existential risks, for instance.

    Example: What's the bigger danger, global nuclear war or a large meteorite strike? The former has a 10% chance of happening in the next century and will kill a billion people, so its expected cost is 100 million lives. A larger meteorike strike will kill 10 billion people, but has a one in a million chance of happening; expected cost is 10,000 people. Nuclear war should therefore be a more pressing concern. (Above figures for illustrative purposes only, and there are many more additional considerations, but it gets the main point across).

    Can't see why you can't apply it to historical what-if's.
  126. @5371
    Some or all of these Khrushchev references, if authentic, might originate in confusion with the 1932-33 famine, or in his panicky reactions influenced by knowledge thereof. I agree with your general remarks on the difficulty of counting or even defining excess deaths.

    Some or all of these Khrushchev references, if authentic, might originate in confusion with the 1932-33 famine

    I read it in multiple sources, and everywhere he referred to 1946-47. Apparently Khrushchev was more concerned about this famine than the earlier one – perhaps he figured the 1933 famine was a natural consequence of collectivization and so probably in his view a necessary sacrifice, but no such justification could be given in 1947, especially after people have already suffered so badly during the war.

    his panicky reactions influenced by knowledge thereof

    In any event, Khrushchev is not the only source, so his mental instability cannot be a good explanation here. Stalin was not The Devil, but many bad things happened under his watch even in his later years.

    Read More
  127. @Avery
    { I haven’t studied this issue in any depth myself and will assume that the conventional mass rape narrative is broadly correct. }

    Karlin:

    You say you haven't studied this issue and assume that the ......'mass rape narrative is broadly correct' in this article, yet in 2013 you wrote another article debunking the 'mass rape narrative': looks like you did quite a bit of studying of the subject in the previous article.

    [Translation: The Red Army “Rape of Germany” was Invented by Goebbels]
    http://akarlin.com/2013/05/red-army-rape-myth/

    Explanation please.

    Sure.

    First, I did not write that article. It was a translation of a Komsomolskaya Pravda transcript of a discussion between a historian and a journalist performed by the user “Moscow Exile,” which was published at my (now defunct) Russian Spectrum media translations website. From the post meta:

    This Translation in Russian Spectrum about History, and tagged Military, Rape, Soviet Union, World War II, was written by Moscow Exile on May 9, 2013 .

    Moreover, I even linked that piece at the very bottom of this post. See the hyperlink in “If this is not the case and there actually were much fewer rapes, that makes the main argument even stronger.” (Yes, I’m aware the hyperlink is broken. The Unz software automatically converts all my akarlin.com links to unz.com/akarlin ones, nothing I can do about it.)

    Problem: I don’t consider reading one (or a few) articles about a subject to be studying it “in any depth.”

    Read More
  128. @Gabriel M
    I think that your 'mathematicism' (did I make that up? I mean the logical parallel of scientism) is one of the most obvious weaknesses in your work. The entire concept of probability has no relevance whatsoever to non-repeatable events.

    Why not?

    This is standard in philosophical work about existential risks, for instance.

    Example: What’s the bigger danger, global nuclear war or a large meteorite strike? The former has a 10% chance of happening in the next century and will kill a billion people, so its expected cost is 100 million lives. A larger meteorike strike will kill 10 billion people, but has a one in a million chance of happening; expected cost is 10,000 people. Nuclear war should therefore be a more pressing concern. (Above figures for illustrative purposes only, and there are many more additional considerations, but it gets the main point across).

    Can’t see why you can’t apply it to historical what-if’s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    Your inference is correct, but unfortunately your premise is wrong. Try reversing it.

    One problem with mathematicsism is that it is essentially a a confidence trick giving a false sense of accuracy and specificity to arguments that are actually speculative (if not actually wrong). If your numbers are made up, what you do with them is made up too. The entire comical history of economics since Fisher and Keynes turned it from a wissenschaft into a pseudoscience is an illustration of this.

    More fundamentally, though, what you are attempting here is just an epistemological FAIL.. Individual events and objects do not have mathematical probabilities, full stop. Case probability and class probability are two different things. You learn nothing from trying to import tools from the one to the other.
  129. @fnn
    IHR has interesting quotes (from mainstream sources) on the dynamics of the POW conundrum on the Eastfront:
    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/teplyakov.html

    A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year -- June 1941-June 1942 -- when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    "When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    "Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans'."

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.
     

    Everybody agrees that Sov treatment of Axis POWs got better as war got better for thre REds, I'm sure many here think Conquest and Tolstoy are/were part of the world CIA-Nazi conspiracy that rules the world even today. Even to me, it makes Hitler sound shockingly humanitarian.

    it makes Hitler sound shockingly humanitarian

    He was simply concerned about the German prisoners, because unlike Stalin, he understood that under certain circumstances soldiers had little other options than to surrender, so he still considered German POWs of valuable racial stock. He was willing to care for Untermenschen if in return the Untermenschen cared for Germans.

    When comparing POW casualties, circumstances need to be taken into account. The Germans planned huge encirclement battles, but didn’t plan how to feed the prisoners which must result (if successful) from such battles. This smacks of basically intentional genocide. On the other hand, it would’ve been possible to feed them by requisitioning food from the civilian population (the Germans had every right to do so), which probably would’ve resulted in more civilian deaths. I think we have to understand that the Germans didn’t think starving enemy civilians or POWs to death was a war crime – since in the First World War the allies illegally (at least, the Germans had thought it was illegal) foodstuffs were not let through the blockade, resulting in a famine in Germany, so the Germans thought that then starving civilians to death must be permissible. I don’t think they were totally unjustified, at least to an extent. Germany had food shortages (British civilians ate better than German civilians throughout the war, and the British starved to death a couple million Bengalis to do that…), and so why should they further restrict German rations only to feed Soviet POWs or civilians, when the Soviets refused to care for German POWs? In any event, German logistics were already overstretched, so feeding them from Germany or other parts of Europe was all but impossible.

    On the other hand, treatment of Soviet POWs improved after they realized they needed more workers. But, their usefulness was still limited, because they were less trained and less disciplined than German workers. While German POWs were more useful to the Soviets: they were highly disciplined and reliable with better training than Soviet workers, so actually they were more valuable workers than Soviet workers themselves. This means the Soviets were highly incentivized to keep their POWs well-fed.

    There is the issue of the very small percentage of Germans who survived captivity after being taken prisoner at Stalingrad. The issue is that they were already almost starved and/or frozen to death, and the Soviets initially underestimated the size of the German force caught in the pocket. They had no means of transportation (the trucks were needed elsewhere), so it was very difficult to get the prisoners to the nearest working train stations, usually they did it on foot. Many died already there, and frankly, I cannot see how anything better could be expected of the Soviets. Then the often very long train journey to POW camps followed, and the majority didn’t survive to reach the camps. Again, probably it could’ve been better organized, but realistically, it was very difficult and so unlikely of the Soviets to do so. At the camps, conditions weren’t that bad – as already per above, Germans were valuable workers, and so worth saving, but it was already too late for many.

    There were actually similar considerations for the German treatment of Soviet POWs in the encirclement battles. Most Soviet prisoners fell into German hands already exhausted, underfed, thirsty, and even giving them water was difficult to organize. They had to be taken to camps or train stations on foot, in the exhausting heat, with a shortage of personnel to guard them, so it wasn’t exactly easy to care for them. Not that the Germans cared much, but still.

    Read More
  130. @Mr. Hack
    The statistical graphs you relied on seem to corroborate what Krawchenko wrote. By about 1928 both the amount of separate themed books and the sheer volumes of books printed in Ukraine dropped precipitously, till about 1946 (1927 being a boon year for Ukrainian printed books) .

    Максимальний тираж у довоєнний період було надруковано в 1927 році – 65,354 млн примірників при кількості назв книг 2566 (середній тираж - ~25.5 тисяч).
     
    Ivanko, in his second graph, however, shows that the peak year was about 1937, even though underneath a few sentences he clearly states 1927???...

    This corresponds to the new approach relating to the new nationalities policy instigated in 1933-34, and continued throughout the war period and later. One might ask, who was that interested in reading any books during the famine of 1932-33, repressions of intellectuals and sheer wartime losses during WW2? Ivanko clearly points out that much of the written fair in Ukraine was political propaganda type books, not books of more common interest genres including 'detective, fiction, historical, art'.

    The first graph measures total book production.

    The second graph measures book variety (quantity of different titles).

    Quantity: More Russian books in early 1920s, though from a very low base, then Ukrainian ones overtake them Ukrainization started from the mid-20s: http://zhenziyou.livejournal.com/39918.html
    The books published in the 1930s were simpler on average, but they were still predominantly – even more so than in the late 20s – Ukrainian.

    Diversity of material: As proxied by the second graph. Again, much higher for the Russian language, until Ukrainization began. But the new pattern established then was preserved in the 1930s under Stalin, even though diversity fell for both languages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    The good news is that both the quality and quantity of books published in the Ukrainian language today are increasing quite rapidly. The bookseller 'Book Ye' seems to be Ukraine's answer to the very successful American conglomerate 'Barnes & Noble' and hosts physical stores in many a Ukrainian city. Their website shows that the problems that Ivanko alluded to, regarding a paucity of books covering common interest items, is quickly being addressed. Notice the different various categories of books listed on the left side of the website (detective books, 'noir thrillers' have always been a favorite of mine). http://book-ye.com.ua/shop/

    This website is a perfect setting for bibliophiles and offers a perfect chat place and a place for reviewing many new Ukrainian language books: http://bukvoid.com.ua/

    Given the right environment, it appears that 'ProjectUkraine' is chugging along full steam ahead!

  131. @Gabriel M

    It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.
     
    Interesting. The basic assumption of the WW2 liberal-democracy foundation myth is that Nazism was an 'evilness spiral', which started off with small stuff, but became inevitably more crazy and evil and would have murdered half the world had it not been stopped. I knew that mainstream zionists shared this assumption, but I hadn't realized that Russian nationalists did too.

    I'm no expert, but I tend more to the view that Nazi crimes were a product of the war, similar in principle - though not scale! - to allied war crimes, and that, had they won, they would have calmed down, much like the SU calmed down after the 1930s. I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern Europe wouldn't have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages these had over liberal democracy). A lot depends, I suppose, on the willingness of Nazis who knew Hitler was a colossal whackjob to actually do something about it.

    Hitler was a highly unusual dictator. His vision was a grandiose utopia of a huge Germanic empire from the Rhein (or a bit to the west of the Rhein) to the Ural mountains. It was to be populated exclusively by Germans, so they needed to get rid of the rest. Because the Slavs would presumably resent being deported from their ancestral homelands, killing them or starving large numbers of them to death was always an obvious solution, but the Nazis didn’t think much about it until 1941.

    During wartime extreme solutions are also more likely and easier to implement. In peacetime, it’s more difficult – we cannot be sure, what the Germans would’ve done after victory. It’s even more difficult to imagine what they’d have done after Hitler died, which should’ve happened at one point in the 1950s or so. (I think it’s still not sure if he really had Parkinson’s or just a combination of some other diseases, stress, insomnia, etc.)

    The holocaust was a bit different in that it always seemed realistic to get rid of Jews without murdering each one of them. However, as the war went on, it became slowly realistic to kill all of them. At the same time, Hitler thought (not totally without justification, but reality was way more complex of course) that it was the Jews who pushed the US to war with Germany. Therefore, he wanted to use European Jews as hostages against the US Jews. However, after the US (in his mind, US Jews) started to ratchet up their efforts against him (Lend Lease, the immediate and seamless extension of Lend Lease to the USSR, etc.), he started to turn the screws ever more on his hostages, starting to murder some of them in 1941 (some sporadic mass murder had happened before already), and finally deciding on killing all of them probably in December 1941. (By that time, almost a million had already been killed.)

    Exterminating the Slavs would’ve been extremely difficult in wartime, and it’s questionable if they would’ve done that in peacetime when journalists and people move more freely, but who knows? Until the early 1930s, probably very few people thought that a regime could easily survive collectivization and a mass famine of its own making that the Soviet regime caused in the 1930s and actually remain stable or even stronger than before. But that’s what happened.

    Read More
  132. Oh, and regarding civilian deaths. Of course Stalin’s “scorched earth” tactics played some role here, since very little grain (or anything else) was left in the occupied western territories, so a famine was bound to happen. Why should the Germans care more for Soviet civilians than their “own” authorities?

    Read More
  133. @Nador
    Actually, soviets did kidnap people. For example the cousin of my grandfather was kidnapped and taken to a forced labor camp in Siberia. She was about to buy some bread when Soviet soldiers happened to be there collecting people for forced labor. She wasn't even allowed to bring proper clothes with her.
    Read More
  134. @Wally
    Anatoly Karlin said:

    "It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest."

    No it's not, and you have no proof.

    Germans were already running trials in 1942 like Aktion Zamość.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    I suppose you mean German actions against illegal, non-uniforned combatants, aka: terrorists.

    Non-uniformed combatants were illegal under international law, executions of such occurred by the Allies and Axis powers.

    Is that all you have?
  135. @neutral
    You are going to have to be more specific here, who is saying this, the neocon propaganda is mostly about how Putin kills journalists, hacks elections and forbids gay pride. Since the (((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they are not going to raise this as an issue. The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that are absolutely opposed to neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.

    Sorry, I should have been more specific, I hear this from people on the other end of the megaphones, i.e. the normies to which I’m exposed during my brief visits to the US (I only spend a few weeks a year there). In my specific case, it’s mostly East Coast liberals.

    I don’t pay much attention to the US propaganda machine, so I can’t name any specific sources. But, there seems to be a consensus formed between neocons, libtards, and cuckservatives vis a vis Russia. Among the ridiculous things I’ve heard are, “Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler” (whatever that even means) and “most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians.” This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people. Where they come up with it, who knows?

    Since the (((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they are not going to raise this as an issue.

    The neocons are monsters who care only about world domination, and the submission of their subjects. To that end, they don’t care about anyone raped or killed, even their own (((people))), if it furthers their goals. It’s no problem for them to use this as a cudgel with which to beat on Russia. Perhaps you are confusing them with yourself, you think they have principals or that they stand for something. Just look at Ukraine, where Jewish Neocons and Nazis stand, quite literally, hand-in-hand.

    The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that are absolutely opposed to neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.

    Now you are going to have be a bit more specific, who are you talking about here?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Among the ridiculous things I’ve heard are, “Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler” (whatever that even means) and “most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians.” This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people.
     
    "Stalin responsible for more deaths than Hitler" is false but not ridiculously so. Hitler beat Stalin but about 3 million people but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.

    A lot of college educated Russians with high IQs believe nonsense also, and sometimes even about their immediate neighbor, never mind about a place on the other side of the world.
  136. @German_reader
    I don't really believe anybody in the US and UK cares about German women raped by the Red army or uses that as a prominent argument against Russia. I've always had the impression that the predominant attitude towards dubious actions against German civilians during and after WW2 is "They got exactly what they deserved" (that is except in Germany itself, obviously). You can see this even in recent accounts, e.g. in Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands" whose ultimate chapter has justification of the mass expulsions of Germans after the end of the war as a prominent theme (and Snyder after all is a prominent critic of Putin's Russia).
    It's true however that some people in the West are still pushing the "Stalin's Soviet Union just as bad or even worse than Nazi Germany" narrative, e.g. many American conservatives still throw around Robert Conquest's estimates of many millions killed by Soviet repression - estimates which have long been disproven and been shown to be much too high. That's mostly unconnected to the issue of rape in 1944/45 though.

    It seems to me there’s been a sea change in the US over the past few years and perhaps you’re missing it. Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest opponents. Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping up in propaganda directed at liberals. And, of course, most of the Cold Warrior conservatives have never changed their views, so they are essentially in cahoots. The neocons backed Clinton for President after all.

    Americans are particularly susceptible to propaganda, which is, admittedly, all-consuming and very effective. Do they really, deep down, actually care about German women raped during WW2? Most likely not, but they do to the extent that they are told to care about it and can use it for moral equivalency purposes. As for Snyder, “Bloodlands” came out pretty early on in the Ukraine crisis, before the anti-Russia campaign was in full gear. It took a little while for Jews to get on board with being on the same side as the Nazis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping up in propaganda directed at liberals.
     
    Well, of course I've noticed that, it's hard to miss how hysterical US liberals have become over Russia, especially so since Russia allegedly "stole" their victory in the last election. I'd actually agree that demonization of Russia in Western media has reached a pretty bizarre (and highly dangerous imo) level by now. I just don't see that the issue of rapes committed by Red army soldiers in 1944/45 plays a significant role in this. The only non-Germans interested in that issue are marginal alt-rightish types with Nazi sympathies, that is people whose influence is limited to dark corners of the internet. Neither you nor AK have provided any evidence that it's an important component of mainstream Western antipathy towards Russia.
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest opponents.
     
    Everybody who mentions this seems to be conflating Russia with the Soviet Union, especially that fat Baby Boomer sack of shit, Rush Limbaugh.

    Liberals were traditionally sympathetic to the Soviet Union because it was Communist and because liberals always reflexively ally with their own country's enemies as part of their metapolitical modus operandi. Liberals are completely opposed to post-Soviet, nationalist Russia because it is the lone superpower standing athwart the advance of globalism. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

    The whole fictitious "Russia hacked the election" meme is not just about delegitimizing the Trump presidency. These globalists actually want a pretext for going to war with Russia, so from their perspective they are killing to birds with one stone.

    Rush Limbaugh is a stupid sack of shit.
  137. @JL
    It seems to me there's been a sea change in the US over the past few years and perhaps you're missing it. Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest opponents. Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping up in propaganda directed at liberals. And, of course, most of the Cold Warrior conservatives have never changed their views, so they are essentially in cahoots. The neocons backed Clinton for President after all.

    Americans are particularly susceptible to propaganda, which is, admittedly, all-consuming and very effective. Do they really, deep down, actually care about German women raped during WW2? Most likely not, but they do to the extent that they are told to care about it and can use it for moral equivalency purposes. As for Snyder, "Bloodlands" came out pretty early on in the Ukraine crisis, before the anti-Russia campaign was in full gear. It took a little while for Jews to get on board with being on the same side as the Nazis.

    Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping up in propaganda directed at liberals.

    Well, of course I’ve noticed that, it’s hard to miss how hysterical US liberals have become over Russia, especially so since Russia allegedly “stole” their victory in the last election. I’d actually agree that demonization of Russia in Western media has reached a pretty bizarre (and highly dangerous imo) level by now. I just don’t see that the issue of rapes committed by Red army soldiers in 1944/45 plays a significant role in this. The only non-Germans interested in that issue are marginal alt-rightish types with Nazi sympathies, that is people whose influence is limited to dark corners of the internet. Neither you nor AK have provided any evidence that it’s an important component of mainstream Western antipathy towards Russia.

    Read More
  138. @JL
    Sorry, I should have been more specific, I hear this from people on the other end of the megaphones, i.e. the normies to which I'm exposed during my brief visits to the US (I only spend a few weeks a year there). In my specific case, it's mostly East Coast liberals.

    I don't pay much attention to the US propaganda machine, so I can't name any specific sources. But, there seems to be a consensus formed between neocons, libtards, and cuckservatives vis a vis Russia. Among the ridiculous things I've heard are, "Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler" (whatever that even means) and "most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians." This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people. Where they come up with it, who knows?

    Since the (((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they are not going to raise this as an issue.
     
    The neocons are monsters who care only about world domination, and the submission of their subjects. To that end, they don't care about anyone raped or killed, even their own (((people))), if it furthers their goals. It's no problem for them to use this as a cudgel with which to beat on Russia. Perhaps you are confusing them with yourself, you think they have principals or that they stand for something. Just look at Ukraine, where Jewish Neocons and Nazis stand, quite literally, hand-in-hand.

    The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that are absolutely opposed to neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.
     
    Now you are going to have be a bit more specific, who are you talking about here?

    Among the ridiculous things I’ve heard are, “Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler” (whatever that even means) and “most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians.” This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people.

    “Stalin responsible for more deaths than Hitler” is false but not ridiculously so. Hitler beat Stalin but about 3 million people but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.

    A lot of college educated Russians with high IQs believe nonsense also, and sometimes even about their immediate neighbor, never mind about a place on the other side of the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Hitler beat Stalin but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.
     
    In the case of Stalin - not millions.

    http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
    "...In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people... during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment - 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below - 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion - 765 180 people".

    Of course it's possible to start to count "victims of famine". But in this case, Stalin will be a great humanist, in comparison with the rulers of the British Empire.

    "A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million."
    (ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII — начало XX в.) Книга 2)

    Remember Mahatma Gandhi: "Hitlerism and Churchillism are in fact the same thing"

    , @JL
    I'm interested in the method of accounting. Whose deaths are we are talking about here? Do, for example, German soldiers during WW2 go into the Hitler column, or the Stalin column? In light of the fact that the person making this case was not only an American, but a Jew, I told him that were the German soldiers' deaths Stalin's responsibility, then he would have to explain why that paints Stalin in a bad light.

    both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries
     
    Are you speaking of absolute numbers, or percentages of populations?
  139. @AP

    Among the ridiculous things I’ve heard are, “Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler” (whatever that even means) and “most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians.” This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people.
     
    "Stalin responsible for more deaths than Hitler" is false but not ridiculously so. Hitler beat Stalin but about 3 million people but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.

    A lot of college educated Russians with high IQs believe nonsense also, and sometimes even about their immediate neighbor, never mind about a place on the other side of the world.

    Hitler beat Stalin but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.

    In the case of Stalin – not millions.

    http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/

    “…In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for “counterrevolutionary crimes”) in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people… during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people“.

    Of course it’s possible to start to count “victims of famine”. But in this case, Stalin will be a great humanist, in comparison with the rulers of the British Empire.

    A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”
    (ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII — начало XX в.) Книга 2)

    Remember Mahatma Gandhi: “Hitlerism and Churchillism are in fact the same thing”

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    642 thousands? Interesting. Because victims of "Polish action" before WW2 are 111 thousand Poles (And Russians; Polosh historians tend to forget, that ethnic Russian with Polish names, spouses of Poles and friends of Poles were executed too). So, 1/6 of executions would be Poles? In addition, the estimated number of Poles who were killed (in executions, or died in gulags, or in transport to gulags) is at least 150.000. 320.000 were deported. Obviously, you cannot count just people executed - in initial years of Kolyma gulag, mortality was well above 80%. The number of deported, arrested etc in 1939-1945 is at least 800.000, and some historians are claiming numbers as high as 1.8 milion. The interesting fact is that NKVD data claimed only 320.000 people - seems that families of people deported, who were deported as well, were not counted in official NKVD stats!

    Basically this data claims that Poles were massively overrepresented. Hard to believe that. Just as it is hard to believe that data.
    , @AP

    “…In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for “counterrevolutionary crimes”) in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people… during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980,
     
    Snyder:

    "In all, 682,691 people were killed during the Great Terror, to which might be added a few hundred thousand more Soviet citizens shot in smaller actions."

    I personally know of people such as kulaks who were shot and buried in a mass grave, whose murders probably weren't recorded in central archives.

    Once can include artificial famines also, of course. you are correct that these were worse in India. I was Eurocentric in my comment.

  140. @AP

    Among the ridiculous things I’ve heard are, “Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler” (whatever that even means) and “most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians.” This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people.
     
    "Stalin responsible for more deaths than Hitler" is false but not ridiculously so. Hitler beat Stalin but about 3 million people but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.

    A lot of college educated Russians with high IQs believe nonsense also, and sometimes even about their immediate neighbor, never mind about a place on the other side of the world.

    I’m interested in the method of accounting. Whose deaths are we are talking about here? Do, for example, German soldiers during WW2 go into the Hitler column, or the Stalin column? In light of the fact that the person making this case was not only an American, but a Jew, I told him that were the German soldiers’ deaths Stalin’s responsibility, then he would have to explain why that paints Stalin in a bad light.

    both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries

    Are you speaking of absolute numbers, or percentages of populations?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I’m interested in the method of accounting. Whose deaths are we are talking about here? Do, for example, German soldiers during WW2 go into the Hitler column, or the Stalin column?
     
    Snyder's numbers seem rather realistic:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/

    All in all, the Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million.

    both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries

    Are you speaking of absolute numbers, or percentages of populations?
     
    Absolute numbers. The Irish potato famine with 1 million victims killed about 20% or so of the Irish population. In contrast, the 3-4 million famine victims in Ukraine were "only" about 10% of that Republic's population, and the 3+ million victims in Russia those years was a smaller percentage.* The million or so who were shot were a smaller % still.

    *Though about a million people died in the Kuban region of southern Russia - I don't have time to look up that region's total population in 1932 but if it was smaller than Ireland's than that region might have been worse in relative numbers, too.
  141. @szopen
    You mean, your cousin was a child, who was kidnapped, beaten for speaking Russian and raised as another nationality? It's not about simply capturing people from the streets and sending them off for slave labour. I am specifically talking about kidnapping children (as in Lebensborn), selecting those who were "aryan looking" and raising them as Germans, while sending the rest to camps, where most of them died.

    She was 17 or 18 (and not my cousin, but my grandfather’s). No, she was not raised as another national, but she was just snatched from the street, put on a truck, and off to Siberia. She was not beaten or raped for a racial utopia, just for being there (and being Hungarian)… So yes, it is different from what you had in mind, but I would still consider it kidnapping or enslaving if you prefer.

    Read More
  142. @RadicalCenter
    They hate and resent the Germans so much that they are fine with honoring their rapist grandfathers and great-grandfathers. I might feel the same way if I were Russian, but I'm not and I don't.

    Russians would have done the same and worse to all of Germany, and all of western and central Europe, if they had not been so severely damaged by the Germans and then deterred and faced-off by the US.

    {They hate and resent the Germans so much that they are fine with honoring their rapist grandfathers and great-grandfathers. I might feel the same way if I were Russian, but I’m not and I don’t.}

    They are honoring grandfathers and great-grandfathers who saved their ethnos – Slavic peoples – from extermination at the hands of the Nazi genocidal invaders. The Red Army did not enter Germany to rape: yeah, rape is a terrible crime and it should not have happened. But Nazi German men did far, far, far worse to Slavic peoples: no need to re-list all their crimes here.

    One more thing: although it does not excuse the crimes against the German women, let us not forget that most of those same young women were lining up streets in Berlin only 3-4 years prior to cheer the SS mass-murderers on their way to Soviet Union to murder, rape, destroy, burn, kill, starve, …..
    Those women knew their men were invading a foreign country.
    Those women knew their men were going there to exterminate Slavs.

    {Russians would have done the same and worse to all of Germany, and all of western and central Europe, if they had not been so severely damaged by the Germans and then deterred and faced-off by the US.}

    Another anti-Russian/anti-Soviet lie.

    In fact Russians/Soviets were very forgiving of the Germans, considering what Germans had done to them and what they were planning to do, if Nazis won: extermination of all Soviet people – overwhelmingly Slavs – West of the Urals.

    When the Red Army entered Germany it was around 15 million strong.
    Soviet war time production was at its peak.
    Those Red Army troops were battle-tough from years of fighting the best military force in the world of the day. By the time Soviets entered Germany, the mighty Wehrmacht was reduced to 14-15 year old boys and senior citizens who were thrown at the Red Army steamroller flooding into Germany. (they were of course brushed aside).

    The Red Army could have raised (East) Germany to the ground if they wanted to: nothing and nobody could stop them. A 1,000 Desdens.

    btw: Russians supposedly are fine honoring rapists.
    Are people in England and US fine honoring their Air Force crews for deliberately fire-bombing German civilian targets and cooking civilians to death, including children, as they did in Dresden?

    Are people in US fine honoring US Air Force crews who firebombed Tokyo and burnt to death anywhere from 100K to 200K of Tokyo’s civilians?
    How about the USAF air crews which bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
    My understanding is that men who did those bombings are officially honorable military men who served their country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Are people in England and US fine honoring their Air Force crews for deliberately fire-bombing German civilian targets and cooking civilians to death, including children, as they did in Dresden?
     
    For the most part, yes.

    Are people in US fine honoring US Air Force crews who firebombed Tokyo and burnt to death anywhere from 100K to 200K of Tokyo’s civilians?
    How about the USAF air crews which bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
     
    For the most part, yes.

    The glorification of the Allied bomber crews who murdered civilians during WW2 is nauseating.

    It's only a war crime if the other side does it. And you only get hanged for such crimes if you lose.
  143. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    This is a very awkward topic as i understand both sides.

    The German attack forced the Bolsheviks to change their policy towards ethnic Russians – what would the Bolsheviks have done to the Russians over time if the Germans hadn’t attacked?

    I think it’s possible to guess what they would have done by what is happening in the West today – some people want a world of 85 IQ slave cattle so there’s no competition.

    So what was the best out of three terrible options?

    1) German attack and victory
    2) Bolshevik victory (no war and eventual genetic mutilation of the ethnic Russians)
    3) German attack weakening Bolsheviks but not winning

    To me the correct analogy is to an autoimmune disease where the body attacks itself because of an infection – where the Bolsheviks were the infection.

    Read More
  144. @for-the-record

    when many cities in present-day Germany will soon have non-German majorities
     
    Which are the the first ones likely to be?

    I think Offenbach already has close to 60% inhabitants mit Migrationshintergrund. Now the definition for Migrationshintergrund is pretty extensive (I suppose I would qualify for it), and it’s true, there are of course many Europeans (Italians, Poles, people from the former Yugoslavia and the former USSR etc.) included in this. But still, the trend is clear…by current trends Germany will have about 7 million Muslims in 2030, and they will mostly be regionally concentrated in parts of the former West Germany. The entire Rhine-Main area is going to be pretty bad imo, and West German cities (plus Berlin which will be a total slum) in general.

    Read More
  145. @melanf

    Hitler beat Stalin but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.
     
    In the case of Stalin - not millions.

    http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
    "...In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people... during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment - 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below - 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion - 765 180 people".

    Of course it's possible to start to count "victims of famine". But in this case, Stalin will be a great humanist, in comparison with the rulers of the British Empire.

    "A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million."
    (ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII — начало XX в.) Книга 2)

    Remember Mahatma Gandhi: "Hitlerism and Churchillism are in fact the same thing"

    642 thousands? Interesting. Because victims of “Polish action” before WW2 are 111 thousand Poles (And Russians; Polosh historians tend to forget, that ethnic Russian with Polish names, spouses of Poles and friends of Poles were executed too). So, 1/6 of executions would be Poles? In addition, the estimated number of Poles who were killed (in executions, or died in gulags, or in transport to gulags) is at least 150.000. 320.000 were deported. Obviously, you cannot count just people executed – in initial years of Kolyma gulag, mortality was well above 80%. The number of deported, arrested etc in 1939-1945 is at least 800.000, and some historians are claiming numbers as high as 1.8 milion. The interesting fact is that NKVD data claimed only 320.000 people – seems that families of people deported, who were deported as well, were not counted in official NKVD stats!

    Basically this data claims that Poles were massively overrepresented. Hard to believe that. Just as it is hard to believe that data.

    Read More
  146. @Anatoly Karlin
    The first graph measures total book production.

    The second graph measures book variety (quantity of different titles).

    Quantity: More Russian books in early 1920s, though from a very low base, then Ukrainian ones overtake them Ukrainization started from the mid-20s: http://zhenziyou.livejournal.com/39918.html
    The books published in the 1930s were simpler on average, but they were still predominantly - even more so than in the late 20s - Ukrainian.

    Diversity of material: As proxied by the second graph. Again, much higher for the Russian language, until Ukrainization began. But the new pattern established then was preserved in the 1930s under Stalin, even though diversity fell for both languages.

    The good news is that both the quality and quantity of books published in the Ukrainian language today are increasing quite rapidly. The bookseller ‘Book Ye’ seems to be Ukraine’s answer to the very successful American conglomerate ‘Barnes & Noble’ and hosts physical stores in many a Ukrainian city. Their website shows that the problems that Ivanko alluded to, regarding a paucity of books covering common interest items, is quickly being addressed. Notice the different various categories of books listed on the left side of the website (detective books, ‘noir thrillers’ have always been a favorite of mine). http://book-ye.com.ua/shop/

    This website is a perfect setting for bibliophiles and offers a perfect chat place and a place for reviewing many new Ukrainian language books: http://bukvoid.com.ua/

    Given the right environment, it appears that ‘ProjectUkraine’ is chugging along full steam ahead!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    With the impressive total of 50K monthly visits apiece.

    https://www.similarweb.com/website/bukvoid.com.ua?competitors=book-ye.com.ua

    My blog gets similar numbers, LOL.

    Russia's leading dedicated bookseller, Labirint.ru: 13M.

    https://www.similarweb.com/website/labirint.ru

    Couple of more dedicated book sellers with 1M visits each. Biggest Ukrainian bookseller, bookclub.ua (500K visits), has a primarily Russian language interface, and most of its front page books also seem to be in Russian.
  147. @Mr. Hack
    The good news is that both the quality and quantity of books published in the Ukrainian language today are increasing quite rapidly. The bookseller 'Book Ye' seems to be Ukraine's answer to the very successful American conglomerate 'Barnes & Noble' and hosts physical stores in many a Ukrainian city. Their website shows that the problems that Ivanko alluded to, regarding a paucity of books covering common interest items, is quickly being addressed. Notice the different various categories of books listed on the left side of the website (detective books, 'noir thrillers' have always been a favorite of mine). http://book-ye.com.ua/shop/

    This website is a perfect setting for bibliophiles and offers a perfect chat place and a place for reviewing many new Ukrainian language books: http://bukvoid.com.ua/

    Given the right environment, it appears that 'ProjectUkraine' is chugging along full steam ahead!

    With the impressive total of 50K monthly visits apiece.

    https://www.similarweb.com/website/bukvoid.com.ua?competitors=book-ye.com.ua

    My blog gets similar numbers, LOL.

    Russia’s leading dedicated bookseller, Labirint.ru: 13M.

    https://www.similarweb.com/website/labirint.ru

    Couple of more dedicated book sellers with 1M visits each. Biggest Ukrainian bookseller, bookclub.ua (500K visits), has a primarily Russian language interface, and most of its front page books also seem to be in Russian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Couple of more dedicated book sellers with 1M visits each. Biggest Ukrainian bookseller, bookclub.ua (500K visits), has a primarily Russian language interface, and most of its front page books also seem to be in Russian.
     
    Actually, of the 24 advertised books listed on the front cover of 'bookclub.ua' 14 were Ukrainian language books! I don't think that it would have been as high 10 years ago, and thus points to the growing interest in Ukrainian language books. It'll be interesting to see just how much the margin will widen in another 10 years (as long as any unnatural 'regathering' or 'triune' projects aren't imposed on the rest of Ukraine)? :-)
  148. @Anatoly Karlin
    With the impressive total of 50K monthly visits apiece.

    https://www.similarweb.com/website/bukvoid.com.ua?competitors=book-ye.com.ua

    My blog gets similar numbers, LOL.

    Russia's leading dedicated bookseller, Labirint.ru: 13M.

    https://www.similarweb.com/website/labirint.ru

    Couple of more dedicated book sellers with 1M visits each. Biggest Ukrainian bookseller, bookclub.ua (500K visits), has a primarily Russian language interface, and most of its front page books also seem to be in Russian.

    Couple of more dedicated book sellers with 1M visits each. Biggest Ukrainian bookseller, bookclub.ua (500K visits), has a primarily Russian language interface, and most of its front page books also seem to be in Russian.

    Actually, of the 24 advertised books listed on the front cover of ‘bookclub.ua’ 14 were Ukrainian language books! I don’t think that it would have been as high 10 years ago, and thus points to the growing interest in Ukrainian language books. It’ll be interesting to see just how much the margin will widen in another 10 years (as long as any unnatural ‘regathering’ or ‘triune’ projects aren’t imposed on the rest of Ukraine)? :-)

    Read More
  149. @Glossy
    I didn't know that.

    From wiki.

    One reason for the high excess mortality of 1943–45 was a clash between soaring population levels and a shortage of land in Bengal, and a longstanding history of stagnant agricultural productivity in India. Bengal was very densely populated.[F] Moreover, according to census figures, its population had been increasing at an accelerating rate: in ten-year periods, the rate of growth started at 2.8% from 1911 to 1921, then increased to 7.3% from 1921 to 1931, and soared to 20.3% from 1931 to 1941. Bengal’s population rose by 43% (from 42.1 million to 60.3 million) between 1901 and 1941, while India’s population as a whole increased by 37% over the same period.

    Britain wasn’t importing rice in huge quantities from Bengal and much of its merchant fleet was at the bottom of the Atlantic. The grain came from North America.

    The Britophobia is almost as silly as the Russophobia.

    Read More
  150. @JL
    I'm interested in the method of accounting. Whose deaths are we are talking about here? Do, for example, German soldiers during WW2 go into the Hitler column, or the Stalin column? In light of the fact that the person making this case was not only an American, but a Jew, I told him that were the German soldiers' deaths Stalin's responsibility, then he would have to explain why that paints Stalin in a bad light.

    both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries
     
    Are you speaking of absolute numbers, or percentages of populations?

    I’m interested in the method of accounting. Whose deaths are we are talking about here? Do, for example, German soldiers during WW2 go into the Hitler column, or the Stalin column?

    Snyder’s numbers seem rather realistic:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/

    All in all, the Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million.

    both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries

    Are you speaking of absolute numbers, or percentages of populations?

    Absolute numbers. The Irish potato famine with 1 million victims killed about 20% or so of the Irish population. In contrast, the 3-4 million famine victims in Ukraine were “only” about 10% of that Republic’s population, and the 3+ million victims in Russia those years was a smaller percentage.* The million or so who were shot were a smaller % still.

    *Though about a million people died in the Kuban region of southern Russia – I don’t have time to look up that region’s total population in 1932 but if it was smaller than Ireland’s than that region might have been worse in relative numbers, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Absolute numbers. The Irish potato famine with 1 million victims killed about 20% or so of the Irish population. In contrast, the 3-4 million famine victims in Ukraine were “only” about 10% of that Republic’s population, and the 3+ million victims in Russia those years was a smaller percentage.* The million or so who were shot were a smaller % still.

     

    In 1932 in Ukraine 782 000 were born and 668 000 died, in 1933 - 359 000 were born and 1309 000 died (data from Центральное управление народохозяйственного учета Госплана СССР). 1309 000 - 668 000 = 641 000?
  151. @melanf

    Hitler beat Stalin but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.
     
    In the case of Stalin - not millions.

    http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
    "...In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people... during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment - 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below - 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion - 765 180 people".

    Of course it's possible to start to count "victims of famine". But in this case, Stalin will be a great humanist, in comparison with the rulers of the British Empire.

    "A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million."
    (ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII — начало XX в.) Книга 2)

    Remember Mahatma Gandhi: "Hitlerism and Churchillism are in fact the same thing"

    “…In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for “counterrevolutionary crimes”) in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people… during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980,

    Snyder:

    “In all, 682,691 people were killed during the Great Terror, to which might be added a few hundred thousand more Soviet citizens shot in smaller actions.”

    I personally know of people such as kulaks who were shot and buried in a mass grave, whose murders probably weren’t recorded in central archives.

    Once can include artificial famines also, of course. you are correct that these were worse in India. I was Eurocentric in my comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous


    “…In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for “counterrevolutionary crimes”) in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people… during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980,
     
    Snyder:

    “In all, 682,691 people were killed during the Great Terror, to which might be added a few hundred thousand more Soviet citizens shot in smaller actions.”
     
    The number 642 980 are a result of researches of historian Victor Zemskov. They are rougly confirmed by other historians (including А.Roginskiy from "Memorial"). The personal opinion of Snyder does not matter.
    But if even to take opinion of Snyder for truth, it is impossible to count "millions" of killed by Stalin

    I personally know of people ... whose murders probably weren’t recorded in central archives.
     
    It maybe so. However considerable part of “political” convict were the real criminals, and can not be considered the "victims of terror". For this, general estimation of number of victims of repressions will not change
  152. Note to German_reader:

    I am NOT trolling.

    FFS think about it…if your country had won the war your eastern frontier would be at the Ural Mountains (why Hitler wanted to stop there I do not understand) and there’d be 200 million Germans today.

    What’s not to like?

    And from the Russian perspective, in addiction to the delight of victory, what could be more humiliating to the enemy than raping their women en masse? And certainly a nice little perk for long suffering Red Army soldiers.

    Read More
  153. @JL
    It seems to me there's been a sea change in the US over the past few years and perhaps you're missing it. Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest opponents. Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping up in propaganda directed at liberals. And, of course, most of the Cold Warrior conservatives have never changed their views, so they are essentially in cahoots. The neocons backed Clinton for President after all.

    Americans are particularly susceptible to propaganda, which is, admittedly, all-consuming and very effective. Do they really, deep down, actually care about German women raped during WW2? Most likely not, but they do to the extent that they are told to care about it and can use it for moral equivalency purposes. As for Snyder, "Bloodlands" came out pretty early on in the Ukraine crisis, before the anti-Russia campaign was in full gear. It took a little while for Jews to get on board with being on the same side as the Nazis.

    Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest opponents.

    Everybody who mentions this seems to be conflating Russia with the Soviet Union, especially that fat Baby Boomer sack of shit, Rush Limbaugh.

    Liberals were traditionally sympathetic to the Soviet Union because it was Communist and because liberals always reflexively ally with their own country’s enemies as part of their metapolitical modus operandi. Liberals are completely opposed to post-Soviet, nationalist Russia because it is the lone superpower standing athwart the advance of globalism. This shouldn’t be hard to understand.

    The whole fictitious “Russia hacked the election” meme is not just about delegitimizing the Trump presidency. These globalists actually want a pretext for going to war with Russia, so from their perspective they are killing to birds with one stone.

    Rush Limbaugh is a stupid sack of shit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "These globalists actually want a pretext for going to war with Russia, so from their perspective they are killing to birds with one stone."

    Why would the globalists who get rich from the masses risk nuclear war, have hundreds of millions of people die or be wounded, and place the entire human species at risk from nuclear fallout?

    Seriously, just stop.
  154. @Anatoly Karlin
    Why not?

    This is standard in philosophical work about existential risks, for instance.

    Example: What's the bigger danger, global nuclear war or a large meteorite strike? The former has a 10% chance of happening in the next century and will kill a billion people, so its expected cost is 100 million lives. A larger meteorike strike will kill 10 billion people, but has a one in a million chance of happening; expected cost is 10,000 people. Nuclear war should therefore be a more pressing concern. (Above figures for illustrative purposes only, and there are many more additional considerations, but it gets the main point across).

    Can't see why you can't apply it to historical what-if's.

    Your inference is correct, but unfortunately your premise is wrong. Try reversing it.

    One problem with mathematicsism is that it is essentially a a confidence trick giving a false sense of accuracy and specificity to arguments that are actually speculative (if not actually wrong). If your numbers are made up, what you do with them is made up too. The entire comical history of economics since Fisher and Keynes turned it from a wissenschaft into a pseudoscience is an illustration of this.

    More fundamentally, though, what you are attempting here is just an epistemological FAIL.. Individual events and objects do not have mathematical probabilities, full stop. Case probability and class probability are two different things. You learn nothing from trying to import tools from the one to the other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    Short example of what I mean. If I roll a fair die multiple times, the average of my results will converge to 3.5. Hence the 'expected' result is 3.5. However, if I roll a dice one time and ask you to guess what I'm going to roll you won't, unless you are a nitwit, say 3.5. Now that's the case where we actually can give a mathematical probability to each possible result. In your cases, you can't even do that, so saying the 'expected' result of nuclear war is _____ is a double form of nonsense.
  155. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @AP

    It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population
     
    This may be a bit of an exaggeration, though the reality is bad enough.

    Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated, another 15% sent to Siberia. (so 65%-75% removed). 75% of Belarussians and 65% Ukrainians were to be removed. No food aid was the be sent to Siberia, to there would be starvation there until a "natural" self-sustaining population of 40 million or so would remain.

    Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated,

    Well, if Wikipedia says so, then it must be true, eh?

    Read More
  156. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    This is one of the more intellectually squalid Karlin pieces. (And that’s saying something!)

    There are a host of problems with it, but one basic point is that there is a basic difference between the mass murders attributed to Soviets and those attributed to the Nazis.
    Forensic evidence. There is forensic evidence for the former but precious little for the latter. If, tomorrow, while digging up some land to build a new shopping mall somewhere in Eastern Europe, they happen on a mass grave from a WW2 atrocity, it is a cinch bet that it will turn out to be a Soviet atrocity. I’m sure you could offer 10-1 odds and it would be a winning bet nonetheless. That is either because the Germans were much better at disposing of bodies or that they simply didn’t murder as many people. The reader may choose the explanation.

    Just people who insist on questioning the lethality of Zyklon B or how many people the shower rooms in Auschwitz could accomodate tend to have motives that are suspect, to put it mildly,

    Well, this is just typical cringeworthy stuff, where Karlin doesn’t even know the parameters of the debate.

    Holocaust revisionists do not question the lethality of Zyklon B. You can gas people to death with it. The problem lies more with the disposal of the bodies. Nobody has described a procedure that makes any sense or is feasible technically. The question is how millions of people could be murdered with Zyklon B, and the bodies so perfectly disposed of that there is ZERO forensic evidence.

    Anyway, it is actually the opposite of what Karlin is claiming. It is the people who do NOT question this whose motives are suspect. All of the incentives in place are that way. There are Holocaust denial laws in over a dozen countries now. Nobody ever goes to prison for saying that they believe the official story. Karlin is talking bizarro nonsense that is 180 degrees away from the reality of the situation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Actually, mass graves are still being found in Poland. The last one was soviet atrocity, true, but before that we were usually discovering German site crimes.
    , @szopen
    There is also another thing, statistical evidence. We don't know how many Poles lived in Poland in 1939. The censuses are:

    1921 more than 25.5 million (almost 18 million Poles).

    1931 Almost 32 millions (almost 22 milion Poles),

    1946 Almost 24 millions - almost no data on division per nationality, part of them were Germans, Ukrainians and so on, some of them later moved from Poland to other countries - a lot of "Poles" were Silesians, Germans declared to be Poles by authorities, some of them were then deported to Germany. This census is a bit controversial, because a lot of people were on the move.

    Between 1945/50 4 million Germans were deported from Poland, while 4.4 Poles moved in from what become USSR

    1950 About 25 millions
    before 1955 second wave of Poles "returning" from USSR (about 250 thousand people)
    1960 ABout 29.7 millions
    1970 About 32.6 millions
    1974 about 33.6 millions
    1978 about 35 millions

    So, we have gain of 4 million ethnic Poles 1921/1931 (part of that probably due to creatively counting "dual languages" and "tutejsi" as Poles. between 1950/1960 - gain of more than 4 million Poles. Between 1960 and 1970 - gain of almost 3 million Poles, with already falling fertility (my father had brother and three sisters, my grandfather was one of the seven IIRC, i have only one sister). Simple extrapolation means that in 1941 there should be 26 million ethnic Poles, and in 1951 29-30 million.

    The estimates are saying about 1-3 million ethnic Poles murdered during the war. Personally I think 1.5-2 million ethnic Poles are the most probable.
  157. “The real “Soviet Story“: Stalin mutilates Russia. Hitler mutilates Russia. Stalin mutilates Hitler, then mutilates Russia some more. Russophobe ideologues conclude that Russia is as bad as Hitler (if not worse).”

    The Soviet Union was vomited onto the planet in 1917. Stalin didn’t take full power until 1928. During those eleven years missing from your recap, Russia was certainly being viciously mutilated. Why skip them? Not, I hope, because it was Jews doing the mutilating and Christians enduring the mutilation.

    Read More
  158. @Gabriel M
    Your inference is correct, but unfortunately your premise is wrong. Try reversing it.

    One problem with mathematicsism is that it is essentially a a confidence trick giving a false sense of accuracy and specificity to arguments that are actually speculative (if not actually wrong). If your numbers are made up, what you do with them is made up too. The entire comical history of economics since Fisher and Keynes turned it from a wissenschaft into a pseudoscience is an illustration of this.

    More fundamentally, though, what you are attempting here is just an epistemological FAIL.. Individual events and objects do not have mathematical probabilities, full stop. Case probability and class probability are two different things. You learn nothing from trying to import tools from the one to the other.

    Short example of what I mean. If I roll a fair die multiple times, the average of my results will converge to 3.5. Hence the ‘expected’ result is 3.5. However, if I roll a dice one time and ask you to guess what I’m going to roll you won’t, unless you are a nitwit, say 3.5. Now that’s the case where we actually can give a mathematical probability to each possible result. In your cases, you can’t even do that, so saying the ‘expected’ result of nuclear war is _____ is a double form of nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I'm afraid Anatoly's premise is sound. At least from where I sit. Statistics and probability, both of which use combinatorics, were largely developed to address questions deemed to have unwieldy answers if attempted solely through prose. It can be done, but it would be stupid. And confusing.

    The intuitive understanding of "there is a 60% chance of showers tomorrow" is rather straightforward, and does not require the lengthy and redundant "Based on the sample of data analysed, the hypothesis that the outcome tomorrow of a large set of simulations, given current conditions and parameters, are likely 6 times out of 10 on the average to be wet than not" . And no one brings 0.6 of an umbrella to deal with the probability!

    One could even write an entire essay on the chance of rainfall tomorrow and craft a species of odyssey, replete with images of rainy days from the past heralded by a swarm of sparrows. Is that the proposal?

    Individual events do not have mathematical probabilities? Of course, they do. Which is the very reason to call them 'probable'. They may not be driven by a deterministic system of equations as in Physics (even there, many phenomena are only observed in the statistical sense), but they are estimated through the use of statistics.

    The entire comical history of economics since Fisher and Keynes turned it from a wissenschaft into a pseudoscience is an illustration of this.


    Implicit in that sweeping statement is that you are in possession of economic truth. You've probably (excuse the word) not read Keynes, at least not seriously. Read The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, How to Organise a Wave of Prosperity, National Self-Sufficiency, Proposals for An International Currency Union, Proposals for the Reconstruction of Europe, Reparations and Inter-Allied Debt, Social Consequences of Changes in the Value of Money, etc, and tell me if you honestly think the man was writing without the deep wisdom which can only come from a systematic pursuit of knowledge or wissenschaft. I've read all of them and continue to refer and re-read for there is so much to understand and it never fails to impress me, how even more relevant it is today than at any other time. You will come away with a very different understanding than the all too common frivolity directed at Keynes by the obviously cloddish liquidationists of failed yesteryears, as also those of today's.
  159. @ussr andy

    in light of so many Russian soldiers being rapists has it not occurred to these people that a lot of those they are honoring are rapists.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnE1YULrqxY

    So that’s what Phillip Giraldi sounds like in real life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy
    I meant the bad habit of 'splaining to people what their symbols "really" mean. Does the store owner guy really look like he condones "genocide" and all those other things? Would that people stopped f*** with other people's symbols!

    I don't follow Giraldi and don't know what he writes about. I assume you mean he doesn't defend Israel enough. If so, I agree that "yeah, but they're doing it, too" is unimpressive, rhetoric-wise.

  160. @Anonymous
    This is one of the more intellectually squalid Karlin pieces. (And that's saying something!)

    There are a host of problems with it, but one basic point is that there is a basic difference between the mass murders attributed to Soviets and those attributed to the Nazis.
    Forensic evidence. There is forensic evidence for the former but precious little for the latter. If, tomorrow, while digging up some land to build a new shopping mall somewhere in Eastern Europe, they happen on a mass grave from a WW2 atrocity, it is a cinch bet that it will turn out to be a Soviet atrocity. I'm sure you could offer 10-1 odds and it would be a winning bet nonetheless. That is either because the Germans were much better at disposing of bodies or that they simply didn't murder as many people. The reader may choose the explanation.

    Just people who insist on questioning the lethality of Zyklon B or how many people the shower rooms in Auschwitz could accomodate tend to have motives that are suspect, to put it mildly,
     

    Well, this is just typical cringeworthy stuff, where Karlin doesn't even know the parameters of the debate.

    Holocaust revisionists do not question the lethality of Zyklon B. You can gas people to death with it. The problem lies more with the disposal of the bodies. Nobody has described a procedure that makes any sense or is feasible technically. The question is how millions of people could be murdered with Zyklon B, and the bodies so perfectly disposed of that there is ZERO forensic evidence.

    Anyway, it is actually the opposite of what Karlin is claiming. It is the people who do NOT question this whose motives are suspect. All of the incentives in place are that way. There are Holocaust denial laws in over a dozen countries now. Nobody ever goes to prison for saying that they believe the official story. Karlin is talking bizarro nonsense that is 180 degrees away from the reality of the situation.

    Actually, mass graves are still being found in Poland. The last one was soviet atrocity, true, but before that we were usually discovering German site crimes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The last one was soviet atrocity, true, but before that we were usually discovering German site crimes.
     
    Could you provide some link or links that support what you are saying? It's not determinant or anything but I did a quick google search: https://www.google.es/search?q=German+atrocity+ww2+mass+grave+found+Poland

    Most of what comes up is not mass graves resulting from atrocities committed by Germans.

    In any case, in terms of the numbers being bandied about about how many millions of people the Nazis murdered, the vast majority of it allegedly happened in gas chambers. I'm pretty certain my point stands on that. There is simply no forensic evidence of anybody being gassed to death.
  161. I noticed a Bershidsky column claiming that recently revealed Soviet archives show WW2 casualties to be 42 million, not the generally accepted 27 million. Leaving aside the ideological nonsense not worthy of discussion, any comments on the validity of this claim?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-10/a-message-to-putin-from-42-million-dead

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I noticed a Bershidsky column claiming that recently revealed Soviet archives show WW2 casualties to be 42 million, not the generally accepted 27 million. Leaving aside the ideological nonsense not worthy of discussion, any comments on the validity of this claim?

     

    It is an absolute nonsense
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    (1) Not the first time I'm seeing the 42 million figure. The methodology is bad, e.g. extrapolating WW2 casualties based on 1941 fertility levels (which is of course unrealistic since fertility plummets during wartime).

    (2) The entire point of his article is illogical:

    Given the size of its sacrifice, Russia is a country that should be less belligerent than any other nation in the world -- even less than Germany, which has consciously kept its military activity at a low level even despite completely shedding the legacy of its aggressive 20th century rulers. If indeed it lost a quarter of its population in World War II, it should be committed to never "doing it again." Putin's depredations against neighboring nations and his willingness to intervene militarily far from Russia's borders ignore the somber memories the Immortal Regiment evokes.
     
    The Jews lost 1/3 of their global population in WW2. By Bershidsky's logic, Israel should be the most pacifistic country on the planet.

    Well, maybe second to Paraguay.
  162. @Anonymous
    This is one of the more intellectually squalid Karlin pieces. (And that's saying something!)

    There are a host of problems with it, but one basic point is that there is a basic difference between the mass murders attributed to Soviets and those attributed to the Nazis.
    Forensic evidence. There is forensic evidence for the former but precious little for the latter. If, tomorrow, while digging up some land to build a new shopping mall somewhere in Eastern Europe, they happen on a mass grave from a WW2 atrocity, it is a cinch bet that it will turn out to be a Soviet atrocity. I'm sure you could offer 10-1 odds and it would be a winning bet nonetheless. That is either because the Germans were much better at disposing of bodies or that they simply didn't murder as many people. The reader may choose the explanation.

    Just people who insist on questioning the lethality of Zyklon B or how many people the shower rooms in Auschwitz could accomodate tend to have motives that are suspect, to put it mildly,
     

    Well, this is just typical cringeworthy stuff, where Karlin doesn't even know the parameters of the debate.

    Holocaust revisionists do not question the lethality of Zyklon B. You can gas people to death with it. The problem lies more with the disposal of the bodies. Nobody has described a procedure that makes any sense or is feasible technically. The question is how millions of people could be murdered with Zyklon B, and the bodies so perfectly disposed of that there is ZERO forensic evidence.

    Anyway, it is actually the opposite of what Karlin is claiming. It is the people who do NOT question this whose motives are suspect. All of the incentives in place are that way. There are Holocaust denial laws in over a dozen countries now. Nobody ever goes to prison for saying that they believe the official story. Karlin is talking bizarro nonsense that is 180 degrees away from the reality of the situation.

    There is also another thing, statistical evidence. We don’t know how many Poles lived in Poland in 1939. The censuses are:

    1921 more than 25.5 million (almost 18 million Poles).

    1931 Almost 32 millions (almost 22 milion Poles),

    1946 Almost 24 millions – almost no data on division per nationality, part of them were Germans, Ukrainians and so on, some of them later moved from Poland to other countries – a lot of “Poles” were Silesians, Germans declared to be Poles by authorities, some of them were then deported to Germany. This census is a bit controversial, because a lot of people were on the move.

    Between 1945/50 4 million Germans were deported from Poland, while 4.4 Poles moved in from what become USSR

    1950 About 25 millions
    before 1955 second wave of Poles “returning” from USSR (about 250 thousand people)
    1960 ABout 29.7 millions
    1970 About 32.6 millions
    1974 about 33.6 millions
    1978 about 35 millions

    So, we have gain of 4 million ethnic Poles 1921/1931 (part of that probably due to creatively counting “dual languages” and “tutejsi” as Poles. between 1950/1960 – gain of more than 4 million Poles. Between 1960 and 1970 – gain of almost 3 million Poles, with already falling fertility (my father had brother and three sisters, my grandfather was one of the seven IIRC, i have only one sister). Simple extrapolation means that in 1941 there should be 26 million ethnic Poles, and in 1951 29-30 million.

    The estimates are saying about 1-3 million ethnic Poles murdered during the war. Personally I think 1.5-2 million ethnic Poles are the most probable.

    Read More
  163. @James N. Kennett

    Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn’t that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?
     
    Yes, unfortunately it is true. Britain imported wheat from India so that bread need not be rationed in Britain. After the war, it was impossible to justify this action, and bread was rationed. A million Indians had died of starvation.

    All combatants in WWII committed war crimes. It is pointless to try to excuse these crimes by saying the Nazis did worse, even to the point of computing how many rapes equal one murder. We did what we did. Let us be honest about our countries' crimes, as well as those of our enemies, in the hope that we will learn never to fight each other again.

    Excellent point, re war crimes.
    I might add that in the immediate post war period it has been speculated* that the US/UK accidentally deliberately killed some hundreds of thousands of German POW’s by starvation/exposure.
    * can’t recall title of the book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Probably that:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses

    It's a "controversial" book and probably not be taken seriously (though the Rheinwiesen pow camps seem to have been quite unpleasant).
    Personally one issue I'd be really interested in, is the crimes committed by French colonial troops in Italy and south-western Germany. But that really seems to be a taboo issue nowadays.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Table Talk is considered to be a complete fabrication.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    It seems inconceivable that the US with its huge recently ethnic German population would be involved in any such crime. And I can recall being told by an aristocratic German of his benign treatment at Wilton Park where apparently an effort was made to teach young German officers about democracy. True, my father came out of a German POW camp having lost 40 per cent of his pre-war bodyweight but I don't recall any calls for or references to revenge
  164. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @AP

    “…In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for “counterrevolutionary crimes”) in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people… during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980,
     
    Snyder:

    "In all, 682,691 people were killed during the Great Terror, to which might be added a few hundred thousand more Soviet citizens shot in smaller actions."

    I personally know of people such as kulaks who were shot and buried in a mass grave, whose murders probably weren't recorded in central archives.

    Once can include artificial famines also, of course. you are correct that these were worse in India. I was Eurocentric in my comment.

    “…In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for “counterrevolutionary crimes”) in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people… during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980,

    Snyder:

    “In all, 682,691 people were killed during the Great Terror, to which might be added a few hundred thousand more Soviet citizens shot in smaller actions.”

    The number 642 980 are a result of researches of historian Victor Zemskov. They are rougly confirmed by other historians (including А.Roginskiy from “Memorial”). The personal opinion of Snyder does not matter.
    But if even to take opinion of Snyder for truth, it is impossible to count “millions” of killed by Stalin

    I personally know of people … whose murders probably weren’t recorded in central archives.

    It maybe so. However considerable part of “political” convict were the real criminals, and can not be considered the “victims of terror”. For this, general estimation of number of victims of repressions will not change

    Read More
  165. Even if numbers of raped German women were true and I am sure it is just a hoax , after what Germany did to my country they clearly got away easy. Regarding Poland and Baltic states, they are playing with fire and so does every country including Germany that participating in bear batting along Russian borders. They clearly did not learn previous lessons.

    Read More
  166. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JL
    I noticed a Bershidsky column claiming that recently revealed Soviet archives show WW2 casualties to be 42 million, not the generally accepted 27 million. Leaving aside the ideological nonsense not worthy of discussion, any comments on the validity of this claim?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-10/a-message-to-putin-from-42-million-dead

    I noticed a Bershidsky column claiming that recently revealed Soviet archives show WW2 casualties to be 42 million, not the generally accepted 27 million. Leaving aside the ideological nonsense not worthy of discussion, any comments on the validity of this claim?

    It is an absolute nonsense

    Read More
  167. Take the ‘Direct genocide, like the gassings of Jews’ out of the equation and you will find out that the only genocide was perpetrated against the Russians beginning with 1914 (when there were no Nazis and Hitler was just a private) onward. The real figures are ‘debatable’ only because decent people cannot really comprehend the magnitude of the evil (to which they associated themselves by commission or omission) unleashed upon the petty sinners Russians were in their ‘barbarity’.

    Read More
  168. @AP

    I’m interested in the method of accounting. Whose deaths are we are talking about here? Do, for example, German soldiers during WW2 go into the Hitler column, or the Stalin column?
     
    Snyder's numbers seem rather realistic:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/

    All in all, the Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million.

    both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries

    Are you speaking of absolute numbers, or percentages of populations?
     
    Absolute numbers. The Irish potato famine with 1 million victims killed about 20% or so of the Irish population. In contrast, the 3-4 million famine victims in Ukraine were "only" about 10% of that Republic's population, and the 3+ million victims in Russia those years was a smaller percentage.* The million or so who were shot were a smaller % still.

    *Though about a million people died in the Kuban region of southern Russia - I don't have time to look up that region's total population in 1932 but if it was smaller than Ireland's than that region might have been worse in relative numbers, too.

    Absolute numbers. The Irish potato famine with 1 million victims killed about 20% or so of the Irish population. In contrast, the 3-4 million famine victims in Ukraine were “only” about 10% of that Republic’s population, and the 3+ million victims in Russia those years was a smaller percentage.* The million or so who were shot were a smaller % still.

    In 1932 in Ukraine 782 000 were born and 668 000 died, in 1933 – 359 000 were born and 1309 000 died (data from Центральное управление народохозяйственного учета Госплана СССР). 1309 000 – 668 000 = 641 000?

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    1309 000 – 668 000 = 641 000?
     
    Clarification: a natural death rate for years that preceded famine 1932-1933 in Ucraine - 524 000 persons. In 1932 in Ukraine 668 000 died, in 1933 – 1309 000 died

    Then number of victims of famine in Ucraine roghly
    (1309 000 – 524 000)+( 668 000 – 524 000) = 831 000
    , @AP
    So now you know more than demographers and historians? You've figured it out.

    You do realize that many births and deaths were not registered, which is why actual scholars give ranges in the 3-4 million. This reminds me of your claim of under 700,000 executed (because no execution went unregistered in central archives, right?)

    Here's a decent source, one of very many:

    http://www.melgrosh.unimelb.edu.au/documents/SGW-UkranianFamine_mortality.pdf

    Some relevant bits:

    "There is however a problem with the current registration data on deaths regarding
    their reliability and completeness. We know from a comparison of the survival rates
    from the 1926 to the 1939 or 1937 censuses, that a much higher proportion of the
    population died (or disappeared) between these censuses, than is indicated by the
    mortality registrations, and there has been considerable discussion about this level of
    unregistered mortality. "

    Summary:

    "The registration data indicate that Ukraine experienced a massive famine in 1931-3
    that accounted for a minimum of 1.8 million excess deaths and population loss
    (including birth losses) of 2.7 million. Depending upon the estimations made
    concerning unregistered mortality and natality, these figures could be increased to a
    level of 2.8 million to a maximum of 4.8 million excess deaths and to 3.7 million to a
    maximum of 6.7 million population losses (including birth losses).
    These figures
    would indicate that this was the largest recorded famine loss of its time, only to be
    exceeded by the famine of the Great Leap Forward in China, 1958-61."

    Deaths within the Ukrainian SSR were uneven. Cities, populated with a lot of Russians and Jews, were fed and their denizens didn't starve. The countryside where the ethnic Ukrainians lived was hit especially hard (although Russians and Jews living in the countryside were just as likely to die as were their Ukrainian neighbors).
  169. Still, the reason we have war is because we’ve developed ‘rules’ for war. If everything was ‘on the table’ we’d have a lot fewer people contemplate it at all.

    Read More
  170. @Anon 2
    First of all, the Polish don't hate Russia. They, along
    with the people in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lthuania,
    and Ukraine, distrust Russia, and can you blame them?
    Russia, because of its size, has been a destabilizing factor
    in European politics for at least 300 years, always meddling
    in other nations' politics (and failing, France being the latest
    example). Basically, the sense in Poland is that nothing good
    comes from the East - the Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Turks,
    and then the Russians (although the fact that the Russians
    were ruled by Germans like Catherine the Great is a mitigating
    circumstance). The Katyn massacre during WW II in which
    20,000 of the Polish intelligentsia (university graduates,
    professors, lawyers, doctors, incl. film director Andrzej Wajda's
    father) were executed by the Soviets is the latest example.
    The hate seems to come more from the Russian nationalists on
    this forum like Karlin himself who never misses a chance to
    make a nasty comment about Poland (or Ukraine or the Balts).

    None of this is necessary. The Russians should recognize that the Polish
    and the Russians are blood relatives, and the fact that Russia is finally
    ruled by Russians is a good omen. Many famous Russians have Polish
    ancestry. Need I mention Glinka, Malevich (Malewicz), Tsiolkovski
    (Ciołkowski), Stravinsky (Strawiński) who in the 1920s visited Warsaw
    several times seeking Polish citizenship and actually spoke some Polish,
    the mathematician Lobachevsky (Łobaczewski), ballet dancer Nijinsky
    (Niżyński), Shostakovich (Szostakowicz), etc. Conversely, names ending
    in -ow, -ew, and -in are quite common in Poland. More than 10,000
    Russians live in Poland, they love it there, and more are coming due to
    the labor shortage.

    Russians meddled in French elections? Are you sure? Have you checked the names and nationalities of the people who were the major meddlers? A hint – they were not from Russian Federation.
    Also, on a point of Russia being a “destabilizing factor in European politics for at least 300 years,” could you enlighten us where Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania belong to some 200 hundred years ago and how independent these countries were? Also, how come that the alleged “meddler” had been involved in pushing out France, Britain, Poland, Germany from her own Russian territory? For a starter, you could read Leo Tolstoy’ “The Sebastopol Sketches.” And if you intend, like some passionate Israel-firster, to defend the above powers’ aggressive interventions and meddling into Russian affairs (remember The Congress of Vienna, 1815?) by bringing in realpolitiks and other “historically convincing” factors, then what was the point of your post?

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    The last time Russia was pushing out Poles from Russian territory was in XVII century.

    IN 1919-1921 war Russia was (arguably) an agressor and Polish forces never reached Russian territory. Unless, of course, you count Kiev as Russian.

  171. @Anatoly Karlin
    The only people who still take "Suvorov" seriously are (1) people who haven't read anything about the Eastern Front outside Internet forums and (2) Nazis.

    As someone whose website is a Holocaust "debate" forum I suppose you fit the bill perfectly.

    “Suvorov” is taken seriously by many that do not fall into your slick categories. I’ll grant that your type does not like “Suvorov” and I can quite understand why.

    Read More
  172. @annamaria
    Russians meddled in French elections? Are you sure? Have you checked the names and nationalities of the people who were the major meddlers? A hint - they were not from Russian Federation.
    Also, on a point of Russia being a "destabilizing factor in European politics for at least 300 years," could you enlighten us where Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania belong to some 200 hundred years ago and how independent these countries were? Also, how come that the alleged "meddler" had been involved in pushing out France, Britain, Poland, Germany from her own Russian territory? For a starter, you could read Leo Tolstoy' "The Sebastopol Sketches." And if you intend, like some passionate Israel-firster, to defend the above powers' aggressive interventions and meddling into Russian affairs (remember The Congress of Vienna, 1815?) by bringing in realpolitiks and other "historically convincing" factors, then what was the point of your post?

    The last time Russia was pushing out Poles from Russian territory was in XVII century.

    IN 1919-1921 war Russia was (arguably) an agressor and Polish forces never reached Russian territory. Unless, of course, you count Kiev as Russian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Unless, of course, you count Kiev as Russian.

    You just had to open that back up, didn't you?
  173. @szopen
    The last time Russia was pushing out Poles from Russian territory was in XVII century.

    IN 1919-1921 war Russia was (arguably) an agressor and Polish forces never reached Russian territory. Unless, of course, you count Kiev as Russian.

    Unless, of course, you count Kiev as Russian.

    You just had to open that back up, didn’t you?

    Read More
  174. @German_reader
    I don't read their books, they're mostly popular trash anyway (Max Hastings however is also quite anti-German and seems to regard WW1 imperial Germany as pretty much on the same level as Nazi Germany, if I understand correctly).
    Anyway, at the risk of becoming persona non grata here, it seems undisputable to me that Red army soldiers did commit a substantial number of rapes in 1944/45 (exact numbers of course will never be known; in any case it seems clear though that this wasn't some sort of official policy ordered from above, and it eventually did die down when disciplinary measures were taken. Probably it also wasn't surprising, given the nature of the war in the East which had of course been started by Germany). Most people today care very little about that though, even in Germany (I certainly don't care much). Alt-right Nazis are hardly representative.

    Kindly read the book entitled Icebreaker, which explains the why if the invasion of the Soviet Union. The reasons given make the German invasion much, MUCH, more compelling than the USA invasions of various countries over the last 100 odd years or so. HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008
    Hitler knew quite well that Stalin would attack Germany
  175. @melanf

    Absolute numbers. The Irish potato famine with 1 million victims killed about 20% or so of the Irish population. In contrast, the 3-4 million famine victims in Ukraine were “only” about 10% of that Republic’s population, and the 3+ million victims in Russia those years was a smaller percentage.* The million or so who were shot were a smaller % still.

     

    In 1932 in Ukraine 782 000 were born and 668 000 died, in 1933 - 359 000 were born and 1309 000 died (data from Центральное управление народохозяйственного учета Госплана СССР). 1309 000 - 668 000 = 641 000?

    1309 000 – 668 000 = 641 000?

    Clarification: a natural death rate for years that preceded famine 1932-1933 in Ucraine – 524 000 persons. In 1932 in Ukraine 668 000 died, in 1933 – 1309 000 died

    Then number of victims of famine in Ucraine roghly
    (1309 000 – 524 000)+( 668 000 – 524 000) = 831 000

    Read More
  176. @Stupid Ivan

    "for the most part, ..., and deranged Poles and Balts who don’t quite realize what Hitler had in store for them – the Soviet rape of about 2 million women in Eastern Germany at the end of the war is supposed to be a really huge, defining war crime, even something that delegitimizes the overall Soviet victory."
     
    LOL ROTFL

    A. Karlin is straw-manning as usual.

    In my whole over 40 year life as Pole in Poland, I have never met a Pole who cared even a bit about Russians raping German women at the end of the war .
    (They cared about Russians raping polish women, and yes raping is eastern way of combating).

    Those deranged Poles are anti Russian and equalize Bolshevik Russians with Nazi Germans because the Russians were even worse then Germans.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD

    It is estimated that Polish losses in the Ukrainian SSR were about 30%, while in the Belorussian SSR... the Polish minority was almost completely annihilated

    So you do not need parallel dimension to see 30-90% genocide of a nation - 100% civilians.
    It was done by Russians and the victims were Poles.

    In 1939 allies from hell, Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia attacked Poland.
    And Russians at once started another Polish operation to ethnically clear Russia of all Poles.
    As did Germans, although significantly slower and milder (probably because the Germans were fighting on too many fronts.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939%E2%80%931946)

    Genocide of Poles in Russia was stopped by German invasion.

    After Russian victory Stalin decided to relocate Poles to occupied Poland instead of killing them. But it was done because Russians became afraid of American might and were afraid such a genocide would have force Americans to invade Russia.

    Germans killed more Poles during World War II, but Russians killed more Poles by percentage.

    Poles know what future Russians and Germans had for Poles:
    Total Annihilation.
    Germans were more successful by numbers.
    Russians were more successful by percentage.

    Furthermore Germans apologized and regret (even if not sincerely).
    And Russians are proud of killing Polish and glorify war criminals equal or surpassing to Nazis.

    That is the reason Poles are anti Russian. And not some bogus rape issue.

    You are correct. My Polish friends who lived in Poland during the war described the Germans as being very polite, asking them to stay indoors until the troops moved through their area.
    Of course, there was little sympathy for the jewish Bolshevik communist commissars who ruled over them. Quite often, they were “outed” to the Germans. All Polish people (gentiles) HATED the jewish Bolsheviks who ruled over them and had no problem in informing the Germans where they were at. Life under German occupation was preferable to life under jewish Bolshevik communism. Of course, that all changed when Roosevelt gave Poland to the communists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    The problem wasn't individual German soldiers, who were often decent, but the German administration which did kill millions of Poles.
  177. @Anonymous

    Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated,
     
    Well, if Wikipedia says so, then it must be true, eh?

    It’s based on sources.

    Read More
  178. @melanf

    Absolute numbers. The Irish potato famine with 1 million victims killed about 20% or so of the Irish population. In contrast, the 3-4 million famine victims in Ukraine were “only” about 10% of that Republic’s population, and the 3+ million victims in Russia those years was a smaller percentage.* The million or so who were shot were a smaller % still.

     

    In 1932 in Ukraine 782 000 were born and 668 000 died, in 1933 - 359 000 were born and 1309 000 died (data from Центральное управление народохозяйственного учета Госплана СССР). 1309 000 - 668 000 = 641 000?

    So now you know more than demographers and historians? You’ve figured it out.

    You do realize that many births and deaths were not registered, which is why actual scholars give ranges in the 3-4 million. This reminds me of your claim of under 700,000 executed (because no execution went unregistered in central archives, right?)

    Here’s a decent source, one of very many:

    http://www.melgrosh.unimelb.edu.au/documents/SGW-UkranianFamine_mortality.pdf

    Some relevant bits:

    “There is however a problem with the current registration data on deaths regarding
    their reliability and completeness. We know from a comparison of the survival rates
    from the 1926 to the 1939 or 1937 censuses, that a much higher proportion of the
    population died (or disappeared) between these censuses, than is indicated by the
    mortality registrations, and there has been considerable discussion about this level of
    unregistered mortality. ”

    Summary:

    “The registration data indicate that Ukraine experienced a massive famine in 1931-3
    that accounted for a minimum of 1.8 million excess deaths and population loss
    (including birth losses) of 2.7 million. Depending upon the estimations made
    concerning unregistered mortality and natality, these figures could be increased to a
    level of 2.8 million to a maximum of 4.8 million excess deaths and to 3.7 million to a
    maximum of 6.7 million population losses (including birth losses).
    These figures
    would indicate that this was the largest recorded famine loss of its time, only to be
    exceeded by the famine of the Great Leap Forward in China, 1958-61.”

    Deaths within the Ukrainian SSR were uneven. Cities, populated with a lot of Russians and Jews, were fed and their denizens didn’t starve. The countryside where the ethnic Ukrainians lived was hit especially hard (although Russians and Jews living in the countryside were just as likely to die as were their Ukrainian neighbors).

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor, Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @melanf

    Here’s a decent source, one of very many:
    http://www.melgrosh.unimelb.edu.au/documents/SGW-UkranianFamine_mortality.pdf
     
    That is, the author tries to use demographic interpolation to prove covert (unfixed in documents) deaths of millions of people.
    This approach offers great opportunities to expose covert repression during the demographic transition.
    In the future, probably political passions calmed, and it will be possible to find out who is right in the number of victims of hunger .
    At this moment, the more likely that Western historians exaggerated the number of victims of famine for political purposes (as they definitely made with the number of victims of Stalin's terror) and the number of registered deaths gives a correct assessment.
  179. @anarchyst
    You are correct. My Polish friends who lived in Poland during the war described the Germans as being very polite, asking them to stay indoors until the troops moved through their area.
    Of course, there was little sympathy for the jewish Bolshevik communist commissars who ruled over them. Quite often, they were "outed" to the Germans. All Polish people (gentiles) HATED the jewish Bolsheviks who ruled over them and had no problem in informing the Germans where they were at. Life under German occupation was preferable to life under jewish Bolshevik communism. Of course, that all changed when Roosevelt gave Poland to the communists.

    The problem wasn’t individual German soldiers, who were often decent, but the German administration which did kill millions of Poles.

    Read More
    • Agree: szopen
    • Replies: @szopen
    To be honest, there is discrepancy between stories of my relatives living in western Poland and eastern Poland. Those in the west considered Germans to be evil incarnated and were genuinely thankful for the Soviet "liberation" in 1944/45. In contrast, my grandmother from the east, who lived through the Soviet occupation 1939/41 said Germans were brutal, but one knew what to do to minimize the chances of being killed. In contrast, with Soviets in 1939/41, she said people were clueless, because arrests seem to be completely random and not dependent on people's behavior at all.

    Once again, the stories told from people in the western Poland were quite different; also, there is a thing that relatives from the west lived in the cities, while my grandmother from the east lived in a countryside.

    , @L.K
    Pure propaganda.
  180. @Daniel H
    >>Anatoly Karlin said:

    “It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.”

    No it’s not, and you have no proof.<<

    How about "Hitler's Table Talk" for evidence. From the mouth of the devil himself. The document is considered an authentic account of Hitler's after dinner musings. He lays out quite specifically what his intentions for the east - all the way to the Volga - were. As per the document, Hitler intended to do precisely what Karlin says he was going to do. And, if anything, Hitler was a man of his word.

    http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/HTableTalk.pdf

    How about “Hitler’s Table Talk” for evidence. From the mouth of the devil himself. The document is considered an authentic account of Hitler’s after dinner musings. He lays out quite specifically what his intentions for the east – all the way to the Volga – were. As per the document, Hitler intended to do precisely what Karlin says he was going to do. And, if anything, Hitler was a man of his word.

    The conversations were mostly transcribed in the evenings between July 1941 and November 1944 (the greater part to September 1942) at his two Eastern headquarters, Rastenburg (Wolfschanze) in East Prussia and later at Winnitza (Werwolf) in the Ukraine, while the invasion of Russia was in progress.

    His future “Eastern Empire” was the central topic and there’s no doubt what part the Slavs would play in it.

    (25) “I see there (Russia) the greatest possibilities for the creation of an empire of worldwide importance.” – “The country we are engaged in conquering will be a source of raw materials for us, and a market for our products, but we shall take good care not to industrialize it.” (53) “To exploit the Ukraine properly – that new Indian Empire – I need only peace in the West.”

    (20) “We’ll supply the Ukrainians with scarves, glass beads and everything that colonial peoples like. The Germans – this is essential – will have to constitute among themselves a closed society, like a fortress. The least of our stable-lads must be superior to any native.” (11) “We’ll take the Southern part of the Ukraine, especially the Crimea, and make it an exclusively German colony. There’ll be no harm in pushing out the population that’s there now. The German colonist must be the soldier-peasant and for that I’ll take professional soldiers, whatever their line may have been previously.”

    (17) “The German colonist ought to live on handsome, spacious farms. The German services will be lodged in marvelous buildings, the governors in palaces. Beneath the shelter of the administrative services, we shall gradually organize all that is indispensable to the maintenance of a certain standard of living. All around the city to a depth of thirty to forty kilometers we shall have a belt of handsome villages connected by the best roads. What exists beyond that will be another world, in which we mean to let the Russians live as they like. It is merely necessary that we should rule them.”

    (1) “In the eyes of the Russian, the principle support of civilisation is vodka. His ideal consists of never doing anything except the indispensable.”

    (281) “As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pigstys; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilising him, goes straight off into a concentration camp!”

    His plan to demolish Moscow and St Petersburg:

    (617) “The foundation of St. Petersburg by Peter the Great was a fatal event in the history of Europe; and St. Petersburg must therefore disappear utterly from the earth’s surface. Moscow too. Then the Russians will retire to Siberia.”

    Later in the text he admits that the invasion is having more problems than anticipated:

    (162) “Sunday will be the 1st March (1942). Boys, you can’t imagine what that means to me – how much the last three months have worn out my strength, tested my nervous resistance. I can tell you that during the first two weeks of December, we lost a thousand tanks and had two thousand locomotives out of operation.” …. “Now that January and February are past, our enemies can give up the hope of our suffering the fate of Napoleon.”

    (300) “For us things are much more simple, for in most cases we have no choice. In the East if I don’t attack, the Russians will gain the initiative. We have constantly faced the danger of being annihilated.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Table Talk is considered to be a complete fabrication.
    , @Skeptikal
    The Zionists must have been listening in. Or maybe the Hitler got his ideas from the Zionists.
  181. As usual, Anatoly is making many good points.

    I have also read that the US military had an organised rape fest in Germany. That interests me because they were the only participants who had suffered almost nothing in the war in Europe (and only service people in the Pacific and Asia), and had exemplary treatment when captive by the Germans.

    Don’t know if there is a scholarly treatise on it, but there should be, and it is mentioned anecdotally by many US and other writers (e.g. le Carre).

    Norman Mailer as one who mentions it, in the course of the centre of his novel An American Dream where his protagonist (clearly based on himself) rapes a German woman, maid, in Noo Yawk, just for being German.

    Other mentions are many.

    I have a book by the British CO of a PoW camp in the SE of England near the end of the war, it is clear that the Geneva Convention violations were out of order and out of control, but the author just thinks ‘jolly good show, old chap.’

    Am knowing that German treatment of USSR prisoners was atrocious, but the first time I encountered a tale of it, in Jersey Kozinski’s Painted Bird, I am later to find that his book is all a fabrication.

    Not to say that I think the depiction of the terrible mistreatment of USSR PoWs is far from the truth, but the fact that the novel (he was claiming it to be all based on fact) was mainly a lie opened my eyes a little.

    As the final point, I will mentioning that the continuation of chattel slavery under Macarthur was devised by our bureaucracy, which largely remained in place. The reason was to maintain a supply of whores from the undercastes to cater to the US forces. Wouldn’t want a nice girl to be involved.

    Our Showa Emperor was a war crim., Macarthur really was the white Shogun, stylish figure, but the US occupation did and does nothing good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    I have also read that the US military had an organised rape fest in Germany
     
    I'm sure it happened Che, but for the most part, the German girls were starving, and would offer up their services for some food to keep their families from starving to death- if the occupying enemies were from the West.

    It was a nice way for the dog-face GIs to get some of that German poontang. Something that they otherwise would never have gotten close to in a million years.

    But the German girls would have rather died than have a grunting Red Army Bolshevik Mongol orc on top of them. And that I suspect is the underlying theme/motivation of this whole disgusting defense of the notorious sub-human Red Army rapists.

    as someone once said, most men go though life in quiet desperation. They pine for things they can never achieve because of their crushing, hopeless mediocrity. They l0ng for girls who would not give them the time of day, and especially Nordic or German types, who're often blond and beautiful, something from their dreams. But they always get repudiated and scorned, because most men, and especially the betas and omega men out there, (who are legion) simply don't tweak that hamster, and so they live in bitter frustration and sullen rancor. Eventually hating the world and the object of their scorn; the beautiful (especially blond) girl who rebuffs their 'charms' every time.

    and it is these frustrated beta and omega men (incels ; ) who become apologists for rape and rapists. They understand you see. They sympathize with the motivation to impose though raw physical strength and violence what these haughty women refuse them. It's always viscerally disgusting to me to see it laid out and barefaced in all its drooling, boorish envy, but it is what it is.

    , @jilles dykstra
    With Pentagon knowledge McArthur and associates were bribed by the president of the Philippines for enormous sums.

    John Toland, 'Gods of War', New York 1985
  182. Ha, I forget one thing, the US army was to suppnrting indepence for the Ryukyuu kingdom (Okinawa), which would have been just, it never had direct fealty to feudal Japan. Parts had been invaded.

    So, those US army officers were very wise and informed, even if they failed.

    Okinawans I meet always are to separatimg themselves by speech amd reference, from main islands of Japan. They almost elected a governor to support those goals (her policies truly miraculous and to be cheap), but the base of voters who are having holiday houses there is now too big, I would suspecting that it was also an outright cheat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's useless nowadays for such a small entities like Okinawa to be independent, it would be a toy country. They would be like Scotland in ways it has so much time being together with (and living off from) Japan that independence would value nothing for them at any means. Besides, there's always the chinese looming on.
  183. @AP
    The problem wasn't individual German soldiers, who were often decent, but the German administration which did kill millions of Poles.

    To be honest, there is discrepancy between stories of my relatives living in western Poland and eastern Poland. Those in the west considered Germans to be evil incarnated and were genuinely thankful for the Soviet “liberation” in 1944/45. In contrast, my grandmother from the east, who lived through the Soviet occupation 1939/41 said Germans were brutal, but one knew what to do to minimize the chances of being killed. In contrast, with Soviets in 1939/41, she said people were clueless, because arrests seem to be completely random and not dependent on people’s behavior at all.

    Once again, the stories told from people in the western Poland were quite different; also, there is a thing that relatives from the west lived in the cities, while my grandmother from the east lived in a countryside.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    My wife's (blonde, blue-eyed) Polish mother spent her early childhood in western Ukraine/eastern Poland during the German occupation, before her family were deported to Russia. One of her few memories were of a German soldier who kept giving her candy; according to her parents, he had been homesick and she reminded him of his own daughter.
  184. @animalogic
    Excellent point, re war crimes.
    I might add that in the immediate post war period it has been speculated* that the US/UK accidentally deliberately killed some hundreds of thousands of German POW's by starvation/exposure.
    * can't recall title of the book.

    Probably that:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses

    It’s a “controversial” book and probably not be taken seriously (though the Rheinwiesen pow camps seem to have been quite unpleasant).
    Personally one issue I’d be really interested in, is the crimes committed by French colonial troops in Italy and south-western Germany. But that really seems to be a taboo issue nowadays.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    What do you mean, occupation troops after WWI, during the occupation of the Ruhr area in 1924 or so, or the occupation after WWII ?
    , @colm
    Not to mention what the black "American" troops did, like the dad of Emmet Till (whose execution was notable enough to be noted by Ezra Pound who was in the same military prison).
    , @anonymous
    Can't speak to the accuracy of the book-for or against-as I have never read it. I can say though that a number of years ago I was watching a documentary on the war in the Pacific Theater. An ex-GI was interviewed. During the interview he recounted how, on occasion, they would capture Jap soldiers who decided not to commit suicide. Somewhat laconically, he said that when his unit had too many prisoners "We'd shoot 'em." I recall bolting out of my seat and exclaiming "Jeezus, how did the censors let this one (the interview) slip through the cracks?"

    We shot Jap prisoners and I have no doubt we shot German prisoners.

    "War is hell", said WT Sherman (who reduced Georgia to a burnt cinder).
  185. November 21st, 2015 Fascists Running America Endorse Nazism

    America didn’t eliminate the scourge of fascism in WW II. It shifted its headquarters from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington.

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/11/21/fascists-running-america-endorse-nazism#more40892

    May 8, 2017 We Are at the Mercy of a Corporate Ruling Class

    On June 4, 2003, Moyers gave a speech at the “Take Back America” conference. In it, Moyers defined what he considered Karl Rove’s influence on George W. Bush’s administration. Moyers asserted that, from his reading of Rove, the mid-to-late 19th century was to Rove a “cherished period of American history.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    What bullshit. Remnant forms of fascism remain in places, I am very grateful for the great education (seriously) that I was granted by the Singaporean form.
  186. @Che Guava
    As usual, Anatoly is making many good points.

    I have also read that the US military had an organised rape fest in Germany. That interests me because they were the only participants who had suffered almost nothing in the war in Europe (and only service people in the Pacific and Asia), and had exemplary treatment when captive by the Germans.

    Don't know if there is a scholarly treatise on it, but there should be, and it is mentioned anecdotally by many US and other writers (e.g. le Carre).

    Norman Mailer as one who mentions it, in the course of the centre of his novel An American Dream where his protagonist (clearly based on himself) rapes a German woman, maid, in Noo Yawk, just for being German.

    Other mentions are many.

    I have a book by the British CO of a PoW camp in the SE of England near the end of the war, it is clear that the Geneva Convention violations were out of order and out of control, but the author just thinks 'jolly good show, old chap.'

    Am knowing that German treatment of USSR prisoners was atrocious, but the first time I encountered a tale of it, in Jersey Kozinski's Painted Bird, I am later to find that his book is all a fabrication.

    Not to say that I think the depiction of the terrible mistreatment of USSR PoWs is far from the truth, but the fact that the novel (he was claiming it to be all based on fact) was mainly a lie opened my eyes a little.

    As the final point, I will mentioning that the continuation of chattel slavery under Macarthur was devised by our bureaucracy, which largely remained in place. The reason was to maintain a supply of whores from the undercastes to cater to the US forces. Wouldn't want a nice girl to be involved.

    Our Showa Emperor was a war crim., Macarthur really was the white Shogun, stylish figure, but the US occupation did and does nothing good.

    I have also read that the US military had an organised rape fest in Germany

    I’m sure it happened Che, but for the most part, the German girls were starving, and would offer up their services for some food to keep their families from starving to death- if the occupying enemies were from the West.

    It was a nice way for the dog-face GIs to get some of that German poontang. Something that they otherwise would never have gotten close to in a million years.

    But the German girls would have rather died than have a grunting Red Army Bolshevik Mongol orc on top of them. And that I suspect is the underlying theme/motivation of this whole disgusting defense of the notorious sub-human Red Army rapists.

    as someone once said, most men go though life in quiet desperation. They pine for things they can never achieve because of their crushing, hopeless mediocrity. They l0ng for girls who would not give them the time of day, and especially Nordic or German types, who’re often blond and beautiful, something from their dreams. But they always get repudiated and scorned, because most men, and especially the betas and omega men out there, (who are legion) simply don’t tweak that hamster, and so they live in bitter frustration and sullen rancor. Eventually hating the world and the object of their scorn; the beautiful (especially blond) girl who rebuffs their ‘charms’ every time.

    and it is these frustrated beta and omega men (incels ; ) who become apologists for rape and rapists. They understand you see. They sympathize with the motivation to impose though raw physical strength and violence what these haughty women refuse them. It’s always viscerally disgusting to me to see it laid out and barefaced in all its drooling, boorish envy, but it is what it is.

    Read More
    • Disagree: German_reader
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Rurik,

    Thanks. I must sleep soon.

    I think the quote is closer to

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.

    from memory, I always try to post from that or experience. Have no recall of who is supposed to have said it, maybe TS Eliot? 

    Thx for am interesting rebuttal, the land of nod is calling to me now.
    , @jilles dykstra
    " But the German girls would have rather died than have a grunting Red Army Bolshevik Mongol orc on top of them. "
    If this had been the case then German hospitals would not have been forced to stop treating rape victims.
    , @colm
    And a lot of the rapists eager to jump on German girls were - guess who - blacks.
  187. I am having a third comment. Anyone who has seen it will be touched by the early photo of Solzhenitsyn as a Zek.

    The anger and frustation, they are touching one’s heart from the frame.

    He was an earlier USSR PoW.
    The British later were so compliant, that they sent all capured USRR soidiers back. It is obvious that almost none of those were to find the relative tropical paradise described by Solzhenitzin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    A joke ?
    Nicholas Bethel, ´Das letzte Geheimnis, Die Auslieferung russischer Fluchtlinge an die Sovjets durch die Allierten 1944-47’, 1975 Frankfurt am Main, ( The last secret. Forcible repatriation to Russia 1944-7, London, 1974)
    Those that had fought on the German side against Stalin, to a certain death.
    , @anonymous
    I recall reading elsewhere that the numbers of "repatriated" Russians was in the hundreds of thousands (200K?). More like a "dreckische kleine geheimnis" ("dirty little secret")--little known to the American public to this day.
  188. @szopen
    To be honest, there is discrepancy between stories of my relatives living in western Poland and eastern Poland. Those in the west considered Germans to be evil incarnated and were genuinely thankful for the Soviet "liberation" in 1944/45. In contrast, my grandmother from the east, who lived through the Soviet occupation 1939/41 said Germans were brutal, but one knew what to do to minimize the chances of being killed. In contrast, with Soviets in 1939/41, she said people were clueless, because arrests seem to be completely random and not dependent on people's behavior at all.

    Once again, the stories told from people in the western Poland were quite different; also, there is a thing that relatives from the west lived in the cities, while my grandmother from the east lived in a countryside.

    My wife’s (blonde, blue-eyed) Polish mother spent her early childhood in western Ukraine/eastern Poland during the German occupation, before her family were deported to Russia. One of her few memories were of a German soldier who kept giving her candy; according to her parents, he had been homesick and she reminded him of his own daughter.

    Read More
  189. @Agent76
    November 21st, 2015 Fascists Running America Endorse Nazism

    America didn’t eliminate the scourge of fascism in WW II. It shifted its headquarters from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington.

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/11/21/fascists-running-america-endorse-nazism#more40892

    May 8, 2017 We Are at the Mercy of a Corporate Ruling Class

    On June 4, 2003, Moyers gave a speech at the "Take Back America" conference. In it, Moyers defined what he considered Karl Rove's influence on George W. Bush's administration. Moyers asserted that, from his reading of Rove, the mid-to-late 19th century was to Rove a "cherished period of American history."

    https://youtu.be/pCL5EQQet74

    What bullshit. Remnant forms of fascism remain in places, I am very grateful for the great education (seriously) that I was granted by the Singaporean form.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    Your capabilities in word smithing say more about you than you realize. Here is some history going way back when the idea came state side.

    Jul 29, 2013 The Origins of the American Public Education System Horace Mann & the Prussian Model of Obedience

    In the 1830's, American Lawmaker Horace Mann visited Prussia and researched its education methodology. He was infatuated with the emperor's method of eliminating free thought from his subjects and designed an education system for Massachusetts directly based on these concepts. The movement then quickly spread nationally.

    https://youtu.be/HZp7eVJNJuw
  190. ” It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest. ”

    Alas not to me.
    Pity no source is given.

    As to the number of German civilians killed by stupid RAF and later USAF bombing, the most stupid Dresden, the number two million is well known.

    Zyklon B for killing humans, ineffective, as any expert knows.
    Even killing lice took one and a half hour.

    Brothels, yes, they are described in diaries of German soldiers.

    German POW’s in Russian hands, did they exist ?
    Germans fighting on the east fron knew quite well that if they fell into Russian hands they would be killed, often after torture.

    Rudel, for example, did anything not to fall into Russian hands, after he had landed behind Russian lines, to help another crew, who had crash landed, could not start, wheels sunk into mud.
    The fact that he ran this risk does show, I think, how Germans trusted Russians to follow Geneva Convention, writing this I wonder if the USSR had ever signed these conventions.

    As to Russian POW in German hands, yes, many persished.
    In the beginning of the war they in large numbers fell into German hands, the resources for giving them food and shelter so far away from Germany simply did not exist.

    In any case, as far as I know, Germany never followed USA practice with Japanese: ‘my boys do not take prisoners’.
    Okinawa, 7.000 Americans killed, 100.000 Japanese soldiers, and 40.000 Japanese civilians.

    Hans-Ulrich Rudel, ´Mein Kriegstagebuch, Aufzeichnungen eines Stukafliegers’, 1983, 2006 Dresden

    Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970

    On how Russian officers treated Russian soldiers:
    V.L. Kondratjev, ‘De schande van Rzjev’, 1997 Amsterdam (Iskupit krovju, Znamka, december 1991)
    The translation of schande is ‘shame’.

    Mark R. Peattie, ‘Nan’yõ, The Rise and Fall of the Japanese in Micronesia, 1885 – 1945’, Honolulu, 1988, 1992
    USA genocide on civilians.

    Flame throwers used galore on Japanese:
    John Toland, ‘Gods of War’, New York 1985

    Then there was Russian propagandist Elja Ehrenburg, who wrote in leaftlets
    Tötet, tötet, tötet, kill, kill, kill.
    And kill they did
    Cajus Bekker, ‘Flucht übers Meer, Ostsee Deutsches Schicksal 1945′, 1964, 1999, Augsburg

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    As to the number of German civilians killed by stupid RAF and later USAF bombing, the most stupid Dresden, the number two million is well known.
     
    No, the current best estimates for the number of people killed by Allied bombing in Germany are somewhere between 300 000 and 400 000 (have forgotten the exact numbers, it's explained in detail in Richard Overy's excellent "The bombing war: Europe 1939-1945"). The bombing of Dresden probably killed about 25 000-30 000.
    , @szopen
    As usual with your kind, you think that it's fine if Germans bomb the civilians in Poland, USSR, Serbia, but it's a damn crime if those subhumans dare to do the same to Germans?
    , @Thea
    It's well known that the USSR didn't sign the Geneva Convention. It was used as to legitimize ill treatment in the Russenlagers such as refusing to allow the Red Cross to give Russian POWs care packages with food.

    American POWs housed nearby reported the difference in conditions and sometimes tried to throw food over the fence.

    I'll accept that the Germans had many more Soviet POWs than they knew what to do with at first. And food was hard to come by at times. But there were clearly some circumstances in which Russian POWs were denied basic needs unnecessarily.

    The book "the taste of war" Collinghan details these issues and argues Hitler invaded the Soviet Union to alleviate and prevent food shortages above all other reasons. Not sure how correct that is but food supply was a big problem. Most Soviet troops had forage for their meals because the Red Army could not always provide their rations.
  191. @Intelligent Dasein

    Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest opponents.
     
    Everybody who mentions this seems to be conflating Russia with the Soviet Union, especially that fat Baby Boomer sack of shit, Rush Limbaugh.

    Liberals were traditionally sympathetic to the Soviet Union because it was Communist and because liberals always reflexively ally with their own country's enemies as part of their metapolitical modus operandi. Liberals are completely opposed to post-Soviet, nationalist Russia because it is the lone superpower standing athwart the advance of globalism. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

    The whole fictitious "Russia hacked the election" meme is not just about delegitimizing the Trump presidency. These globalists actually want a pretext for going to war with Russia, so from their perspective they are killing to birds with one stone.

    Rush Limbaugh is a stupid sack of shit.

    “These globalists actually want a pretext for going to war with Russia, so from their perspective they are killing to birds with one stone.”

    Why would the globalists who get rich from the masses risk nuclear war, have hundreds of millions of people die or be wounded, and place the entire human species at risk from nuclear fallout?

    Seriously, just stop.

    Read More
  192. @Rurik

    I have also read that the US military had an organised rape fest in Germany
     
    I'm sure it happened Che, but for the most part, the German girls were starving, and would offer up their services for some food to keep their families from starving to death- if the occupying enemies were from the West.

    It was a nice way for the dog-face GIs to get some of that German poontang. Something that they otherwise would never have gotten close to in a million years.

    But the German girls would have rather died than have a grunting Red Army Bolshevik Mongol orc on top of them. And that I suspect is the underlying theme/motivation of this whole disgusting defense of the notorious sub-human Red Army rapists.

    as someone once said, most men go though life in quiet desperation. They pine for things they can never achieve because of their crushing, hopeless mediocrity. They l0ng for girls who would not give them the time of day, and especially Nordic or German types, who're often blond and beautiful, something from their dreams. But they always get repudiated and scorned, because most men, and especially the betas and omega men out there, (who are legion) simply don't tweak that hamster, and so they live in bitter frustration and sullen rancor. Eventually hating the world and the object of their scorn; the beautiful (especially blond) girl who rebuffs their 'charms' every time.

    and it is these frustrated beta and omega men (incels ; ) who become apologists for rape and rapists. They understand you see. They sympathize with the motivation to impose though raw physical strength and violence what these haughty women refuse them. It's always viscerally disgusting to me to see it laid out and barefaced in all its drooling, boorish envy, but it is what it is.

    Rurik,

    Thanks. I must sleep soon.

    I think the quote is closer to

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.

    from memory, I always try to post from that or experience. Have no recall of who is supposed to have said it, maybe TS Eliot? 

    Thx for am interesting rebuttal, the land of nod is calling to me now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation"

    Famous quote from Walden by the New England essayist
    Henry David Thoreau
  193. @jilles dykstra
    " It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest. "

    Alas not to me.
    Pity no source is given.

    As to the number of German civilians killed by stupid RAF and later USAF bombing, the most stupid Dresden, the number two million is well known.

    Zyklon B for killing humans, ineffective, as any expert knows.
    Even killing lice took one and a half hour.

    Brothels, yes, they are described in diaries of German soldiers.

    German POW's in Russian hands, did they exist ?
    Germans fighting on the east fron knew quite well that if they fell into Russian hands they would be killed, often after torture.

    Rudel, for example, did anything not to fall into Russian hands, after he had landed behind Russian lines, to help another crew, who had crash landed, could not start, wheels sunk into mud.
    The fact that he ran this risk does show, I think, how Germans trusted Russians to follow Geneva Convention, writing this I wonder if the USSR had ever signed these conventions.

    As to Russian POW in German hands, yes, many persished.
    In the beginning of the war they in large numbers fell into German hands, the resources for giving them food and shelter so far away from Germany simply did not exist.

    In any case, as far as I know, Germany never followed USA practice with Japanese: 'my boys do not take prisoners'.
    Okinawa, 7.000 Americans killed, 100.000 Japanese soldiers, and 40.000 Japanese civilians.

    Hans-Ulrich Rudel, ´Mein Kriegstagebuch, Aufzeichnungen eines Stukafliegers’, 1983, 2006 Dresden

    Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970

    On how Russian officers treated Russian soldiers:
    V.L. Kondratjev, ‘De schande van Rzjev’, 1997 Amsterdam (Iskupit krovju, Znamka, december 1991)
    The translation of schande is 'shame'.

    Mark R. Peattie, ‘Nan’yõ, The Rise and Fall of the Japanese in Micronesia, 1885 – 1945’, Honolulu, 1988, 1992
    USA genocide on civilians.

    Flame throwers used galore on Japanese:
    John Toland, 'Gods of War', New York 1985

    Then there was Russian propagandist Elja Ehrenburg, who wrote in leaftlets
    Tötet, tötet, tötet, kill, kill, kill.
    And kill they did
    Cajus Bekker, 'Flucht übers Meer, Ostsee Deutsches Schicksal 1945', 1964, 1999, Augsburg

    As to the number of German civilians killed by stupid RAF and later USAF bombing, the most stupid Dresden, the number two million is well known.

    No, the current best estimates for the number of people killed by Allied bombing in Germany are somewhere between 300 000 and 400 000 (have forgotten the exact numbers, it’s explained in detail in Richard Overy’s excellent “The bombing war: Europe 1939-1945″). The bombing of Dresden probably killed about 25 000-30 000.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Indeed, numbers are going down all the time.
    I can recommend reading
    Victor Klemperer, ‘I will bear witness, A diary of the Nazi years, 1942-1945’, New York 1999
    This jew was never deported, wusste nicht, and describes, as he and his wife survived, the Dresden bombing.
    Heinz Leiwig, ´Deutschland Stunde Null, Historische Luftaufnahmen 1945’, Stuttgart 2005
    1945 air photographs of a devastated country.
    Or
    Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970
    Just after the capitulation het travelled though most of Germany, you can also find there the rape stories, by USA soldiers too, how hospitals got so many cases that they refused to treat rape victims, and how German POW's were left to die in Eisenhower's camps.
  194. @Anatoly Karlin
    The only people who still take "Suvorov" seriously are (1) people who haven't read anything about the Eastern Front outside Internet forums and (2) Nazis.

    As someone whose website is a Holocaust "debate" forum I suppose you fit the bill perfectly.

    IOW, all you have is childish name calling.

    We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    Let’s get down to business, show us the excavated huge mass graves that are alleged.

    Tell us how the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers supposedly worked.

    Why do the aerial photos of Auschwitz from the period NOT show what is alleged they should be showing?

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:
    The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history.
    Congressional Record, appendix, v.95, sec.14, 6/15/49

    - “All but two of the Germans [on trial at Nuremberg], in the 139 cases that we investigated, had their testicles kicked in beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators:” 23.1.49, The Sunday Pictorial (quoted in For Those Who Cannot Speak (ref. 27), p.21.The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months..The investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. American judge, van Roden

    The ‘holocaust’ narrative doesn’t hold up to scrutiny so the usual enemies of free speech call for more censorship of the internet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Actually I did already discuss on unz.com and elsewhere, I have quoted links showing new mass graves found here and there after WW2, this grave holding 100 bodies, this 200 bodies... I have shown the photos of the mass graves near the concentration camps, testimonies etc. Nothing changed even a slight bit in the denier's narrative. So I guess I won't discuss with you, because I know from experience that you most likely don't care about the evidence.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16657363

    , @jilles dykstra
    Indeed, when one, after reading
    Christopher R. Browning, ‘Ordinary Men, Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland’, 1992, 2001, London
    finds out how the confessions, on which the whole story is based, were obtained, one does hardly believe one sentence in the book..
    The same for the confession of the Auschwitz commander about the gas chambers he 'do it yourself' built.
    Next to the professional crematoria.
  195. What a comical load of garbage this is. Everything that happened to Russians during World War 2 was deserved. When Russians chose Communism, they declared war against the human race. It was right and good at the time to kill every single communist and communist sympathizer in Eurasia. And that is still the right policy today. Communists have no right to exist and they should all be rounded up and lawfully and humanely euthanized. \o

    Read More
    • Agree: Hippopotamusdrome
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Russians did not "choose" communism. It was imposed on them by outside forces--the Jewish Bolsheviks, who were ruthless in their imposition of communism on the masses and the abolishing of religion and private property rights (except for themselves)...
    , @jilles dykstra
    Are escaped lunatics allowed to write here ?
    , @Eustace Tilley (not)
    It says an awful lot for Ron Unz and his moderators that your comment was allowed to be made public. It's certainly "hate speech", which I feel (as Unz obviously does) should be Constitutionally protected. You have the right to your opinion.

    I don't quite know where to start with a critique; I am actually rather shocked by your words. Every single sentence is either factually false or morally repugnant. I especially jumped at this one: "When Russians chose Communism, they declared war against the human race." There have been historical questions raised as to whether the "Russians chose Communism"; many think, rather, that the "October Revolution" is better described as a coup d'etat carried out by a minority with the help of certain outside forces. (Please note that I have not placed dog-whistle diacritical marks around either "a minority" or "outside forces"; the Germans would certainly be among the latter.)

  196. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Che Guava
    Ha, I forget one thing, the US army was to suppnrting indepence for the Ryukyuu kingdom (Okinawa), which would have been just, it never had direct fealty to feudal Japan. Parts had been invaded.

    So, those US army officers were very wise and informed, even if they failed.

    Okinawans I meet always are to separatimg themselves by speech amd reference, from main islands of Japan. They almost elected a governor to support those goals (her policies truly miraculous and to be cheap), but the base of voters who are having holiday houses there is now too big, I would suspecting that it was also an outright cheat.

    It’s useless nowadays for such a small entities like Okinawa to be independent, it would be a toy country. They would be like Scotland in ways it has so much time being together with (and living off from) Japan that independence would value nothing for them at any means. Besides, there’s always the chinese looming on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    It's idiots like you who drive the EU Superstate Agenda.
  197. @Daniel H
    >>Anatoly Karlin said:

    “It’s now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.”

    No it’s not, and you have no proof.<<

    How about "Hitler's Table Talk" for evidence. From the mouth of the devil himself. The document is considered an authentic account of Hitler's after dinner musings. He lays out quite specifically what his intentions for the east - all the way to the Volga - were. As per the document, Hitler intended to do precisely what Karlin says he was going to do. And, if anything, Hitler was a man of his word.

    http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/HTableTalk.pdf

    So where’s the quotes that say Hitler intended to kill “75% of the Soviet population”.

    I’m waiting.

    Read More
  198. @Lex
    Germans were already running trials in 1942 like Aktion Zamość.

    I suppose you mean German actions against illegal, non-uniforned combatants, aka: terrorists.

    Non-uniformed combatants were illegal under international law, executions of such occurred by the Allies and Axis powers.

    Is that all you have?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Stalin dropped communist agents by parachute behind the German lines, to indoctrinate Russians and organise resistance.
    , @Anon
    You will need to square that with hundreds of civilians in former Soviet republics who said the Nazis shot babies and the elderly, some of whom couldn't even walk to trenches to be shot because they were so old. Those are "terrorists"?
    , @Lex
    What I mean is 100 thousand people expelled from eastern Poland to make room for German colonists. Even Hitler knew when war was lost. And yet you still fight it 72 years after capitulation.
  199. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    As much as reports and numbers appear, it becomes even more clear nobody in WWII is a saint. The germans were brutal in many ways their advances towards the east against slavs. If they would treat POWs and citizens favorably, they would do so only because there would be some benefit behind these actions.

    The same for the soviet careless and incompetent strategies and also the counterattack towards germans and german sympathisers, be them former or not. They were also brutal and commited lots of crimes.

    Poland was also a dodgy, but small player in all that. Even if they were one of the most offended victims by both parties during the war, they also carry some deaths and war crimes during and after, also promoting some “polish heroes” that commited crimes against germans and slavs.

    Japan wanted to mow dow Asia to have it under their command, China being the main victim. But then, chinese soldiers would also cause atrocities not only to japanese, but to their own nationals by pillaging villages and blaming the japanese for that.

    America and Great Britain also have their fare share of direct and indirect attrocities in war regions. And the list goes on and on for all countries directly involved in fighting.

    WWII was just hell, the most violent war and with the most deaths ever. You can find skeletons in everybody’s closets. And the funny thing is how people, anti-semite or not, complains about the constant reminding of Holocaust and all the hypocritical ad nauseum apologetic strategy to earn respect, but are keen to totally victimize their own countries and buy all negative propaganda towards germans, russians, anyone who has preyed on someone related, expecting their own share of reparations instead of seeking a common ground where bygones are bygones, looking at each other crimes and trying to find a way to forge a relationship that refrains from pitting one against the other in the future.

    Read More
  200. @Parsifal
    The UK was on meat and sugar rations until well into the 1950s.

    It’s a shame they didn’t stay on them permanently. A study (I read about this decades ago, so interested readers will have to do their own research here) has shown that during WWII, while Denmark was under meat rationing, the health of the population actually went up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    There hardly was any rationing in Denmark, Von Ribbentrop is said to have daily sent a plane there for food.
    , @MarkinPNW
    I remember reading claims that the overall mortality of the British people in WW1 and WW2 was actually much lower than peacetime in spite of combat deaths, due to better health from meat and sugar rationing.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Eustace Tilley (not):

    There is some evidence that cardiovascular problems decreased in Holland with the population's near-starvation diets in World War II. But the supporting epidemiological evidence is somewhat uncertain.
  201. @Che Guava
    What bullshit. Remnant forms of fascism remain in places, I am very grateful for the great education (seriously) that I was granted by the Singaporean form.

    Your capabilities in word smithing say more about you than you realize. Here is some history going way back when the idea came state side.

    Jul 29, 2013 The Origins of the American Public Education System Horace Mann & the Prussian Model of Obedience

    In the 1830′s, American Lawmaker Horace Mann visited Prussia and researched its education methodology. He was infatuated with the emperor’s method of eliminating free thought from his subjects and designed an education system for Massachusetts directly based on these concepts. The movement then quickly spread nationally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The emperor failded, Bismarck hated opposition and criticism

    Emil Ludwig, 'Bismarck, Geschichte eines Kämpfers', Berlin 1927
    , @SolontoCroesus
    The narrator in this video demonstrates what he decries: a failure of critical thinking.

    He links some of his favorite, mindlessly inculcated memes --
    "Prussian education teaches slavish obedience;
    Fichte taught German supremacist;
    Fichte said that "Jews are a state within a state . . ."
    then uses them to bash Prussia/Germany and, by extension, the US education system, as teaching its children on the "neo-Nazi" model.

    But the narrator fails to critically analyze his own assertions: to cite one brief example and one lengthy critique:
    -->a brief example:
    Germany achieved a high-water mark in industrial development and progress, such that US higher education emulated it -- What was going on at the great universities in France, Britain and Italy at the time? Did they achieve similar advances in prosperity and distributed literacy? Would it have been wiser to emulate the Italian model rather than the Prussian model?
    [answer: Perhaps YES:the Italian Montessori developed a superior model for childhood education]

    --> a more lengthy critique might pose the question: Why were there so many Jews in Germany?
    Jacob Raisin offers an answer in "The Haskalah Movement:" Jews flocked to Germany to enroll in the superior German and Austrian universities.
    As Israel Shahak explains in his landmark work, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years," until the time of emancipation, Jews lived out their lives under the oppressive rules of their rabbis, strictures that forbade secular education for males and limited all education for females. Rabbis/ Jewish community leaders exercised life-and-death control over the minutia of Jewish life.

    In his lectures, Rabbi Henry Abramson states that in the opening years of the 20th century,only 30% of East Euro