PDA

View Full Version : What side treated the POW's the best way?!



GH_Klingstroem
03-15-2006, 07:07 AM
Well, what do you think?! Did the allies treat german POWs better than the other way around?!

JG52Uther
03-15-2006, 07:10 AM
I imagine it all depends on what nationality you were.Geneva convention and all that.

_VR_ScorpionWorm
03-15-2006, 07:14 AM
All depends in the Eye of the Beholder.

Watching a documentary on USA POW camps, seems we treated our POW better. However, stalags that were to hold downed airmen were to be better then stalags that held infantry, by Goring's orders.

Still, there are many countries that held POWs, allies and axis.

Doug_Thompson
03-15-2006, 07:16 AM
The country that had the most resources to spare, which would be the United States.

I had a friend who could remember Italian POWs singing opera choruses while picking cotton in East Arkansas.

JG52Uther
03-15-2006, 07:27 AM
I would ask the mods to keep a very close eye on this thread,as it could get very messy very quickly.
All sides did very bad things in the war,'rules' or no 'rules'.

Waldo.Pepper
03-15-2006, 08:22 AM
Canada: an ENORMOUS number of Germans who were POW's settled here after the war. And we let them.

FlatSpinMan
03-15-2006, 08:35 AM
My money is on the US and Canada just based on stories I have come across while reading WW2 stuff.
In NZ some Japanese prisoners tried to escape or rioted over conditions or something and a large number were gunned down by the guards. It's called the "Featherstone Massacre" so i guess that disqualifies us.

tigertalon
03-15-2006, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Well, what do you think?! Did the allies treat german POWs better than the other way around?!

Nobody mentioned ideology behind it. War in Russia was WAY more bloody than the one on west. Hitler didn't really hate or humiliate western nations, while he did eastern ones. On western front soldiers didn't hate eachother the way they did in the East. That's why the treatment of POWs should be kept in such regard.

Germans, however, forced russian POWs (they had plenty of them) to enter wermacht and operate flak guns etc etc. Some of them even changed their minds and really started to fight for Germany out of their will, they were called something like "Vlasov-guys" in english, as they were being led by a former soviet general Vlasov, who was captured by germany, and they started to fight for Hitler. After the war, stalin got him hanged.

Many times when plane was damaged or unarmed, on western front pilots refused to attack it, instead they saluted to eachother and went away, something like this was unimaginable on the east.

DoubleTap2005A
03-15-2006, 09:12 AM
Depends on what you mean by 'side'.

If you mean Axis versus Allied, then the MUCH better treatment of POW's by the US and Britain (don't even bother arguing about it, okay?) would be greatly affected in the balance by how the Russians treated the Germans. Then again, considering how the Germany and Japan treated POWs, setting the tone early, it would swing back to the Allies.

I'll admit the Germans treated Brits and Yanks much better than Russians, but that doesn't really make the Russians feel better, does it?

If you separate the sides also by fronts into East and West (The US and UK in the Pacific being 'West' for this argument), then its not arguable which two major combatants treated the best, but it is an argument to see who ends up with the title of the worst.

panther3485
03-15-2006, 09:16 AM
I think sometimes it didn't just depend on who you were captured by, but who you WERE.

F'rinstance, Western Allied troops who were captured by the Germans were, AFAIK, usually treated 'correctly' (yes, I know there were some exceptions on both sides).

But if you were a Soviet soldier, your chances of survival (never mind fair treatment) were much less. For their part, I believe, the Soviets treated German POW's pretty badly too. Does it not seem that it was almost like two different wars in the same war? One standard for the West, a very different one for the East?
What do you guys think?


Best regards,
panther3485

Treetop64
03-15-2006, 09:19 AM
IBTL - as long as it stays clean!

It's interesting to note that the Japanese treated their POWs so well during WWI that many of those POWs decided to stay with the Japanese after the war. Unfortunate that things turned around the way they did for the second war...

R_Target
03-15-2006, 09:26 AM
The Germans and the Western Allies treated each other's prisomers fairly well, mostly in hopes of having the good treatment reciprocated by the other side. I think the Eastern Front is a seperate case, with brutality on both sides.

DoubleTap2005A
03-15-2006, 09:28 AM
But if you were a Soviet soldier, your chances of survival (never mind fair treatment) were much less. For their part, I believe, the Soviets treated German POW's pretty badly too. Does it not seem that it was almost like two different wars in the same war? One standard for the West, a very different one for the East?
What do you guys think?


Best regards,
panther3485

I think someone already touched ont this, but you are absolutely correct. I would put it that the war in the east, for more than one reason, was a Total War in the truest sense, a war of annihilation. Both sides viewed the fight as one to the death, not only of the soldiers, but of ideologies which were considered themselves polar opposites, even despite some of the glaring simularities.

I think the war between the US and Japan had a similar tone to it. Besides the military and political aspect, there was one of clashing cultures and racial attitudes. Both sides tended to view each other as inhuman.

Contrast that with the view of many Americans who considered the Germans very much like themselves in many aspects. It was only when the Germans kept fighting when it was obvious the war was lost and the discovery of the death camps that the attitude changed.

jimDG
03-15-2006, 09:29 AM
Switzerland and Sweden

Chuck_Older
03-15-2006, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by jimDG:
Switzerland and Sweden

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I forget...which side did Switzerland and Sweden fight for in WWII?

darkhorizon11
03-15-2006, 09:46 AM
The Russians were very compassionate towards the Germans, be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Slickun
03-15-2006, 10:23 AM
Read a book recently about the biggest POW breakout in the USA in WW2. Very interesting.

One point I thought was interesting was that the Germans felt the US soldiers that guarded them were terrible POW guards. Not that they were too mean or something like that, but they were too nice and trusting. The Germans felt that was a cultural thing, and not necessarily a negative one.

RAF_WhiteEagle
03-15-2006, 10:33 AM
S!

Lats place:
Soviet
Japan
German
others

Pirschjaeger
03-15-2006, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Canada: an ENORMOUS number of Germans who were POW's settled here after the war. And we let them.

All the surviving crew of the Bismarck. I believe the one´s that are left all live in Ontario.

Back to the original question, if you consider the allies as one, then the Germans were better. If you take Russia out of the allies, then the allies were better.

The Soviets were the reason the German in the east would not surrender. ´The Germans surrendered my easier in the west.

Remember, more than 100,000 Germans were captured at Stalingrad. In 1956 the Russians realeased the remaining survivors who amounted to less than 5% of the total captured at Staligrad.

With this question, you must seperate the allies. If you include Russia as an ally in this question then you do a great injustice to the rest of the allied nations.

Pirschjaeger
03-15-2006, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by FlatSpinMan:
My money is on the US and Canada just based on stories I have come across while reading WW2 stuff.

I heard a lot of positive stories about the French and English too. But if the English fed their POWs English food, then I guess the English were as bad or worse than the Russians. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DoubleTap2005A
03-15-2006, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Read a book recently about the biggest POW breakout in the USA in WW2. Very interesting.


What was the name of the book? Sounds interesting, but...where the hell did they go? WHere did they THINK they were going?

DoubleTap2005A
03-15-2006, 10:55 AM
I heard a lot of positive stories about the French and English too. But if the English fed their POWs English food, then I guess the English were as bad or worse than the Russians. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Now THAT is funny!

(With all due apologies to my British friends...)

Pirschjaeger
03-15-2006, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Read a book recently about the biggest POW breakout in the USA in WW2. Very interesting.


Sounds interesting, but...where the hell did they go? WHere did they THINK they were going? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They went to Canada. We call them "French". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

StG2_Schlachter
03-15-2006, 11:23 AM
That's our Pirschy...


btw @you sig:

It is Mensch(Human) and not Mench.

Pirschjaeger
03-15-2006, 11:40 AM
Vielen Dank! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Capt.England
03-15-2006, 11:43 AM
One of my Grandad's was a P.O.W. of the Germans from 1940 to 1945. Captured in Norway in 1940, he was forced to march a hell of a long way in not too good condictions. Because of this, his legs were scared for life. He never had the chance to escape, as he was one of the clever chaps who could make radios in the camps out of anything. Lucky for him, he was never caught doing this as if so, he would of been shot as a spy! A couple of times he ended up in the cooler because Jerry found his radio's but did not have the prove to shoot him. I wish that I asked him more about his war time life, but of course time ran out to find out more. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

One day, a German guard offered to let him escape, but he turned it down as the said guard
was known to be a Nazi pig, and most likly of shot him in the back.

BTW, sorry if there's spellings mistakes in this post, as I've just upgraded to Firefox and need a new online spellchecker.

F19_Olli72
03-15-2006, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
Switzerland and Sweden

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I forget...which side did Switzerland and Sweden fight for in WWII? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

None and everyone. Sweden protected its airspace like most countries. We imprisoned everyone who was forced down or force landed here, germans, americans, british and russians. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Most of the crews were sent back to their respective countries after a while, except the germans...those we sent to Russia.

fordfan25
03-15-2006, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Canada: an ENORMOUS number of Germans who were POW's settled here after the war. And we let them. becomeing canadien.....you sick b*****'s. WAR CRIME"S!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

fordfan25
03-15-2006, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
Switzerland and Sweden

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I forget...which side did Switzerland and Sweden fight for in WWII? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

None and everyone. Sweden protected its airspace like most countries. We imprisoned everyone who was forced down or force landed here, germans, americans, british and russians. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Most of the crews were sent back to their respective countries after a while, except the germans...those we sent to Russia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> but you were not in the war right? why send the germans to russia?

masaker2005
03-15-2006, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
Switzerland and Sweden

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I forget...which side did Switzerland and Sweden fight for in WWII? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

None and everyone. Sweden protected its airspace like most countries. We imprisoned everyone who was forced down or force landed here, germans, americans, british and russians. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Most of the crews were sent back to their respective countries after a while, except the germans...those we sent to Russia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> but you were not in the war right? why send the germans to russia? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because Germans lost the war.

jimDG
03-15-2006, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:



None and everyone. Sweden protected its airspace like most countries. We imprisoned everyone who was forced down or force landed here, germans, americans, british and russians. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



There was a nice article on that, a few years ago in the Aeroplane mag.
Mosquitoes and Condors used to make regular trips to Sweden during the war, both in civilian markings. Mosquitoes - to pick/buy ball bearings and smuggle people out (Niels Borh reached the UK via Sweden, in a Mossie bomb bay)
(I dont know what the Condors were there for, the article didn't say)
The pilots actually sat in the same mess hall at the airport between flights. On one occasion (or so the article claims) the Germans picked a fight to create a diversion and secretly swap the Brits coffee thermos bottle with one that contains a time bomb, the Luftwaffe being quite inefective in intercepting the inbound and outbound mosquitoes.

joeap
03-15-2006, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
All the surviving crew of the Bismarck. I believe the one´s that are left all live in Ontario.

Back to the original question, if you consider the allies as one, then the Germans were better. If you take Russia out of the allies, then the allies were better.

The Soviets were the reason the German in the east would not surrender. ´The Germans surrendered my easier in the west.

Remember, more than 100,000 Germans were captured at Stalingrad. In 1956 the Russians realeased the remaining survivors who amounted to less than 5% of the total captured at Staligrad.

With this question, you must seperate the allies. If you include Russia as an ally in this question then you do a great injustice to the rest of the allied nations.

I sort of disagree, I doubt Russians initially captured by the Germsn were treated any better than Germans captued by the Russians. One other point is that Russians treated eveyone pretty poorly including their own prisoners. Read a good book called "Russia at War" by Alexander Werth which shows how Russians viewed Italians and Romanians captured at Stalingrad with more pity then the Germans. I also have a Serb friend whose father was in a German forced labour camp and he said they and other Slavs were treated much worse than Western European prisoners. The latter in fact often tried to help the Soviet/Eastern European prisoners any way they could.

Fianl story, my father (Greek born in Egypt) wroked on the Suez canal one summer to salvage sunken ships after the 1956 war before emigrating to Canada (he was trained as an engineer and naval arctitect). He had an Italian friend who was an Italian navy frogman (the guys who for example, damaged the HMS Valiant and Queen Elisabeth in harbour) and thus an elite soldier. He was captured and became an American POW. When he saw the kit he got in the prison camp, he told my father he knew Italy had lost the war. He had more luxury and better food and supplies as a POW than as a member of an elite unit! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

MLudner
03-15-2006, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FlatSpinMan:
My money is on the US and Canada just based on stories I have come across while reading WW2 stuff.

I heard a lot of positive stories about the French and English too. But if the English fed their POWs English food, then I guess the English were as bad or worse than the Russians. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? You don't like fish and chips?

bienenbaer
03-15-2006, 02:18 PM
According to what I heard from my grandfathers generation, the german hot-list is:

1. PoW with the British. Decent manners, constant supply of food. It was generally ascribed to the colonial experience of the British empire.

2. PoW with the American. Not too bad treatment, but somwhat moody and with logistical blunders.

3. Heimatschuss. Means wounded and released from the Wehrmacht.

Of course this post is blatantly inappropriate considering the war in the east, where the 3rd Reich was bound on killing prisoners by slave labour. Given that, Russian treatment of German PoW could perhaps been worse. I would even ascribe the mortality of Stalingrad PoW to the bad conditions of Germans at surrender and believe it got better afterwards.

Kocur_
03-15-2006, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:

Germans, however, forced russian POWs (they had plenty of them) to enter wermacht and operate flak guns etc etc. Some of them even changed their minds and really started to fight for Germany out of their will, they were called something like "Vlasov-guys" in english, as they were being led by a former soviet general Vlasov, who was captured by germany, and they started to fight for Hitler. After the war, stalin got him hanged.


To my knowledge soviet POWs were not forced to become, like truck drivers, ammo carriers, cooks etc for Wehrmacht - by other means than having choice between being fed or most probably not - in POWs camp... Not to mention many of those guys had not much of reason to be loyal to Soviet Union to say the least... They were called Hiwis, short for Hilfswilliger - "willing to help". Later in war armed formations were formed too, as part of gen. Vlasov's ROA, which was result of efforts by col. Stauffenberg - THAT Stauffenberg. All in all like million of soviet POWs served one way or another for German military.

Hunderts of thousands of soviet POWs died by starvation in POWs camps, which were often just a square of field within barbed wire fence. Also many were killed in gas chambers, in fact they were among victims of first "full scale tests" (cant find any better wording http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif) of gas chambers.

Slickun
03-15-2006, 02:57 PM
All the German escapees were caught, one went to Canada and was at large for awhile.

I'll try to remember the name of the book.

Chuck_Older
03-15-2006, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
Switzerland and Sweden

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I forget...which side did Switzerland and Sweden fight for in WWII? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

None and everyone. Sweden protected its airspace like most countries. We imprisoned everyone who was forced down or force landed here, germans, americans, british and russians. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Most of the crews were sent back to their respective countries after a while, except the germans...those we sent to Russia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif But you were not a declared belligerent, correct? You declared war on no-one, you protected your neutrality. Something of a difference, I should think

Chuck_Older
03-15-2006, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
Switzerland and Sweden

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I forget...which side did Switzerland and Sweden fight for in WWII? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

None and everyone. Sweden protected its airspace like most countries. We imprisoned everyone who was forced down or force landed here, germans, americans, british and russians. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Most of the crews were sent back to their respective countries after a while, except the germans...those we sent to Russia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> but you were not in the war right? why send the germans to russia? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Geography might have made this a wise, wise decision.

Slickun
03-15-2006, 03:16 PM
http://www.nonfoods.com/text/papago/

Is a nice link to the story.

The book is "The Faustball Tunnel" by Moore.

I think it means volleyball tunnel, as it was dug from a volleyball court.

ForkTailedDevil
03-15-2006, 03:24 PM
I think it is interesting pointing out the Japanese. In WW1 they wanted to be considered a modern and civilized nation and treated POW's very well and they treated Russian POW's from the Russo-Japanese war very well. But in WW2 a lot of things changed mainly that if you surrendered you were worthless etc. etc. So they felt that POW's were the lowest of the low.

Chuck_Older
03-15-2006, 03:26 PM
Well that was because of the way the military basically took over the Japanese Diet (not what they ate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ) and installed a bastardised version of bushido as a cultural norm

iroseland
03-15-2006, 03:26 PM
When I was in Highschool I heard a story about the POW camp here in Milwaukee ( By the Airport ) Apparently it was holding Germans, and Milwaukee is a Mostly German City, in fact until WWI you could easly get by here just speaking German. So apparently some German POW's escaped. They were found not far away at a wedding reception drunk on beer and Poka'ing with the locals. Except for one glaring exception I would guess that the POW experince in the US was not that bad.

BSS_AIJO

Chuck_Older
03-15-2006, 03:35 PM
that's funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Perrazi
03-15-2006, 03:38 PM
my uncle was captured at Kassine Pass and was held for the remainder of the war in stalag13,yes the same one of Hogan's Heroes,but it wasn't anything like that. he never had anything good to say for the germans for the rest of his life,which was probably shortened because of his imprisonment there. neither the german military or the german people.

IIJG69_Kartofe
03-15-2006, 04:22 PM
POW (http://home.arcor.de/kriegsgefangene/index.html)

JG52Uther
03-15-2006, 04:28 PM
Google 'Rhine camps 1945'

Call_me_Kanno
03-15-2006, 07:07 PM
My mother remembers German POW's working on her farm in Kentucky when she was a kid. They brought thier own lunches but my grandmother always made them a home cooked lunch and she said they were always polite and thanked her. Just one eye witness example.

cptgse
03-15-2006, 09:28 PM
A good book on America's treatment of German PW's is "Stalag U.S.A." by Gansberg (sp?) I did an oral review of it in college. Covers the general treatment of said EPWs and explores the "de-nazification" policy pursued during the war. (Weren't really supposed to do that.)

Chuck Older is right on the corrupted Bushido thing. Some of the post-war interviews picked up the attitude that the Japanese treated the Russian PWs humanely so that Japan would get the rep of a "civilized" nation. The same people implied that once that was obtained, then all bets were off. Strange concept to me. However, that seems to have been part of the thought process.

Cptgse

Rickustyit
03-16-2006, 02:09 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Are we really crazy? How come someone even dare to say that the Germans were probably among the best POW keepers? OMG... They sent thousands of Russians to die builing V1 and V2 bunkers, fired and shot hundreds of prisoners for strange reasons etc etc. And many of them are forgotten by many of us. They are just numbers, nothing more.

Probably the best were the Americans. As for the Italians: some Generals here even considered to put prisoner British officers in a castle so to be better suited to their rank! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Really shocking... Obviously, that plan didn't get through.

Cheers, Rick


http://www.vvs-regia-avions.com/Regia/MC205-001.jpg

Matz0r
03-16-2006, 02:15 AM
Finland probably, I've read stories about them sharing sauna and a bottle of vodka with their russian POWs. To huge relief for the russian prisoners who had been given a complete opposite picture of the Finns by NKVD.

jurinko
03-16-2006, 02:25 AM
by tigertalon:
Germans, however, forced russian POWs (they had plenty of them) to enter wermacht and operate flak guns etc etc.

What a nonsense. Soviet citizens/POWs serving as auxilliary non-combat units in Wehrmacht were called Hiwis (Hilfswillige) - but never "manned flak guns" - where did you read this??

Feathered_IV
03-16-2006, 02:55 AM
If I recall correctly, Italian POW's in Australia were treated rather well. Officers in work farms in Queensland were even able to roam about on a sort of honour system.

slipBall
03-16-2006, 04:20 AM
On the allies side the Russian's were brutal to the German's. Most of the captured, never to be seen again.
On the axis side the Jap's were the same way toward's any non Japanese, but the survival rate was alot higher compared to the Russian's treatment of German's

Bearcat99
03-16-2006, 04:47 AM
That is a no brainer.. German POWS in The US got a pint of beer a day.. or was it two.... at least the officers did.. That alone puts it all into perspective.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gifI dont know about the enlisted men.. I think they did too... Not to mention3 squares, arts and crafts.. etc. In fact they got treated im many ways better than some of the African American soldiers who were fighting against them.

Pirschjaeger
03-16-2006, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by iroseland:
When I was in Highschool I heard a story about the POW camp here in Milwaukee ( By the Airport ) Apparently it was holding Germans, and Milwaukee is a Mostly German City, in fact until WWI you could easly get by here just speaking German. So apparently some German POW's escaped. They were found not far away at a wedding reception drunk on beer and Poka'ing with the locals. Except for one glaring exception I would guess that the POW experince in the US was not that bad.

BSS_AIJO

Fences will never contain a German! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

You need to strategically place beer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

jarink
03-16-2006, 11:34 AM
At the tail end of his book "Foes by chance, Friends by Choice", Pete Mullinax lists some exerpts of letters POWs received at Stalag Luft I (he was a prisoner ther from 43-45). Several are quite amusing (I'll post more tonight from home so I can directly quote the book).

Paraphrasing, a POW gets a letter from his wife asking that he allow a German POW to use his golf clubs at a course where he is a member. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif He refuses and later has his membership revoked for his 'ungentelmanly' refusal!

The truth is often stranger than fiction...

Max.Power
03-16-2006, 12:00 PM
The US and Canada weren't saints either. Both of those countries gathered up private citizens of Japanese decent and forced them to live in camps. While these people were living in these camps, the governments stole their private property and sold it. Life in the camps was terrible, and they were treated as subhumans.

Does this sound familiar to any of you?

I don't think anyone is free of human rights violations when it comes to world war 2.

Chuck_Older
03-16-2006, 01:06 PM
Absolutely right, Max.

However, when you discuss the internment camps that US citizens of Japanese descent were forced into, don't view that with your 21st Century sensibilities

The attack on Pearl harbor was not a lucky blow. The Japanese knew almost every detail, and it was presumed (and correctly) that spies had been photographing the military installations at and around Pearl for years

I am not excusing FDR's USA for interning the Japanese Americans. But I am saying that there was a percentage of 'private citizens' who were in effect acting as spies- even if it was by sending home to Japan an innocuous postcard of Pearl Harbor.

Another point to consider is that at least an attempt was made to protect these people from their vindictive countrymen, as reprisals were feared

It is a very unfortunate thing that property was taken irrevocably from these people. But then again, it is not as if the Nisei were alone in this. The US government has been very unfair to almost every group that lives here- just like every other government on Earth has been. Ask a Crow Indian about their property sometime.

In the case of Pearl Harbor- it was a harsh act to detain the Nisei in camps. It was considered prudent at the time. Looking back on it in hindsight and declaring it a travesty...I can't argue with that. But I can argue that during that time, it was considered the wisest thing to do concerning the issue

F19_Olli72
03-16-2006, 01:38 PM
Well you can read in the Civil liberties act why they did it:

CIVIL LIBERTIES ACT OF 1988

Enacted by the United States Congress
August 10, 1988

€œThe Congress recognizes that, as described in the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, a grave injustice was done to both citizens and permanent residents of Japanese ancestry by the evacuation, relocation, and internment of civilians during World War II.

As the Commission documents, these actions were carried out without adequate security reasons and without any acts of espionage or sabotage documented by the Commission, and were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.

The excluded individuals of Japanese ancestry suffered enormous damages, both material and intangible, and there were incalculable losses in education and job training, all of which resulted in significant human suffering for which appropriate compensation has not been made.

For these fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of these individuals of Japanese ancestry, the Congress apologizes on behalf of the Nation.€
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the findings of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC), the purposes of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 with respect to persons of Japanese ancestry included the following:

1) To acknowledge the fundamental injustice of the evacuation, relocation and internment of citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during World War II;

2) To apologize on behalf of the people of the United States for the evacuation, internment, and relocations of such citizens and permanent residing aliens;

3) To provide for a public education fund to finance efforts to inform the public about the internment so as to prevent the recurrence of any similar event;

4) To make restitution to those individuals of Japanese ancestry who were interned;

5) To make more credible and sincere any declaration of concern by the United States over violations of human rights committed by other nations.

El Turo
03-16-2006, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Well that was because of the way the military basically took over the Japanese Diet (not what they ate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ) and installed a bastardised version of bushido as a cultural norm

Speaking of "diet" .. I'd have to say the Japanese win the title of worst offender for WWII with their wholesale slaughter of captured peoples, establishment of rape-camps, and their propensity for, well.. cannibalism. Boil'em, mash'em, stick'em in a stew.. and all that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Capt.England
03-16-2006, 01:57 PM
A lot of the Italian P.O.W's who were kept in Leicester in the war decided to stay here after it was over. a lot of the post war chip shops in Leicester were owned by them, so my Grandma told me. One of them became friends with my Grandad who fought in the desert and Italian campaigns (NOT the one who was captured, BTW!) after the war due to my Grandad having help liberate the chaps village, back in his homeland.

Grue_
03-16-2006, 03:08 PM
Interesting chapel I saw once - built by Italian POW's.

http://www.kenrowe.net/Scotland/ItalianChapel.htm

R_Target
03-16-2006, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Google 'Rhine camps 1945'

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/bacque-james/ambrose-001.html

AlGroover
03-16-2006, 05:39 PM
My mother remembers German POWs working on farms in Warwickshire and the difficulty in getting a seat in the cinema on a Saturday night. Don't know what they made of British wartime movies though.

jarink
03-16-2006, 08:37 PM
As promised, here ia another letter. In addendum to the previous one, the POW in question was Canadian and his wife was wanting to loan his clubs to a German Colonel POW.

Another poor guy received a letter from his girlfriend who was a student at Michigan State (German POWs were allowed under certain cirumstances to attend there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif ):
"I met the cutest German POW here at a school dance the other night. I would never have known he was a POW, except by a pin he is required to wear on his lapel. You won't mind, will you darling, if I date him until your return as he is such and interesting person"?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

stelr
03-16-2006, 10:49 PM
Interestingly enough, my mother was a staff sergeant during WWII and worked in a hospital ward at Camp Kilmer, NJ (gone now).

Anyway, she told me how German and Italian prisoners that were kept there were routinely given passes to visit relatives in the States, if they had some, especially during holidays like Christmas and New Year.

-HH-Dubbo
03-17-2006, 12:20 AM
We had a lot of Japanese POWs in Australia. My Grandma told me as a youngster about the breakout at Cowra. Nasty stuff. The whole area was on the hunt for these escaped POWs so you had civilians "helping out". She said it was supposed to be the biggest prison break ever. I remember also that a lot of them were killed storming the wire. (I think there was a movie made eventually)

She said that no-one at the time could understand why the breakout took place. The POWs couldn't hope to go anywhere and were treated quite well in the camp. But once again the Japanese notion that anything was better than being captured seemed to play a big part.

Capt.England
03-17-2006, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by -HH-Dubbo:
We had a lot of Japanese POWs in Australia. My Grandma told me as a youngster about the breakout at Cowra. Nasty stuff. The whole area was on the hunt for these escaped POWs so you had civilians "helping out". She said it was supposed to be the biggest prison break ever. I remember also that a lot of them were killed storming the wire. (I think there was a movie made eventually)

She said that no-one at the time could understand why the breakout took place. The POWs couldn't hope to go anywhere and were treated quite well in the camp. But once again the Japanese notion that anything was better than being captured seemed to play a big part.

This looks like the event?
cowra prison breakout (http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww2/cowra-prison.htm)

Interesting event that most of us outside of Oz may not know about!

Pirschjaeger
03-17-2006, 05:19 AM
According to an interview with a WW2 German who was a POW in Britain, he said it was nice. He was a singer and was part of a travelling German POW band. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

He said that in every British town they went to they had too many invitations to sleep in people's homes. I guess it was cool to have a POW stay overnight at your house. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DoubleTap2005A
03-17-2006, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Max.Power:
The US and Canada weren't saints either. Both of those countries gathered up private citizens of Japanese decent and forced them to live in camps. While these people were living in these camps, the governments stole their private property and sold it. Life in the camps was terrible, and they were treated as subhumans.

Does this sound familiar to any of you?

I don't think anyone is free of human rights violations when it comes to world war 2.

No one said they were saints. The question originally posed was; "What side treated the POW's the best way?!" , not, "Which side were absolute saints and earth-bound angels in their conduct during WWII?"

Pirschjaeger
03-17-2006, 06:15 AM
R_Target, thx for that link. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Feathered_IV
03-17-2006, 07:08 AM
During the Cowra breakout, there was a machine gun team who opened up on the charging prisoners. Their last act before they were overrun and torn apart was to disable their gun to deny its use to the enemy.

telsono
03-17-2006, 02:20 PM
I had heard a lot of stories about the Italian POW's at Camp Kilmer from my parents and some of the professors and staff at Rutgers when I went there. Camp Kilmer is now incorporated into the the Rutgers Livingston and Bush Campuses. Some of the old military buildings were still used by the university at least into the 1980's.
If you remember in the first "Godfather" movie thee was a baker who asked for Don Corleone to use his influence and allow an Italian POW who worked in his bakery to marry his daughter. Like many scenes in this first movie, it was based on fact. Italian POW's were paroled to work in non-war industries as well as to visit family.
Read the stories about Colditz POW camp in Germany. They make a good read. It was a camp for officer prisoners who attempted to escape too much. Many fliers were there including Douglas Bader, not well liked there. Near the end of the war some American POW's attempted to build a glider to escape by, but they were liberated first. A special salute to the Dutch POW's there, as they were the officers who refused to give their parole to the Germans after Holland fell.
In "To War in a Stringbag" Lamb doersn't have good words to say about the Vichy French in the camps he was in. He was beaten everytime he received a new medal for his expoits at Taranto and in Yugoslavia. The French had him pegged as a spy and thought the medals were for espionage against them.
One of my customers was a ball gunner on a B-17F. This was one of the last of the F series with the new chin gun. He was shot down over Holland and spent the rest of the war as a POW. When they were released from their camps by the Russians they had to walk across northern Germany. The war wasn't over yet, but chaos reigned. A couple of American fighters came by and straffed them. Their officer had them form the letters "POW" with their bodies on the ground. The pilots saw that and waggled their wings in acknowledgement.

capt_frank
03-17-2006, 03:32 PM
back when i lived in san antonio, texas, notably fort sam houston, i remember hearing a story of the big escape by german soldiers from their confines at fort sam. word has it that they were captured at a movie theater in downtown san antonio....

check out: http://ameddregiment.amedd.army.mil/fshmuse/pow.htm

MB_Avro_UK
03-17-2006, 04:56 PM
Read the stories about Colditz POW camp in Germany. They make a good read. It was a camp for officer prisoners who attempted to escape too much. Many fliers were there including Douglas Bader, not well liked there. Near the end of the war some American POW's attempted to build a glider to escape by, but they were liberated first. A special salute to the Dutch POW's there, as they were the officers who refused to give their parole to the Germans after Holland fell.
In "To War in a Stringbag" Lamb doersn't have good words to say about the Vichy French in the camps he was in. He was beaten everytime he received a new medal for his expoits at Taranto and in Yugoslavia. The French had him pegged as a spy and thought the medals were for espionage against them.
One of my customers was a ball gunner on a B-17F. This was one of the last of the F series with the new chin gun. He was shot down over Holland and spent the rest of the war as a POW. When they were released from their camps by the Russians they had to walk across northern Germany. The war wasn't over yet, but chaos reigned. A couple of American fighters came by and straffed them. Their officer had them form the letters "POW" with their bodies on the ground. The pilots saw that and waggled their wings in acknowledgement.

Hi,

The glider was built by British PoWs. There were no Americans in Colditz at the time of escape attempts. If I am wrong so be it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Also, do you remember the Great Escape Hollywood film? There were no Americans involved but of course the world remembers Steve McQueen on his motorbike !

There was an attempt by two British guys to steal a German plane but they were captured.

Check this link..

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/05/Colditz260501.html

History is written by Hollywood...no offence to our US friends here but Hollywood has a lot to answer for http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

cptgse
03-18-2006, 01:47 AM
MB_Avro_UK

Actually, I do believe that there were Americans (not in British uniforms) involved with the escape. None actually escaped. However, they were purported to have assisted with the planning and prep of same until they were transferred to another camp.

As to the wartime interments, I agree with Chuck. Don't look at the past with present day sensibilities. That will not help with accurate understanding of the whys and hows. I think the worse thing was the failure to protect the internee's property and or businesses. Of course, government's (Local as well as state and federal.) penchant for taking economic advantage in such a situation is one of the reasons that the military relief acts were passed. Too bad they did not protect the internees of Japanese descent from such things.

Suggest that you look through the Ansel Adams pictures of an internment camp. You will find them on the National Archives site.

Aaron_GT
03-18-2006, 11:47 AM
Also, do you remember the Great Escape Hollywood film?


Wasn't McQueen supposed to be a Canadian in the film (much like Garner).

Aaron_GT
03-18-2006, 11:49 AM
With regard to treatment of prisoners of war, apparently Eisenhower was not impressed by Allied treatment of prisoners of war in the area of battle or close to it, particularly temporary camps in Italy, where rations sometimes dipped to starvation level. Treatment back in home countries (UK, USA, Canada) was considered good, though. As far as I remember Eisenhower felt that it was a logistics problem.

cptgse
03-18-2006, 02:34 PM
Here is the Adams' Manzanar link

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aamhtml//aamhome.html

d4bomb
03-18-2006, 08:24 PM
The Germans no doubt take the cake as the worst POW "handlers". Treatment of Soviet POWs rivaled the Holocaust as to the number (over 3 million in the first six months of the war!) and the brutality with which they were treated. Right from the beginning the Germans had a nasty policy towards Soviet POWs.

Also you have to remember that for the Soviets, it was kind of hard to take in and house German prisoners when they could barely keep their own troops fed. Whereas the Germans actually had the capacity to treat Soviet POWs better, like they did with their Western POWs.

panther3485
03-18-2006, 11:47 PM
Hi, Aaron_GT

Quote:

"Wasn't McQueen supposed to be a Canadian in the film (much like Garner).

How long since you've seen the movie, Aaron?

NO! McQueen definitely played the part of an American. In the movie, there is a memorable sequence where prisoners make up a batch of 'moonshine' and serve it to all the Allied prisoners, to celebrate American Independence Day (with McQueen as a central figure in the affair). They fool around and everyone is seen to be having a great time, playing/singing 'Yankee Doodle' etc.

McQueen also has his symbolic baseball and baseball glove, which help him to pass time during his sessions 'in the cooler'.

McQueen is rapidly developed as one of the central characters in the film and his particular individual bid for escape is (arguably) the most spectacular and exciting in the whole movie.

All of this, plus the adventures of the other main characters and the general tension and drama of the story, make for a very enjoyable and entertaining film, but historically a lot if it is just plain bollocks.

I seem to recall from my reading that American involvement in the real 'Great Escape' was minimal and involved some assistance during the early planning and setting-up phases. AFAIK, no Americans were involved in the acutal escape itself, or the 'hard yakka' of digging the tunnels, hiding the excavated soil, dodging the guards etc etc. (This is from memory of reading up on it but that was about 15-20 years ago so there are some details I may not be 100 percent on.)

I'm inclined to agree with Avro's sentiments about Hollywood but one needs to understand that a lot of this is probably commercially motivated - putting rear ends on seats in American cinemas! (Whether the Hollywood moguls' assessments of American audiences' tastes was accurate or not is another matter). Successful and enjoyable film but as with many products of Hollywood, a shame that history gets 'adjusted' in the process, IMHO.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

Max.Power
03-19-2006, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
No one said they were saints. The question originally posed was; "What side treated the POW's the best way?!" , not, "Which side were absolute saints and earth-bound angels in their conduct during WWII?"

I can read. What is your point?

Aaron_GT
03-19-2006, 01:53 AM
How long since you've seen the movie, Aaron?


About 20 years!

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by d4bomb:
The Germans no doubt take the cake as the worst POW "handlers". Treatment of Soviet POWs rivaled the Holocaust as to the number (over 3 million in the first six months of the war!) and the brutality with which they were treated. Right from the beginning the Germans had a nasty policy towards Soviet POWs.

Also you have to remember that for the Soviets, it was kind of hard to take in and house German prisoners when they could barely keep their own troops fed. Whereas the Germans actually had the capacity to treat Soviet POWs better, like they did with their Western POWs.

I have a BBC documentary where this topic was brought up. They interviewed people from both sides, Russian and German. It was interesting that even still today, both sides consider those actions in the past to be correct. I have been trying to figure out who was worse but it´s very hard to say. The Soviets had a deep hatred within the first few days of the invasion. They were very nationalistic.

The Germans developed a hatred for the Soviets in a short time also. The x-ss officers interviewed said the Russians were cowardly. One of the interviewees said that when they surrounded the Soviets, the Soviets would crouch on the ground in a ball. His claim was they had no choice but to shoot them since they wouldn`t surrender. He said he didn`t regret shooting them since they would not raise or expose their hands, possibly hiding grenades. To add to the hatred, the Soviets would torture the captured Germans before killing them.

The Soviet interviewees talked about the ways they liked to kill the Germans. Quit brutally.

As for the food issue, I don´t think the Germans had enough food for the Soviets prisoners. Remember, the German lines were strectched beyond efficiency. It was the lack of supplies that made the Germans lose at Staligrad.

The German interviewees also mentioned that they were shocked to see the Soviets in the beginning. They had no organisation and most had no guns, but they would still charge. One mentioned a situation where there were thousands of Soviets running across a field to attack the Germans. He said all the Soviets were unarmed and the German machine guns just mowed them down. He said it made his blood freeze.

I don`t think one side was worse than the other although more German prisoners died at the hands of the Soviets than the other way around. When you look at how the events unfolded, every step increased the hatred on both sides.

One thing I found interesting was that the Germans interviewed, when asked, didn´t regret or think at that time they were doing wrong. To them it was a moral decision since they had been taught they were protecting Europe from Communism. They said that now when they see the truth, they regret what happened. They made no excuses. The Soviets that were interviewed said they were following orders.

As for the end results of both sides, the prisoners, most Germans were killed or died while in captivity. The 2 million plus Soviet prisoners liberated by the Soviet armies were either killed or put in the Gulags.

Hitler said the eastern front would be a "war of annihilation" and unlike any previous war. He was right. He knew what both sides were capable of.

DoubleTap2005A
03-20-2006, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by Max.Power:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
No one said they were saints. The question originally posed was; "What side treated the POW's the best way?!" , not, "Which side were absolute saints and earth-bound angels in their conduct during WWII?"

I can read. What is your point? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is that your point did not address the question which was being discussed, which led me to question why you made it. Your post was a Non sequitur in relation the question being discussed.

"I don't think anyone is free of human rights violations when it comes to world war 2."

No one, that I recall reading, ever said that in this current thread, so why would you respond to something that was not stated?

d4bomb
03-20-2006, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by d4bomb:
The Germans no doubt take the cake as the worst POW "handlers". Treatment of Soviet POWs rivaled the Holocaust as to the number (over 3 million in the first six months of the war!) and the brutality with which they were treated. Right from the beginning the Germans had a nasty policy towards Soviet POWs.

Also you have to remember that for the Soviets, it was kind of hard to take in and house German prisoners when they could barely keep their own troops fed. Whereas the Germans actually had the capacity to treat Soviet POWs better, like they did with their Western POWs.



I have a BBC documentary where this topic was brought up. They interviewed people from both sides, Russian and German. It was interesting that even still today, both sides consider those actions in the past to be correct. I have been trying to figure out who was worse but it´s very hard to say. The Soviets had a deep hatred within the first few days of the invasion. They were very nationalistic.

Yes, one would be quite angry at the aggressor for violating a non-aggression pact, and preparing the destruction of your home and family.



The Germans developed a hatred for the Soviets in a short time also. The x-ss officers interviewed said the Russians were cowardly. One of the interviewees said that when they surrounded the Soviets, the Soviets would crouch on the ground in a ball. His claim was they had no choice but to shoot them since they wouldn`t surrender. He said he didn`t regret shooting them since they would not raise or expose their hands, possibly hiding grenades. To add to the hatred, the Soviets would torture the captured Germans before killing them.

Every side has cowards. But unfortunately for the Germans, cowardice from Soviet soldiers was more the exception rather than the rule. Throughout the war they displayed unmatched bravery and heroism even against overwhelming odds.

Now, what I think you are trying to do, is justify the killing of these soldier because they would not surrender. That's quite silly and degrading to say the least. I very much doubt the glorious German army had no alternatives other than to shoot crouching soldiers.

But this point is going way off tangent, you can't justify German brutality because Soviet soldier "wouldn't surrender". That's just silly.



The Soviet interviewees talked about the ways they liked to kill the Germans. Quit brutally.

I'm sure the Germans would love to tell you about their own little "experiments" with captured prisoners. Quite brutal indeed.



As for the food issue, I don´t think the Germans had enough food for the Soviets prisoners. Remember, the German lines were strectched beyond efficiency. It was the lack of supplies that made the Germans lose at Staligrad.

Yes, I'm sure the German lines were so overstretched that during the first 8 months of where over 3 million Soviet POWs were taken they could not adequately feed and house the 3 million prisoners they took in. The German lines were overstretched not from the Minsk-Kiev line (where the 3 million POWs were taken) but further off towards Moscow and Stalingrad. Saying that the lines were overstretched is obviously wrong, the Germans had the total potential and logistical capability to keep their prisoners sustained.



The German interviewees also mentioned that they were shocked to see the Soviets in the beginning. They had no organisation and most had no guns, but they would still charge. One mentioned a situation where there were thousands of Soviets running across a field to attack the Germans. He said all the Soviets were unarmed and the German machine guns just mowed them down. He said it made his blood freeze.

These futile attacks occured during the confusion and mayhem of the first few weeks of the war, can't help it really. I don't see how this relates to our discussion about POWs at all.



I don`t think one side was worse than the other although more German prisoners died at the hands of the Soviets than the other way around. When you look at how the events unfolded, every step increased the hatred on both sides.

I don't think you've read enough on the subject. Of the 5.5 million Soviet prisoners taken during WWII, 3.5 million or more had been lost by the middle of 1944 by either being deliberately killed or done to death by criminal negligence.

"This slaughter of prisoners cannot be accounted for by the peculiar chaos of the war in the east. ... The true cause was the inhuman policy of the Nazis towards the Russians as a people and the acquiescence of army commanders in attitudes and conditions which amounted to a sentence of death on their prisoners."
http://www.gendercide.org/case_soviet.html

The German POWS meanwhile, died mostly not of crueltly by their captors but the harsh conditions that they were living in, certainly they were not accustomed to them.



One thing I found interesting was that the Germans interviewed, when asked, didn´t regret or think at that time they were doing wrong. To them it was a moral decision since they had been taught they were protecting Europe from Communism. They said that now when they see the truth, they regret what happened. They made no excuses. The Soviets that were interviewed said they were following orders.

Fighting "communism" does not execuse German soldiers from their needless cruelty and barbarity. Torture was by no means whatsoever classified as Soviet policy. The Soviets treated the Germans with as much as they could, sometimes even better than their own soldiers.

On the other hand German brutality was supported by the state, officers, and people. German soldiers were excused from rape and murder of innocent civilians and soldiers, among other things. German mentality was that they were fighting "subhumans" not people. Abosolutely awful.

Ruy Horta
03-20-2006, 06:27 AM
pretty level headed reasoning by d4bomb...

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 06:46 AM
D4bomb, I don´t know what your intentions are and to be honest I didn't bother reading all your post. I simply wrote what I saw in interviews from documentaries. I simply wrote what they said.

The question was about which side was better and there were not only 2 sides. There were 4 sides. The Germans and the western allies POW relations were very different from the Soviet and German POW relations.

Once again, I didn't say one side was better than the other. Both sides, German and Russian were quite equally bad.

Don't try to read into things too much.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by d4bomb:

Fighting "communism" does not execuse German soldiers from their needless cruelty and barbarity. Torture was by no means whatsoever classified as Soviet policy. The Soviets treated the Germans with as much as they could, sometimes even better than their own soldiers.

On the other hand German brutality was supported by the state, officers, and people. German soldiers were excused from rape and murder of innocent civilians and soldiers, among other things. German mentality was that they were fighting "subhumans" not people. Abosolutely awful.

You should read something about the subject that was written after 1960.

d4bomb
03-20-2006, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
D4bomb, I don´t know what your intentions are and to be honest I didn't bother reading all your post. I simply wrote what I saw in interviews from documentaries. I simply wrote what they said.

If you have no idea what you are talking about or don't have any intention of backing up your statements then don't bother talking at all.

joeap
03-20-2006, 10:31 AM
d4bomb no need to be rude, you make some good points but with that attitude, dialouge is dead. Anyway, what about taling about what sources you guys used for your statements (you too Fritz)??

Kocur_
03-20-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by d4bomb:

The German POWS meanwhile, died mostly not of crueltly by their captors but the harsh conditions that they were living in, certainly they were not accustomed to them.



Noone is "accustomed to" conditions in Gulag. The same "conditions" you mention killed millions of soviet citizens before. And very similar "conditions" killed millions of people in nazi concentration camps (apart from death camps with gas chambers). If thats not cruel...

Blutarski2004
03-20-2006, 10:41 AM
Sorry D4bomb, but I'm having a little difficulty understanding the moral distinctions you are attempting to claim.

What exactly is the difference between working captured soldiers to death in slave labor camps in Saxony or Poland or the Ruhr and working captured soldiers to death in Siberia or the Ural mines?

And if the suffering and deaths of German POWs were simply the unfortunate result of some apparent inability of the Soviets to feed, clothe, or care for their captives, why were these German prisoners held in prison slave labor camps for ten years after the end of the war?

The treatment of Russian POWs by Germany was undeniably cruel and inhumane and deserves to be recorded for posterity as a classic example of inhumanity. But the USSR mistreated their German captive to a fully equal degree. Only one in ten or one in twenty German captives in Soviet hands ever returned to his homeland alive. It is impossible to whitewash this fact

I don't even want to think about the fate of those poor Russian war prisoners who survived their German captivity only to be sent off to Siberian camps as "potential security risks" by their own government.

Ruy Horta
03-20-2006, 11:46 AM
There is a moral distinction, although some may forget.

To the Nazis the war against the Soviet Union and its people was a war of extermination...

Let that sink in.

Cities like Leningrad were not to be occupied, they were supposed to be destroyed.

Nazi ideas of Aryan superiority met with anti-bolshevik sentiments and traditional military Schrecklichkeit.

No the Soviets were no sweeties, etc etc etc, but the Germans generally set the standards when they invaded in June '41. They did so at their own detriment and thereby strengething Soviet resillience.

WW1 in the east had many similar issues, mutilation of prisoners, long and bad POW captivity, yet the theme was not one of extermination.

It might suit some of you to read up on the Commisar order and similar written and verbal directives.

In this case the implication is pretty well documented, so there is little argument, unless one starts a pot meet kettle debate.

Bottomline, starting Barbarossa, Germany was a simple aggressor attacking an erstwhile "ally". It did so with extreme aggression and intent.

That's the moral difference.

For those who will think of Soviet plans for an offensive in '42. First any such offensive would have been pre-emptive, secondly although in many ways ideological it would not have been a war of extermination.

I'm taking a non characteristic stance here.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
Anyway, what about taling about what sources you guys used for your statements (you too Fritz)??

BBC documentaries. It was in my first sentence. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:

It might suit some of you to read up on the Commisar order and similar written and verbal directives.

The Comissar was written before the war even started. It was a plan. One of the men being interviewed in my documentary had sign it as a witness.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Bottomline, starting Barbarossa, Germany was a simple aggressor attacking an erstwhile "ally". It did so with extreme aggression and intent.

That's the moral difference.

When did this become a moral issue? Oh yes, when d4bomb posted. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:For those who will think of Soviet plans for an offensive in '42. First any such offensive would have been pre-emptive, secondly although in many ways ideological it would not have been a war of extermination.

I'm taking a non characteristic stance here.

Yes, Stalins men were pushing him to strike first but Stalin said he didn`t believe Hitler would attack. I guess he hadn't realized how crazy Hitler was.

As for what the Soviets would have done, who knows. Why would they have been any nicer than they had been with their own people. Before the war started, the Soviets had already killed more than 11,000,000 of their own.

msalama
03-20-2006, 12:52 PM
As for what the Soviets would have done, who knows.

No-one, of course. But the fact still remains that Germany _was_ the original aggressor, and _did_ attack Soviet Union with an intent of mass extermination. And that is something we should never forget IMHO...


Why would they have been any nicer than they had been with their own people. Before the war started, the Soviets had already killed more than 11,000,000 of their own.

They most certainly _wouldn't_ have been too nice at all. Why, just look at DDR's early history to see what kind of system we're talking about!

But that doesn't change the fact that for one reason or another they _didn't_ attack, whereas Hitler did... so he's the ultimate culprit, the man who has the _ultimate_ responsibility for everything, no?

Kocur_
03-20-2006, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
There is a moral distinction, although some may forget.

To the Nazis the war against the Soviet Union and its people was a war of extermination...

Let that sink in.

Cities like Leningrad were not to be occupied, they were supposed to be destroyed.

Nazi ideas of Aryan superiority met with anti-bolshevik sentiments and traditional military Schrecklichkeit.

No the Soviets were no sweeties, etc etc etc, but the Germans generally set the standards when they invaded in June '41. They did so at their own detriment and thereby strengething Soviet resillience.

WW1 in the east had many similar issues, mutilation of prisoners, long and bad POW captivity, yet the theme was not one of extermination.

It might suit some of you to read up on the Commisar order and similar written and verbal directives.

In this case the implication is pretty well documented, so there is little argument, unless one starts a pot meet kettle debate.

Bottomline, starting Barbarossa, Germany was a simple aggressor attacking an erstwhile "ally". It did so with extreme aggression and intent.

That's the moral difference.

For those who will think of Soviet plans for an offensive in '42. First any such offensive would have been pre-emptive, secondly although in many ways ideological it would not have been a war of extermination.

I'm taking a non characteristic stance here.

Comissar order is another example of nazi ways of conducting war in the east. And that started right on 1 sept.1939.
But years before that there was another statement made: of "eliminating kulaks as a class". Barbarossa (apart from ideological reasons) was pre-emptive too - or explain 9th Strike Army concentrated just over Romanian border, and soviet invasion of Europe would be equally ideologically motivated. The only difference would be "reason" for mass murder - instead of nazi racial - communist class. Millions of "kulaks" and other "class strange elements" all over western Europe. Before you disagree, one word:
Katy".

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for what the Soviets would have done, who knows.

No-one, of course. But the fact still remains that Germany _was_ the original aggressor, and _did_ attack Soviet Union with an intent of mass extermination. And that is something we should never forget IMHO...


Why would they have been any nicer than they had been with their own people. Before the war started, the Soviets had already killed more than 11,000,000 of their own.

They most certainly _wouldn't_ have been too nice at all. Why, just look at DDR's early history to see what kind of system we're talking about!

But that doesn't change the fact that for one reason or another they _didn't_ attack, whereas Hitler did... so he's the ultimate culprit, the man who has the _ultimate_ responsibility for everything, no? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you guys really think that Hitler was sitting around one day bored and said "Hey, I know, let`s exterminate", then wrote Mein Kampf, called up a few buddies, took control of a country and started attacking everyone?

Msalama, what is your point? What is d4bombs point? What is it you guys want to accomplish?

I simply told you what officers from both sides were saying in interviews. I'm sorry things can`t be conveniently black and white.

Yes, Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Do you know why?

lowfighter
03-20-2006, 01:16 PM
Why, of course the germans treated the POW's the best way Pirshjaeger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

msalama
03-20-2006, 01:22 PM
Msalama, what is your point? What is d4bombs point? What is it you guys want to accomplish?

Nothing at all. I was just reminding everyone of some historical facts, that's all.


Yes, Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Do you know why?

Lebensraum, just as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. Is that a legitimate reason to attack another country in your book?

Now of course there're reasons for Hitler's ascension to power, such as the Versailles Treaty, Germany's economic/social instability, etc. But what the man WANTED, nevertheless & in the long run, was enslavement of those peoples he regarded as sub-humans, and complete exploitation of their assets.

So he was a criminal, plain and simple. What's wrong in SAYING that, huh?

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by msalama:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Do you know why?

Lebensraum, just as Hitler had written in Mein Kampf. Is that a legitimate reason to attack another country in your book? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, that was secondary at best.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by msalama:

Lebensraum, just as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. Is that a legitimate reason to attack another country in your book?

Who said it was legitamate? Why are you guys trying to put words in my mouth?


Originally posted by msalama:
Now of course there're reasons for Hitler's ascension to power, such as the Versailles Treaty, Germany's economic/social instability, etc. But what the man WANTED, nevertheless & in the long run, was enslavement of those peoples he regarded as sub-humans, and complete exploitation of their assets.

Partially right but you are missing many important points. Once again, those reasons you mentioned were secondary at best.


Originally posted by msalama:
So he was a criminal, plain and simple. What's wrong in SAYING that, huh?

Who said he wasn`t a criminal?

msalama
03-20-2006, 01:46 PM
Wrong, that was secondary at best.

Aha, so you're implying he wanted to wage some pre-emptive warfare ONLY, then? And yet he DID write Mein Kampf during 1924-1925 already IIRC, and explicitly stated _already_then_ the necessity of conquering living space from the Soviets, no?

And you say "secondary"? Sorry, but I'm not buying that.

joeap
03-20-2006, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Anyway, what about taling about what sources you guys used for your statements (you too Fritz)??

BBC documentaries. It was in my first sentence. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arrggh! Note to self: never read stuff like this at work when I tend to skim quickly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Sorry I will try to dig up the info myself and am searching the BBC site as I type. Lots of stuff though.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wrong, that was secondary at best.

Aha, so you're implying he wanted to wage some pre-emptive warfare ONLY, then? And yet he DID write Mein Kampf during 1924-1925 already IIRC, and explicitly stated _already_then_ the necessity of conquering living space from the Soviets, no?

And you say "secondary"? Sorry, but I'm not buying that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pre-emptive? Yes, but not in the way you are thinking.

Believe me, it was secondary.

I wish you had joined our private topic, the one I was advertising two weeks ago. We had 27 members and almost half replied at one point or another. This, Hitler's reasons and what lead him to those reasons was the topic.

I wish there was some way I could put you into that thread. I can explain it but it will need a lot of time. It`s really not as simply as people like to think. It involves a lot of reading.

I`d also like to add that the thread went very well. I'm sure it could not have gone good in GD, that's why I made it a PT and chose who was in.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
Arrggh! Note to self: never read stuff like this at work when I tend to skim quickly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Sorry I will try to dig up the info myself and am searching the BBC site as I type. Lots of stuff though.

Ha ha ha, I did the same as you just a few minutes ago. I had to reply to Msalam twice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

msalama
03-20-2006, 02:00 PM
Who said it was legitamate? Why are you guys trying to put words in my mouth?

Hey man, take a chill pill. I must've mis-read you, that's all...


Partially right but you are missing many important points. Once again, those reasons you mentioned were secondary at best.

And the primary reasons were?


Who said he wasn`t a criminal?

OK, no-one, granted.

See how emotional this always gets around here?

joeap
03-20-2006, 02:05 PM
Dude your sig! Who would think of such a thing. Beer + pretzels, wurst, kebab, burgers or even veggie sticks but ... oreos? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 02:07 PM
Msalama, noticed I said "you guyz". You were far from the worst.

Yes, GD always gets out of hand. Once again, that`s why I did the PT thing and it worked well. I can`t give a simple explanation and need to post facts to bring the story along.

I will make an attempt at posting facts in here and giving explanations. Somehow I don`t think this thread will last long because there are always those who like to assume and start mudslinging before we even get to the point.

Just follow me on this. I will take pieces from our PT and post them in here. Basically, I have been trying to figure out anti-semetism and the historical effects for many years. Recently I found something that for me was the missing piece of the puzzle.

Give me a few minutes to figure out how to do this.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 02:08 PM
Speaking of sigs, where the heck did mine go? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 02:09 PM
OK Msalama, let`s start with this:

From the Toronto Sun - December 13, 1998


By ERIC MARGOLIS Contributing Foreign Editor

As Britain's socialist government cleared the way for a gaudy show trial of that Great Satan of the left, Chile's Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the 65th anniversary of this century's bloodiest crime was utterly ignored. Leftists now baying for Pinochet's head don't want to be reminded of the Unknown Holocaust.

In 1932, Soviet leader Josef Stalin unleashed genocide in Ukraine. Stalin determined to force Ukraine's millions of independent farmers - called kulaks - into collectivized Soviet agriculture, and to crush Ukraine's growing spirit of nationalism.

Faced by resistance to collectivization, Stalin unleashed terror and dispatched 25,000 fanatical young party militants from Moscow - earlier versions of Mao's Red Guards - to force 10 million Ukrainian peasants into collective farms. Secret police units of OGPU began selective executions of recalcitrant farmers.

When Stalin's red guards failed to make a dent in this immense number, OGPU was ordered to begin mass executions.

But there were simply not enough Chekists (secret police) to kill so many people, so Stalin decided to replace bullets with a much cheaper medium of death - mass starvation.

All seed stocks, grain, silage and farm animals were confiscated from Ukraine's farms. (Ethiopia's Communist dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam used the same method in the 1970s to force collectivization: the resulting famine cased one million deaths.)

OGPU agents and Red Army troops sealed all roads and rail lines. Nothing came in or out of Ukraine. Farms were searched and looted of food and fuel. Ukrainians quickly began to die of hunger, cold and sickness.

When OGPU failed to meet weekly execution quotas, Stalin sent henchman Lazar Kaganovitch to destroy Ukrainian resistance. Kaganovitch, the Soviet Eichmann, made quota, shooting 10,000 Ukrainians weekly. Eighty percent of all Ukrainian intellectuals were executed. A Ukrainian party member named Nikita Khruschchev helped supervise the slaughter.

During the bitter winter of 1932-33, mass starvation created by Kaganovitch and OGPU hit full force. Ukrainians ate their pets, boots and belts, plus bark and roots. Some parents even ate infant children.

The precise number of Ukrainians murdered by Stalin's custom-made famine and Cheka firing squads remains unknown to this day. The KGB's archives, and recent work by Russian historians, show at least seven million died. Ukrainian historians put the figure at nine million, or higher. Twenty-five percent of Ukraine's population was exterminated. Millions of victims

Six million other farmers across the USSR were starved or shot during collectivization. Stalin told Winston Churchill he liquidated 10 million peasants during the 1930s. Add mass executions by the Cheka in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; the genocide of three million Muslims in the USSR; massacres of Cossacks and Volga Germans and Soviet industrial genocide accounted for at least 40 million victims, not including 20 million war dead. Kaganovitch and many senior OGPU officers (later, NKVD) were Jewish. The predominance of Jews among Bolshevik leaders, and the frightful crimes and cruelty inflicted by Stalin's Cheka on Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland, led the victims of Red Terror to blame the Jewish people for both communism and their suffering. As a direct result, during the subsequent Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe, the region's innocent Jews became the target of ferocious revenge by Ukrainians, Balts and Poles.

While the world is by now fully aware of the destruction of Europe's Jews by the Nazis, the story of the numerically larger holocaust in Ukraine has been suppressed, or ignored. Ukraine's genocide occurred 8-9 years before Hitler began the Jewish Holocaust, and was committed, unlike Nazi crimes, before the world's gaze. But Stalin's murder of millions was simply denied, or concealed by a left-wing conspiracy of silence that continues to this day. In the strange moral geometry of mass murder, only Nazis are guilty. Socialist luminaries like Bernard Shaw, Beatrice and Sidney Webb and PM Edouard Herriot of France, toured Ukraine during 1932-33 and proclaimed reports of famine were false. Shaw announced: "I did not see one under-nourished person in Russia." New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his Russian reporting, wrote claims of famine were "malignant propaganda." Seven million people were dying around them, yet these fools saw nothing. The New York Times has never repudiated Duranty's lies.

Modern leftists do not care to be reminded their ideological and historical roots are entwined with this century's greatest crime - the inevitable result of enforced social engineering and Marxist theology.

Western historians delicately skirt the sordid fact that the governments of Britain, the U.S. and Canada were fully aware of the Ukrainian genocide and Stalin's other monstrous crimes. Yet they eagerly welcomed him as an ally during World War II. Stalin, who Franklin Roosevelt called "Uncle Joe," murdered four times more people than Adolf Hitler.

None of the Soviet mass murderers who committed genocide were ever brought to justice. Lazar Kaganovitch died peacefully in Moscow a few years ago, still wearing his Order of the Soviet Union, and enjoying a generous state pension.

d4bomb
03-20-2006, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
There is a moral distinction, although some may forget.

To the Nazis the war against the Soviet Union and its people was a war of extermination...

Let that sink in.

Cities like Leningrad were not to be occupied, they were supposed to be destroyed.

Nazi ideas of Aryan superiority met with anti-bolshevik sentiments and traditional military Schrecklichkeit.

No the Soviets were no sweeties, etc etc etc, but the Germans generally set the standards when they invaded in June '41. They did so at their own detriment and thereby strengething Soviet resillience.

WW1 in the east had many similar issues, mutilation of prisoners, long and bad POW captivity, yet the theme was not one of extermination.

It might suit some of you to read up on the Commisar order and similar written and verbal directives.

In this case the implication is pretty well documented, so there is little argument, unless one starts a pot meet kettle debate.

Bottomline, starting Barbarossa, Germany was a simple aggressor attacking an erstwhile "ally". It did so with extreme aggression and intent.

That's the moral difference.

For those who will think of Soviet plans for an offensive in '42. First any such offensive would have been pre-emptive, secondly although in many ways ideological it would not have been a war of extermination.

I'm taking a non characteristic stance here.

This is exactly what I wanted to say.

And if anyone thinks Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was a pre-emptive strike is totally ignorant. Tell me, when in history did major aggressors ever start a war without giving a pretext of a "pre-emptive strike". No one is ever going to declare a war under the basis that they just don't like the other guy, or that they don't share the same ideologies. It is laughable that anyone would ever consider the Soviet Union of attempting to invade Europe except for revisionist armchair historians who have an axe to grind with the Soviets.


From the Toronto Sun - December 13, 1998

I am from Toronto, and the Sun is a totally sensational and over-reacting "newspaper" - I believe there is a special word for those kinds of newspapers, can't remember it at the moment.



By ERIC MARGOLIS Contributing Foreign Editor

As Britain's socialist government cleared the way for a gaudy show trial of that Great Satan of the left, Chile's Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the 65th anniversary of this century's bloodiest crime was utterly ignored. Leftists now baying for Pinochet's head don't want to be reminded of the Unknown Holocaust.

In 1932, Soviet leader Josef Stalin unleashed genocide in Ukraine. Stalin determined to force Ukraine's millions of independent farmers - called kulaks - into collectivized Soviet agriculture, and to crush Ukraine's growing spirit of nationalism.

Faced by resistance to collectivization, Stalin unleashed terror and dispatched 25,000 fanatical young party militants from Moscow - earlier versions of Mao's Red Guards - to force 10 million Ukrainian peasants into collective farms. Secret police units of OGPU began selective executions of recalcitrant farmers.

When Stalin's red guards failed to make a dent in this immense number, OGPU was ordered to begin mass executions.

But there were simply not enough Chekists (secret police) to kill so many people, so Stalin decided to replace bullets with a much cheaper medium of death - mass starvation.

All seed stocks, grain, silage and farm animals were confiscated from Ukraine's farms. (Ethiopia's Communist dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam used the same method in the 1970s to force collectivization: the resulting famine cased one million deaths.)

OGPU agents and Red Army troops sealed all roads and rail lines. Nothing came in or out of Ukraine. Farms were searched and looted of food and fuel. Ukrainians quickly began to die of hunger, cold and sickness.

When OGPU failed to meet weekly execution quotas, Stalin sent henchman Lazar Kaganovitch to destroy Ukrainian resistance. Kaganovitch, the Soviet Eichmann, made quota, shooting 10,000 Ukrainians weekly. Eighty percent of all Ukrainian intellectuals were executed. A Ukrainian party member named Nikita Khruschchev helped supervise the slaughter.

During the bitter winter of 1932-33, mass starvation created by Kaganovitch and OGPU hit full force. Ukrainians ate their pets, boots and belts, plus bark and roots. Some parents even ate infant children.

The precise number of Ukrainians murdered by Stalin's custom-made famine and Cheka firing squads remains unknown to this day. The KGB's archives, and recent work by Russian historians, show at least seven million died. Ukrainian historians put the figure at nine million, or higher. Twenty-five percent of Ukraine's population was exterminated. Millions of victims

Six million other farmers across the USSR were starved or shot during collectivization. Stalin told Winston Churchill he liquidated 10 million peasants during the 1930s. Add mass executions by the Cheka in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; the genocide of three million Muslims in the USSR; massacres of Cossacks and Volga Germans and Soviet industrial genocide accounted for at least 40 million victims, not including 20 million war dead. Kaganovitch and many senior OGPU officers (later, NKVD) were Jewish. The predominance of Jews among Bolshevik leaders, and the frightful crimes and cruelty inflicted by Stalin's Cheka on Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland, led the victims of Red Terror to blame the Jewish people for both communism and their suffering. As a direct result, during the subsequent Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe, the region's innocent Jews became the target of ferocious revenge by Ukrainians, Balts and Poles.

While the world is by now fully aware of the destruction of Europe's Jews by the Nazis, the story of the numerically larger holocaust in Ukraine has been suppressed, or ignored. Ukraine's genocide occurred 8-9 years before Hitler began the Jewish Holocaust, and was committed, unlike Nazi crimes, before the world's gaze. But Stalin's murder of millions was simply denied, or concealed by a left-wing conspiracy of silence that continues to this day. In the strange moral geometry of mass murder, only Nazis are guilty. Socialist luminaries like Bernard Shaw, Beatrice and Sidney Webb and PM Edouard Herriot of France, toured Ukraine during 1932-33 and proclaimed reports of famine were false. Shaw announced: "I did not see one under-nourished person in Russia." New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his Russian reporting, wrote claims of famine were "malignant propaganda." Seven million people were dying around them, yet these fools saw nothing. The New York Times has never repudiated Duranty's lies.

Modern leftists do not care to be reminded their ideological and historical roots are entwined with this century's greatest crime - the inevitable result of enforced social engineering and Marxist theology.

Western historians delicately skirt the sordid fact that the governments of Britain, the U.S. and Canada were fully aware of the Ukrainian genocide and Stalin's other monstrous crimes. Yet they eagerly welcomed him as an ally during World War II. Stalin, who Franklin Roosevelt called "Uncle Joe," murdered four times more people than Adolf Hitler.

None of the Soviet mass murderers who committed genocide were ever brought to justice. Lazar Kaganovitch died peacefully in Moscow a few years ago, still wearing his Order of the Soviet Union, and enjoying a generous state pension.

I'm sorry my friend, but this topic has been discussed ad infinitum by many academics, and there is no proof whatsover that Stalin engineered the famine of the 30's.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 02:23 PM
So, this report would raise many questions and it also reports myths of the times. Keep in mind it was written in 98', 60 years after the fact.

The genocide is true, that really happened. But there is a few details that are still accepted as truth today but are in fact 100 year old propaganda.

Example; Kaganovitch and many senior OGPU officers (later, NKVD) were Jewish.

It says "many" but what does many mean? According to my research, there wasn`t as many Jewish leaders as people thought. To add, this was the Soviet Union; Communism. How do you get religious leaders in Communism? The fact is, these so-called Jewish leaders were simply Jewish by birth, not by practice. They were athiests. Their parents were practicing Jews, before Communism.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 02:25 PM
d4bomb, can't you just wait and stop making silly assumptions?

This is exactly why I needed to do this topic in PT.

d4bomb
03-20-2006, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
d4bomb, can't you just wait and stop making silly assumptions?

This is exactly why I needed to do this topic in PT.

What assumptions did I make?

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 02:47 PM
You are assuming that article is the point. It's only a small part of the bigger picture.

Also, it seems you are assuming that I am trying to justify Hitlers attack on the Soviet Union.

Or am I assuming wrong?

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 02:51 PM
This was written in 1920 IIRC.

Zionism versus Bolshevism.
A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People
By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.

SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.

And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.

The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and successful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Cooperative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.

International Jews.

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus- Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Terrorist Jews.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and an the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution: by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.

The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

"Protector of the Jews."

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin's authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate. to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms. The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated.

A Home for the Jews.

Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 02:53 PM
So, that last article by Churchill points out anti-semetism and blaming the Jews for communism. Keep this stuff in mind.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 03:01 PM
Have you heard of "The Protocals of the Elders of Zion"? they weren`t the first. The first Jewish Protocals were written in the 15th century. These Protocals, whether real or not, were used to persecute the Jews.

Also, the Holocaust in the 40's was not the only one against the Jews. England had already seen two previously. The first known Protocals were written in the 15th century. This is before the first holocaust, which happened in England. Here's a copy of the first protocals.

On January 13, 1489, Chemor, Jewish Rabbi of Arles in Provence, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin, which had its seat in Constantinople, for advice, as the people of Arles were threatening the synagogues. What should the Jews do? This was the reply:

"Dear Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great a pain to hear it as yourselves.

"The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:

1. As for what you say that the King of France obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise, but let the law of Moses be kept in your hearts.

2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your goods [the law was that on becoming converted Jews gave their possessions} make your sons merchants, that little by little they may despoil the Christians of theirs.

3. As for what you say about their making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians' lives.

4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons cannons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.

5. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix themselves up with the affairs of State, in order that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged of them.

6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will bind by experience that, humiliated as your are, you will reach the actuality of power.

Signed V.S.S.V.F.F., Prince of the Jews, 21st Caslue (November), 1489.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 03:05 PM
Now what about the "Protocals of the Elders of Zion"? They have been proven to be false even before Churchill wrote his anti-semetic views.

FAMOUS VIEWS ON THE PROTOCOLS

Uncanny Note Of Prophecy
"Whence come this uncanny note of prophecy, prophecy in part
fulfilled, in parts far gone in the way of fulfillment? Have we
been struggling these tragic years to ... extirpate the secret
organization of German world dominion only to find underneath it,
another, more dangerous because more secret? Have we ... escaped
a Pax Germanica only to fall into a Pax Judaeica?

The Times, London, May 8th, 1920


Are They A Forgery?
"A document forged to defame a people."

The American Hebrew


"A clumsy forgery."
Lucien Wolf in The Spectator, London, June 12th, 1920


"Upon that much-vexed subject the authenticity of ... The
Protocols of Zion we shall not enter, except to say that if the
document is a forgery, as alleged, then it is one of the most
remarkable in the history of literature."
The Spectator, London, October 16th, 1920


"Those who feel libeled by the Protocols have the most
obvious remedy in the world; all they have to do is to ruse and
denounce the policy of them, instead of denying the
authorship ... But when you come to read them how can any reason-
able man deny the truth of what is contained in them??
Norman Jaques, M.P.,
in Canadian House of Commons, July 9th, 1943


"On the one hand, the authenticity of this document cannot
be proved; on the other hand, the efforts made by some writers,
principally Jewish, to show it to be a forgery do not carry
conviction to many serious minds."
The Rev. Denny Fahey, C.S.Sp., B.A., D.D., 1939


Too Terribly Real For Fiction
"Whosoever was the mind that conceived them possessed a
knowledge of human nature, of history, and of statecraft which is
dazzling in its brilliant completeness, and terrible in the
objects to which it turns its power. It is too terribly real for
fiction, too well sustained for speculation, to deep in its
knowledge of the secret springs of life for forgery."
The Dearborn Independent, July 10th, 1920.


Confirmation From A Jew
"The United Nations is Zionism. It is the super government
mentioned many times in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of
Zion, promulgated between 1897 and 1905."
Henry Klein, New York, Jewish Lawyer,
in Zionism Rules the World, 1948.


They Fit It Now
"The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is
that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years
old and they have fitted the world situation up to this time.
They fit it now.
Henry Ford in the New York World, February 17th, 1921


"In the desires of a terrible and formidable sect, you have only
reached the first stages of the plans it has formed for that general Revo-
lution which is to overthrow all thrones, all altars, annihilate all
property, efface all law, and end by dissolving all society."

The Abbe Barruel (1797) writing on the Anti-Christian Conspiracy.
**

"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately it is bound to
spread in one form or another all over Europe and the whole world, as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality and whose object is to
destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

British Government White Paper, Russia No. 1 (1919)

***

"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders
in America, France, Russia and England, with a view to concerted action."

Directorate of Intelligence, Home Office, Scotland Yard, London,
in a Monthly Report to Foreign Embassies, 16th July, 1919.

***

"This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-
Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun
(Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States),
this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the
reconstitution [reconstruction] of society on the basis of arrested devel-
opment, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily
growing."

Winston Churchill in Illustrated Sunday Herald, 8th February, 1920.
***

INTRODUCTION

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of ZION may be briefly
described as a blueprint for the domination of the world by a
secret brotherhood. Whatever may be the truth about their au-
thorship - and, as will be shown, this has been the subject of
bitter dispute - there can be no doubt that the world society to
which they look forward is nothing more or less that a world
police state.

The book is which the Protocols were first embodied was
published by Professor Sergyei A. Nilus in Russia in 1905, a
copy being received in the British Museum on August 10th,
1906, Professor Nilus's concern was to expose that he be-
lieved to be a ruthless, cold-blooded conspiracy for the
destruction of Christian CIVILIZATION. Early, in August and
September of 1903, the Russian newspaper SNAMIA had pub-
lished the Protocols, and they are also believed to have
been published in the winter of 1902/1903 in the newspaper
MOSKOWSKIJA WIEDOMOSTI. They remained unknown outside
Russia, however, until after the Bolshevik Revolution, when
Russian emigrants brought Nilus's book to North America and
Germany.

The similarity between what was forecast in the Protocols
and the fate which had befallen Russia under the Bolsheviks was
so marked that, after these long years of neglect, they rapidly
became one of the most famous (or notorious) documents in the
world.

In Bolshevik Russia, the penalty for their mere possession
was death. It remains so to this day, both in the Soviet Union
and in the Satellite countries. Outside the Iron Curtain, in
South Africa possession of the Protocols is also forbidden by
law, although the penalty is less drastic.

As a result of their rapidly growing fame, numerous attempts
were made to discredit the Protocols as a forgery. But it was
not until 1933 that the JEWS resorted to legal action. On 26th
June, 1933, the FEDERATION of JEWISH COMMUNITY brought an action
against five members of the Swiss National Front, seeking a
judgment that the Protocols were a forgery and a prohibition of
their publication. The procedure of the Court was astounding,
the provisions of the Swiss Civil Code being deliberately set
aside. Sixteen witnesses called by the plaintiffs were heard,
but only one of the forty witnesses called by the defendants was
allowed a hearing. The judge allowed the plaintiffs to appoint
two private stenographers to keep the register of proceedings
during the hearing of their witnesses, instead of entrusting the
task to a Court official.

In view of these and similar irregularities, it was not
surprising that, after the case had lasted just on two years, the
Court pronounced the Protocols to be a forgery and demoralizing
literature. The decision was given on 14th May, 1935, but it was
announced in the JEWISH PRESS before it was delivered by the
Court!

On 1st November, 1937, the Swiss Court of Criminal Appeal
quashed this judgment in its entirety. JEWISH PROPAGANDISTS,
however, still declare that the Protocols have been "proved" to
be a forgery.

It is natural that the JEWS should try to discredit the
Protocols, for their growing fame was focusing more public atten-
tion on other revealing utterances.

In Disraeli's THE LIFE OF LORD GEORGE BENTINCK, written in
1852, there occurs this quotation: -

"The influence of the JEWS may be traced in the last
outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection
takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion
and property. Destruction of the Semitic principles, extirpation
of the JEWISH RELIGION, whether in the Mosaic or the CHRISTIAN
form the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property
are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional
Governments and men of the JEWISH RACE are found at the head of
every one of them. The people of God cooperate with atheists;
the most skillful accumulators of property ally themselves with
Communists; the peculiar and chosen Race touch the hand of all
the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish
to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them its
name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure."

Max Norday, a JEW, speaking at the ZIONIST CONGRESS at Basel
in August 1903, made this astonishing "prophecy":

"Let me tell you the following words as if I were
shoeing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward:
Herzl, the ZIONIST CONGRESS, the English Uganda proposition,
the future world war, the peace conference, where with the
help of England a free and JEWISH PALESTINE will be creat-
ed."

Walter Rathenau, the JEWISH BANKER behind the Kaiser, writ-
ing in the German WIENER FREIE PRESSE, December 24, 1912, said:

"Three hundred men, each of who knows all the others,
govern the fate of the European continent, and they elect
their successor from their entourage."

Confirmation of Rathenau's statement came twenty years later
in 1931 when Jean Izoulet, a prominent member of the JEWISH
ALLIANCE ISRAELITE UNIVERSELLE, wrote in his PARIS LA CAPITALAE
DES RELIGIONS:

"The meaning of the history of the last century is that
today 300 JEWISH FINANCIER, all Masters of Lodges, rule the
world."

The LONDON JEWISH CHRONICLE, on April 4th, 1919, declared:

"There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the
fact that so many JEWS are BOLSHEVISTS, in the fact that the
ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the
finest ideals of Judaism."

and on March 15th, 1923, the JEWISH WORLD asserted:

"Fundamentally JUDAISM is ANTI-CHRISTIAN."

These and many similar assertions from JEWISH sources were
damaging enough from the JEWISH point of view. Taken in con-
junction with the Protocols, with which more and more people were
becoming familiar, they were damning.

The attitude of many people whose concern over the growing
attack on CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION was rapidly increasing was
summed up by the late Henry Ford senior, the founder of the
world-famous motor manufacturing company. In an interview pub-
lished in the New York World on February 17th, 1921, Mr. Ford
declared:

"The only statement I care to make about the Protocols
is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen
years old, and have fitted the world situation up to this
time. THEY FIT IT NOW."

Those who, like Henry Ford, could see that "they fit it now"
only sixteen years after Nilus's first publication of the Proto-
cols, naturally tended to concentrate their attention on the
relatively recent phenomenon of Bolshevism. Few of them the
understood the equally dangerous, if more insidious, danger of
internationalism.

Now, however, more than half a century after Nilus's publi-
cation of the Protocols, the reality of that danger must be
crystal clear to anybody who views the world situation objectively.

The Protocols are full of references to a "Super-
Government," PROTOCOL VI, for example, states:

"In every possible way we must develop the significance
of our Super-Government by representing it as the Protector
and Benefactor of all those who voluntarily submit to us."

That is exactly the way in which the United Nations special
agencies - UNESCO (U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization); ILO (International Labour Organization); WHO
(World Health Organization); FAO (Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion); Commission of Human Rights; Genocide Convention, etc. -
are represented.

For some years there has been in existence an international
organization calling itself the World Association of Parliamen-
tarians for World Government, which pursues the same objective as
that of another long-established international organization,
Federal Union. This body does not disuse the fact that the
United Nations, by means of a few relatively minor changes in its
Charter, could be transformed virtually over night into a World
Government.

There has long been agitation for the creation of a World
Police Force. This would enable the United Nations Super-Govern-
ment to function as a master of an all-powerful World Police
State, and the closing years of the 1950's have seen the agita-
tors for a World Police Force come close to achieving their
objective. The U.N. Emergency Force, established after the Suez
crisis of 1956, has been openly regarded as a "pilot scheme."

Should the few changes in the Charter necessary to transform
the U.N. into a Super-Government be made, it will have in the
special agencies ready made Ministries of Education (or Propagan-
da), Labor, Health, Food and Agriculture, "Justice", etc.

Can it be an accident that these things are so accurately
for-shadowed in the Protocols?

The full-scale World Super-Government is not the only, nor
perhaps the most immediate, danger. It is obvious to everyone
that the nations of the East are being herded into subjection
under the dominance of the Soviet Union. But what of the nations
of the West? Are they really the "free nations" which they are
popularly supposed to be?

Far from it! They are being herded into that same sort of
pen as are the nations of the East under Communism. Late in
1957, the process had gone for enough to be given an official
name. That name was the policy of inter-dependence."

The nations of the West are being brought under internation-
al control at political, military and economic levels. They are
rapidly in process of becoming controlled also on the social
level. All alike are being told that their only hope lies in the
surrender of national sovereignty.

National Parliaments must give way to such bodies as the
Council of Europe or the Atlantic Council. National Forces must
be submerged in such bodies as the North Atlantic Treaty Organi-
zation (NATO), the Baghdad Pact or the South-East Treaty Organi-
zation (SEATO), so that no nation has control over its own means
of defense. National economies must be submerged in such bodies
as the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), the
European Payments Union (EPU) or the World Bank, so that no
nation may control its own economic destiny.

Even on the social level, individual national distinctions
must disappear. For example, under the "Common Market" Treaty
which unites six European nations on the economic plane, provi-
sion is made for the "equalization of social policies." And
strenuous efforts have been made to herd other European nations,
Great Britain among them, into this same pen in the associated
European Free Trade Area.

In 1934, when the leader of the British Labor Party (Mr.
Clement Attlee) told the party's annual conference:

"We are deliberately putting loyalty to a world order
above loyalty to our own country," he was widely execrated.

Twenty-three years of propaganda, however, leave their mark,
and when, in 1957, a Conservative Prime Minister of Britain told
the British people that they must surrender some of their nation-
al sovereignty to an unknown international cabal, scarcely a
voice was raise in protest. At the close of 1957 there was an
official declaration of the British Government's support for the
plan which was foreshadowed in the Protocols over sixty years
ago. The Earl of Gosford, Joint Under-Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, said in the House of Lords on 7th November,
1957:

"Her Majesty's Government are fully in agreement with
World Government. We agree that this must be the goal, and
that every step that is humanly possible must be taken to
reach that goal."

All over the world "federation", "integration", "regionali-
zation" and "inter-dependence" are the order of the day. All
this is foreshadowed in the Protocols, published more than
half-a-century ago by Sergyei Nilus, which, we are told are
forgery.

Can this be coincidence? Could any forger be so prescient?

Or are the Protocols what Nilus and many others believed
them to be - the blueprint for a conspiracy to destroy CHRISTIAN
CIVILIZATION and place the whole world under the domination of a
small, secret cabal?

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 03:08 PM
For those not familiar with the history and beginnings of the Protocals, read this.

In 1884 the daughter of a Russian general, Mlle. Justine
Glinka, was endeavoring to serve her country in Paris by
obtaining political information, which she communicated to
General Orgevskii in St. Petersburg. For this purpose she
employed a Jew, Joseph Schorst, member of the Mizraim Lodge in
Paris. One day Schorst offered to obtain for her a document of
great importance to Russia, on payment of 2,500 francs. This sum
being received from St. Petersburg was paid over and the document
handed to Mlle. Glinka.
She forwarded the French original, accompanied by a Russian
translation, to Orgevskii, who in turn handed it to his chief,
General Cherevin, for transmission to the Tsar. But Cherevin,
under obligation to wealthy Jews, refused to transmit it, merely
filing it in the archives.
Meantime there appeared in Paris certain books on Russian
court life which displeased the Tsar, who ordered his secret
police to discover their authorship. This was falsefy attributed,
perhaps with malicious intent, to Mlle. Glinka, and on her return
to Russia she was banished to her estate in Orel. To the marechal
de noblesse of this district, Alexis Sukhotin, Mlle. Glinka gave
a copy of the Protocols. Sukhotin showed the document to two
friends, Stepanov and Nilus; the former had it printed and
circulated privately in 1897; the second, Professor Sergius A.
Nilus, published it for the first time in Tsarskoe-Tselc (Russia)
in 1901, in a book entitled The Great Within the Small. Then,
about the same time, a friend of Nilus, G. Butmi, also brought it
out and a copy was deposited in the British Museum on August 10,
1906.
Meantime, through Jewish members of the Russian police,
minutes of the proceedings of the Basle congress in 1897 had been
obtained and these were found to correspond with the Protocols.
In January 1917, Nilus had prepared a second edition,
revised and documented, for publication. But before it could be
put on the market, the revolution of March 1917 had taken place
and Kerenski, who had succeded to power, ordered the whole
edition of Nilus's book to be destroyed. In 1924, Prof. Nilus was
arrested by the Cheka in Kiev, imprisoned, and tortured; he was
told by the Jewish president of the court, that this treatment
was meted out to him for "having done them incalculable harm in
publishing the Protocols". Released for a few months, he was
again led before the G.P.U. (Cheka), this time in Moscow and
confined. Set at liberty in February 1926, he died in exile in
the district of Vladimir on January 13, 1929.]

[This is a Russian edition by Sergius A. Nilus in 1905]

[Translated from the Russian Text by Victor E. Marsden --
Formerly Russian Correspondent of "The Morning Post"]

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 03:12 PM
Here´s a good analysis on the Protocols.

The Protocols Of Zion -
A Literary Forgery
London Times exposure of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
From Lenni Brenner
12-8-3

While few moderns have read them, most contemporaries concerned with Middle Eastern politics have heard of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. They are completely discredited in the West, tho occasionally they make a cameo appearance in the Muslim world, where right wingers, totally lacking anything resembling a scientific method, convince themselves that the Protocols explain Zionism.

In fact, the Protocols were exposed as a fraud in 1921 by the London Times. Again, while serious scholars have heard of the exposé, very few have read it. This is understandable, given that the Protocols are in such disrepute in the West. But as a couple of recent notes on Al-Awda Unity touched on the Protocols, this is a good opportunity to again bring the Times exposé to the scholarly world's attention. It appears below.



'The Truth about the Protocols: A Literary Forgery'

By Philip Graves The Times of London August 16-18, 1921

Preface I. A Literary Forgery II. Plagiarism at Work III. Some Conclusions Leading Article

(Editor's Note: Page references in brackets such as [p. 3] refer to the original pamphlet's pagination. Page numbers in parentheses such as (p. 3) are those made by Graves himself, referring to various books which he used. Note that the Preface is not by Graves, but by an unnamed author. Note also that the original British-English spelling has been retained, as well as certain oddities of the period; e.g., "Sion" instead of the more familiar "Zion".)

PREFACE

The so-called "Protocols of the Elders of Sion" were published in London in 1920 under the title of "The Jewish Peril."

This book is a translation of a book published in Russia, in 1905, by Sergei Nilus, a Government official, who professed to have received from a friend a copy of a summary of the minutes of a secret meeting, held in Paris by a Jewish organization that was plotting to overthrow civilization in order to establish a Jewish world state. The "Protocols" attracted little attention until after the Russian Revolution of 1917, when the appearance of the Bolshevists, among whom were many Jews professing and practicing political doctrines that in some points resembled those advocated in the "Protocols," led many to believe that Nilus's alleged discovery was genuine. The "Protocols" were widely discussed and translated into several European languages. Their authenticity has been frequently attacked and many arguments have been adduced for the theory that they are a forgery.

In the following three articles the Constantinople Correspondent of The Times presents for the first time conclusive proof that the document is in the main a clumsy plagiarism. He has forwarded to The Times a copy of the French book from which the [p. 4] plagiarism is made. The British Museum has a complete copy of the book, which is entitled "Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu, ou la Politique de Machiavel au XIX. Si¨cle. Par un Contemporain," and was published at Brussels in 1865. Shortly after its publication, Maurice Joly, a Paris lawyer and publicist, was arrested by the police of Napoleon III. and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.

I - A LITERARY FORGERY.

"There is one thing about Constantinople that is worth your while to remember," said a diplomatist to the writer in 1908. "If you only stay here long enough you will meet many men who matter, and you may find the key to many strange secrets." Yet I must confess that when the discovery which is the theme of these articles was communicated to me I was at first incredulous. Mr. X., who brought me the evidence, was convinced. "Read this book through," he said, "and you will find irrefutable proof that the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sion' is a plagiarism."

Mr. X, who does not wish his real name to be known, is a Russian landowner with English connexions. Orthodox by religion, he is in political opinion, a Constitutional Monarchist. He came here as a refugee after the final failure of the White cause in South Russia. He had long been interested in the Jewish question as far as it concerned Russia, had studied the "Protocols," and during the period of Denikin's ascendancy had made investigations with the object of discovering whether any occult "Masonic" organization, such as the "Protocols" speak of, existed in Southern Russia. The only such organization was a Monarchist one. The discovery of the key to the problem of the "Protocols" came to him by chance.

A few months ago he bought a number of old books from a former officer of the "Okhrana" (Political Police) who had fled to Constantinople. Among these books was a small volume in French, lacking the title-page, with dimensions of 5 1/2 in. by 3 3/4in. It had been cheaply rebound. On the leather back is printed in [p. 6] Latin capitals the word Joli. The preface, entitled "Simple avertissement," is dated Geneva, October 15, 1864. The book contains 324 pages, of which numbers 315-322 inclusive follow page 24 in the only copy known to Mr. X, perhaps owing to a mistake when the book was rebound. Both the paper and the type are characteristic of the "sixties and seventies" of the last century. These details are given in the hope that they may lead to the discovery of the title of the book [see Preface]. Mr. X. believes it must be rare, since, had it not been so, the "Protocols" would have speedily been recognized as a plagiarism by anyone who had read the original.

That the latter is a "fake" could not be maintained for an instant by anyone who had seen it. Its original possessor, the old Okhrana officer, did not remember where he obtained it, and attached no importance to it. Mr. X, glancing at it one day, was struck by a resemblance between a passage which had caught his eye and a phrase in the French edition of the "Protocols" (Edition de la Vieille France, 1920, 5, Rue du Préaux-Clercs, 5, Paris 7th Arrondissement). He followed up the clue, and soon realized that the "Protocols" were to a very large extent as much a paraphrase of the Geneva original as the published version of a War Office or Foreign Office telegram is a paraphrase of the ciphered original.

Before receiving the book from Mr. X, I was, as I have said, incredulous. I did not believe that Sergei Nilus's "Protocols" were authentic; they explained too much by the theory of a vast Jewish conspiracy. Professor Nilus's account of how they were obtained was too melodramatic to be credible, and it was hard to believe that real "Learned Elders of Sion" would not have produced a more intelligent political scheme than the crude and theatrical subtilties [sic] of the Protocols. But I could not [p. 7] have believed, had I not seen, that the writer who supplied Nilus with his originals was a careless and shameless plagiarist.

The Geneva book is a very thinly-veiled attack on the despotism of Napoleon III in the form of a series of 25 dialogues divided into four parts. The speakers are Montesquieu and Machiavelli. In the brief preface to his book the anonymous author points out that it contains passages which are applicable to all Governments, "but it particularly personifies a political system which has not varied in its application for a single day since the fatal and alas! Too distant date when it was enthroned." Its references to the "Haussmannisation" of Paris, to the repressive measures and policy of the French Emperor, to his wasteful financial system, to his foreign wars, to his use of secret societies in hi s foreign policy (cf., his notorious relations with the Carbonari) and his suppression of them in France, to his relations with the Vatican, and to his control of the Press are unmistakable.

The Geneva book, or as it will henceforth be called the Geneva Dialogues, opens with the meeting of the spirits of Montesquieu and Machiavelli on a desolate beach in the world of shades. After a lengthy exchange of civilities Montesquieu asks Machiavelli to explain why from an ardent Republican he had become the author of "The Prince" and "the founder of that somber school of thought which has made all crowned heads your disciples, but which is well fitted to justify the worst crimes of tyranny." Machiavelli replies that he is a realist and proceeds to justify the teaching of "The Prince," and to explain its applicability to the Western European States of 1864.

In the first six "Geneva Dialogues" Montesquieu is given a chance of argument of which he avails himself. In the seventh dialogue, [p. 8] which corresponds to the fifth, sixth, seventh , and part of the eighth "Protocols," he gives Machiavelli permission to describe at length how he would solve the problem of stabilizing political societies "incessantly disturbed by the spirit of anarchy and revolution." Henceforth Machiavelli or in reality Napoleon III, speaking through Machiavelli, has the lion's share of the dialogue.

Montesquieu's contributions thereto become more and more exclamatory; he is profoundly shocked by Machiavelli-Napoleon's defense of an able and ruthless dictatorship, but his counter-arguments grow briefer and weaker. At times, indeed, the author of "L'Esprit des Lois" is made to cut as poor a figure as - parvum componere magno - does Dr. Watson when he attempts to talk criminology to Sherlock Holmes.

The "Protocols" follow almost the same order as the Dialogues. Dialogues 1-17 generally correspond with "Protocols" 1-19. There are a few exceptions to this. One is in the 18th "Protocol," where, together with paraphrases of passages from the 17th Dialogue ("Geneva Dialogues," pp. 216, 217), there is an echo of a passage in the 25th "Geneva Dialogue," viz: -- "Quand le malheureux est opprimé il dit 'Si le Roi le savait'; Quand on veut se venger, qu'on esp¨re un secours, on dit 'le Roi le saura.' " This appears on page 68 of the English edition of the "Protocols" (4th Edition, published by "The Britons," 62, Oxford-street, London, W.) as "In order to exist, the prestige of power must occupy such a position that the people say among themselves, 'If only the King knew about it,' or 'When the King knows about it.' "

The last five "Protocols" (Nos. 20-24 inclusive) do not contain so many paraphrases of the "Geneva Dialogues" as the first 29. Some of their resemblances and paraphrases are, however, very striking, e.g., the following: -- [p. 9]

A loan is an issue of Government paper which entails an obligation to pay interest amounting to a percentage of the total sum of the borrowed money. If a loan is at 5 per cent., then in 20 years the Government will have unnecessarily paid out a sum equal to that of the loan in order to cover the percentage. In 40 years it will have paid twice, and in 60 thrice that amount, but the loan will still remain an unpaid debt. - "Protocols," p. 77.

MONTESQUIEU,-- "How are loans made? By the issue of bonds entailing on the Government the obligation to pay interest proportionate to the capital it has been paid. Thus, if a loan is at 5 per cent., the State, after 20 years, has paid out a sum equal to the borrowed capital. When 40 years have expired it has paid double, after 60 years triple: yet ir remains debtor for the entire capital sum." - "Geneva Dialogues," p. 256.

But generally speaking "Protocols" 20 and 21, which deal (somewhat unconvincingly) with the financial programme of the Learned Elders, owe less to the "Geneva Dialogues," Nos. 18-21, than to the imagination of the plagiarist author who had for once in a way to show a little originality. This is natural enough since the "Dialogues" in question describe the actual financial policy of the French Imperial Government, while the "Protocols" deal with the future. Again in the last four "Geneva Dialogues" Machiavelli's apotheosis of the Second Empire, being based upon historical facts which took place between 1852 and 1864, obviously furnished scanty material for the plagiarist who wished to prove or, very possibly, had been ordered to prove in the "Protocols" that the ultimate aim of the leaders of Jewry was to give the world a ruler sprung from the House of David.

The scores of parallels between the two books and a theory concerning the methods of the plagiarist and the reasons for the publication of the "Protocols" in 1905 will be the subject of further articles. Meanwhile it is amusing to find that the only subject with which the "Protocols," deal on lines quite contrary to those followed by Machiavelli in the "Dialogues" is the private life of the Sovereign. [p. 10] The last words of the "Protocols" are "Our Sovereign must be irreproachable." The Elders evidently propose to keep the King of Israel in good order. The historical Machiavelli was, we know, rather a scandalous old gentleman, and his shade insists that amorous adventures, so far from injuring a Sovereign's reputation, make him an object of interest and sympathy to "the fairest half of his subjects."

II. - PLAGIARISM AT WORK.

While the Geneva Dialogues open with an exchange of compliments between Montesquieu and Machiavelli, which covers seven pages, the author of the Protocols plunges at once in media res.

One can imagine him hastily turning over those first seven pages of the book which he has been ordered to paraphrase against time, and angrily ***********, "Nothing here." But on page 8 of the Dialogues he finds what he wants; the greater part of this page and the next are promptly paraphrased, thus:

Geneva Dialogues, p. 8.

Among mankind the evil instinct is mightier than the good. Man is more drawn to evil than to good. Fear and Force have more empire over him than reason . . . Every man aims at domination; not one but would be an oppressor if he could; all or almost all are ready to sacrifice the rights of others to their own interests....

Protocols, p. 1 ("The Britons" edition).

It must be noted that people with corrupt instincts are more numerous than those of noble instinct. Therefore in governing the world the best results are obtained by means of violence and intimidation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power; every one would like to become a dictator if he only could do so, and rare indeed are the men who would not be disposed to sacrifice the welfare of others in order to attain their own personal aims.

What restrains those beasts of prey which they call men from attacking one another? Brute unrestrained Force in the first stages of social life, then the Law, that is still force regulated by forms. You have consulted all historical sources; every where might precedes right. Political Liberty is merely a relative idea....

What restrained the wild beasts of prey which we call men? What has ruled them up to now? In the first stages of social life they submitted to brute and blind forces, then to law, which in reality is the same force, only masked. From this I am led to deduct that by the law of nature right lies in might. Political freedom is not a fact but an idea.[p. 12]

The gift of liberty to the Machiavelli of the Geneva Dialogues, of self-government according to the Protocols (page 2), leads speedily to civil and social strife, and the State is soon ruined by internal convulsions or by foreign intervention following on the heels of civil war. Then follows a singular parallel between the two books which deserves quotation:

Geneva Dialogues, p. 9.

What arms will they (States) employ in war against foreign enemies? Will the opposing generals communicate their plans of campaign to one another and thus be mutually in a position to defend themselves? Will they mutually ban night attacks, traps, ambushes, battles with inequality of force? Of course not; such combatants would court derision. Are you against the employment of those traps and tricks, of all the strategy indispensable to war against the enemy within, the revolutionary?

Protocols, p. 2.

... I would ask the question why is it not immoral for a State which has two enemies, one external and one internal, to use different means of defence against the former in that which it would use against the latter, to attack him by night or with superior forces?...

Both "Machiavelli" and the author of the Protocols agree (Prot. P. 3, Geneva Dialogues, p. 11) almost in the same words that politics have nothing in common with morality. Right is described in the Protocols as "an abstract idea established by nothing," in the Dialogues as an "infinitely vague" expression. The end, say both, justifies the means. "I pay less attention," says Machiavelli, "to what is good and moral than to what is useful and necessary." The Protocols (p. 4) use the same formula, substituting "profitable" for "useful." According to the Protocols he who would rule "must have recourse to cunningness (sic) and hypocrisy." In the second Dialogue (p. 15) Montesquieu reproaches Machiavelli for having "only two words to repeat - 'Force' and 'guile.' " Both Machiavelli and the "Elders" [p. 13] of the Protocols preach despotism as the sole safeguard against anarchy. In the Protocols this despotism has to be Jewish and hereditary. Machiavelli's despotism is obviously Napoleonic.

There are scores of other parallels between the books. Fully 50 paragraphs of passages in the Dialogues are simply paraphrases of passages in the Dialogues. The quotation Per me reges regnant, rightly given in the Vieille France edition of the Protocols (p. 29), while regunt is substituted for regnant in the English version (p. 20), appears on p. 63 of the Geneva Dialogues. Sulla, whom the English version of the Protocols insists on calling "Silla," appears in both books.

After covering Italy with blood, Sulla reappeared in as a simple citizen in Rome: no one durst touch a hair of his head. Geneva Dialogues, p. 159. Remember at the time when Italy was streaming with blood, she did not touch a hair of Silla's head, and he was the man who made her blood pour out. Protocols, p. 51.

Sulla, who after the proscriptions stalked "in savage grandeur home," is one of the tyrants whom every schoolboy knows and those who believe that Elders of the 33rd Degree are responsible for the Protocols, may say that this is a mere coincidence. But what about the exotic Vishnu, the hundred-armed Hindu deity who appears twice in each book? The following passages never were examples of "unconscious plagiarism."

Geneva Dialogues, p. 141:

Machiavelli.-"Like the God Vishnu, my press will have a hundred arms, and these arms will give their hands to all the different shades of opinion throughout the country."

Protocols, p. 43:

"These newspapers, like the Indian god Vishnu, will be possessed of hundreds of hands, each of which will be feeling the pulse of varying public opinion."

Geneva Dialogues, p. 207:

Montesquieu:-- "Now I understand the figure of the god Vishnu; you have a hundred [p. 14] arms like the Indian idol, and each of your fingers touches a spring.

Protocols, p. 65:

"Our Government will resemble the Hindu god Vishnu. Each of our hundred hands will hold one spring of the social machinery of State."

TAXATION OF THE PRESS

The Dialogues and the Protocols alike devote special attention to the Press, and their schemes for the muzzling and control thereof are almost identical - absolutely identical, indeed, in many details. Thus Machiavelli on pp. 135 and 136 of the Dialogues expounds the following ingenious scheme:

"I shall extend the tax on newspapers to books, or rather I shall introduce a stamp duty on books having less than a certain number of pages. A book, for example, with less than 200 or 300 pages will not rank as a book, but as a brochure. I am sure you see the advantage of this scheme. On the one hand I thin (je rarifie) by taxation that cloud of short books which are the mere appendages of journalism; on the other I force those who wish to escape stamp duty to throw themselves into long and costly compositions, which will hardly ever be sold and scarcely read in such a form."

The Protocols, p. 41, has:

"We will tax it (the book press) in the same manner as the newspaper Press - that is to say, by means of Excise stamps and deposits. But on books of less than 300 pages we will place a tax twice as heavy. Those short books we will classify as pamphlets, which constitute the most virulent form of printed poison. These measures will also compel writers to publish such long works that they will be little read by the public and so chiefly on account of their high price."

Both have the same profound contempt for journalists.

Geneva Dialogues, pp. 145, 146:

Machiavelli. -- "You must know that journalism is a sort of Freemasonry; those who live by it are bound . . . to one another by the ties of professional discretion; like the augurs of old, they do not lightly divulge the secret of their oracles. They would gain nothing by betraying themselves, for they have mostly won more less discreditable scars . . ."

Protocols, p. 44:

"Already there exists in French journalism a system of Masonic understanding for giving counter- [p. 15] signs. All organs of the Press are tied by mutual professional secrets to the manner of the ancient oracles. Not one of the members will betray his knowledge of the secret, if the secret has not been ordered to be made public. No single publisher will have the courage to betray the secret entrusted to him, the reason being that not one of them is admitted into the literary world without bearing the marks of some shady act in his past life."

CONTEMPT FOR THE PEOPLE

But this contempt is nothing compared to that which both Machiavelli and the Elders evince towards the masses whom tyranny is to reduce to a more than Oriental servitude.

Geneva Dialogues, p. 43:

Machiavelli: -- "You do not know the unbounded meanness of the peoples . . . . groveling before force, pitiless towards the weak, implacable to faults, indulgent to crimes, incapable of supporting the contradictions of a free régime, and patient to the point of martyrdom under the violence of an audacious despotism . . . giving themselves masters whom they pardon for deeds for the least of which they would have beheaded twenty constitutional kings."

Protocols, p. 15:

"In their intense meanness the Christian peoples help our independence - when kneeling they crouch before power; when they are pitiless towards the weak; merciless in dealing with faults, and lenient to crimes; when they refuse to recognize the contradictions of freedom; when they are patient to the degree of martyrdom in bearing with the violence of an audacious despotism. At the hands of their present dictators, Premiers, and Ministers, they endure abuses for the smallest of which they would have murdered twenty kings."

Both the Elders and Machiavelli propose to make political crime thoroughly unpopular by assimilating the treatment of the political criminal to that of the felon. Both devote not a little attention to police organization and espionage; the creator of Machiavelli had evidently studied Napoleon III's police methods and suffered at the hands of his agents. Each proposes to exercise a severe control over the Bar and the Bench. As regards the Vatican, Machiavelli-Napoleon, with recent Italian history in mind, aims at the complete control of the Papacy. After inflaming popular hatred [p. 16] against the Church of Rome and its clergy, he will intervene to protect the Holy See, as Napoleon III did intervene, when "the chassep´ts worked wonders." The learned Elders propose to follow a similar plan: "when the people in their rage throw themselves on to the Vatican we shall appear as its protectors in order to stop bloodshed." Ultimately, of course, they mean to destroy the Church. The terrible chiefs of a Pan-Judaic conspiracy could hardly have any other plan of campaign. Machiavelli, naturally, does not go so far. Enough for him if the Pope is safely lodged in the Napoleonic pockets.

Is it necessary to produce further proofs that the majority of the Protocols are simply paraphrases of the Geneva Dialogues, with wicked Hebrew Elders, and finally an Israelite world ruler in the place of Machiavelli-Napoleon III, and the brutish goyim (Gentiles) substituted for the fickle masses, "gripped in a vice [sic] by poverty, ridden by sensuality, devoured by ambition," whom Machiavelli intends to win?

III. - SOME CONCLUSIONS.

There is no evidence as to how the Geneva Dialogues reached Russia. The following theory may be suggested.

The Third Napoleon's secret police, many of whom were Corsicans, must have known the existence of the Dialogues and almost certainly obtained them from some of the many persons arrested on the charge of political conspiracy during the reign of of Napoleon III. In the last two decades of the 19th century and in the early years of the 20th there were always a few Corsicans in the Palace Police of the Tsar, and in the Russian secret service. Combining courage with secretiveness, a high average of intelligence with fidelity to his chief, the Corsican makes a first-class secret agent or bodyguard. It is not improbably that Corsicans who had been in the service of Napoleon III, or who had had kinsmen in his secret service, brought the Geneva Dialogues to Russia, where some member of the Okhrana or some Court official obtained possession of them, But this is only a theory.

As to the Protocols, they were first published in 1905 at Tsarskoye Selo in the second edition of a book entitled "The Great Within the Small," the author of which was Professor Sergei Nilus. Professor Nilus has been described to the writer as a learned, pious, credulous Conservative, who combined much theological and some historical erudition with a singular lack of knowledge of the world. In January, 1917, Nilus, according to the introduction to the French version of the Protocols, published a book, entitled "It is Here, at Our Doors!!" in which he republished the Protocols. In this latter work, according to the [p. 18] French version, Professor Nilus stated that the manuscript of the Protocols was given him by Alexis Nicolaievich Sukhotin, a noble who afterwards became Vice-Governor of Stavropol.

According to the 1905 edition of the Protocols they were obtained by a woman who stole them from "one of the most influential and most highly initiated leaders of Freemasonry. The theft was accomplished at the close of the secret meeting of the 'initiated' in France, that nest of Jewish conspiracy." But in the epilogue to the English version of the Protocols Professor Nilus says, "My friend found them in the sages at the headquarters of the Society of Zion which are at present situated in France."

According to the French version of the Protocols, Nilus in his book of 1917 states that the Protocols were notes of a plan submitted to the "Council of Elders" by Theodor Herzl at the first Zionist Congress which was held at Basle, in August, 1897, and that Herzl afterwards complained to the Zionist Committee of Action of the indiscreet publication of confidential information. The Protocols were signed by "Zionist representatives of the 33rd Degree" in Orient Freemasonry and were secretly removed from the complete file of the proceedings of the aforesaid Zionist Congress, which was hidden in the "Chief Zionist office, which is situated in French territory."

Such are Professor Nilus's rather contradictory accounts of the origin of the Protocols. Not a very convincing story! Theodor Herzl is dead; Sukhotin is dead, and where are the signatures of the Zionist representatives of the 33rd Degree?

Turning to the text of the Protocols, and comparing it with that of the Geneva Dialogues, one is struck by the absence of any effort on the part of the plagiarist to conceal his plagiarism. The paraphrasing has been very careless; parts [p. 19] of sentences, whole phrases at times, are identical; the development of the thought is the same; there has been no attempt worth mentioning to alter the order of the Geneva Dialogues. The plagiarist has introduced Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche in one passage in order to be "up to date"; he has given a Jewish colour to "Machiavelli's" schemes for dictatorship, but he has utterly failed to conceal his indebtedness to the Geneva Dialogues. This gives the impression that the real writer of the Protocols, who does not seem to have had anything to do with Nilus and may have been some quite unimportant pr¨cis writer employed by the Court or by the Okhrana, was obliged to paraphrase the original at short notice. A proof of Jewish conspiracy was required at once as a weapon for the Conservatives against the Liberal elements in Russia.

Mr. X, the discoverer of the plagiarism, informs me that Protocols, shortly after their discovery in 1901, four years before their publication by Professor Nilus, served a subsidiary purpose, namely, the first defeat of Monsieur Philippe, a French hypnotist and thought-reader, who acquired considerable influence over the Tsar and Tsaritsa at the beginning of the present century. The Court favorite was disliked by certain great personages, and incurred the natural jealousy of the monks, thaumaturgists, and similar adventurers who hoped to capture the Tsar though the Empress in their own interest, or in that of various cliques. Philippe was not a Jew, but it was easy to represent a Frenchman from "that nest of Jewish conspiracy" as a Zionist agent. Philippe fell from favour, to return to Russia and find himself once more in the Court's good graces at a later date.

But the principal importance of the Protocols was their use during the first Russian revolution. [p. 20] This revolution was supported by the Jewish element in Russia, notably by the Jewish Bund. The Okhrana organization knew this perfectly well; it had its Jewish and crypto-Jewish agents, one of whom afterwards assassinated M. Stolypin; it was in league with the powerful Conservative faction; with its allies it sought to gain the Tsar's ear. For many years before the Russian revolution of 1905-1906 there had been a tale of a secret council of Rabbis [sic] who plotted ceaselessly against the Orthodox. The publication of the Protocols in 1905 certainly came at an opportune moment for the Conservatives. It is said by some Russians that the manuscript of the Protocols was communicated to the Tsar early in 1905, and that its communication contributed to the fall of the Liberal Prince Svitopolk-Mirski in that year and the subsequent strong reactionary movement. However that may be, the date and place of publication of Nilus's first edition of the Protocols are most significant now that we know that the originals which were given him were simply paraphrases.

The following conclusions are, therefore, forced upon any reader of the two books who has studied Nilus's account of the origin of the Protocols and has some acquaintance with Russian history in the years preceding the revolution of 1905-6:

1. The Protocols are largely a paraphrase of the book here provisionally called the "Geneva Dialogues."

2. They were designed to foster the belief among Russian Conservatives, and especially in Court circles, that the prime cause of discontent among the politically minded elements in Russia was not the repressive policy of the bureaucracy, but a world-wide Jewish conspiracy. They thus served as a weapon against the Russian Liberals, who urged the Tsar [p. 21] to make certain concessions to the intelligentsia.

3. The Protocols were paraphrased very hastily and carelessly.

4. Such portions of the Protocols as were not derived from the Geneva Dialogues were probably supplied by the Okhrana, which organization very possibly obtained them from the many Jews it employed to spy on their coreligionists.

So much for the Protocols. They have done harm not so much, in the writer's opinion, by arousing anti-Jewish feeling, which is older than the Protocols and will persist in all countries where there is a Jewish problem until that problem is solved; rather, they have done harm by persuading all sorts of mostly well-to-do people that every recent manifestation of discontent on the part of the poor is an unnatural phenomenon, a factitious agitation caused by a secret society of Jews.

Leading Article ... [p. 22] Leading Article reprinted from The Times of August 18, 1921 [by an editor]

We publish to-day the last of the articles on the so-called "Protocols of the Elders of Zion [sic]" from our Constantinople Correspondent, who has effectively exposed a remarkable forgery. We have, of course, no political object in making this discovery known. On the general aspects of the Jewish problem our attitude is known to be impartial, and we have no intention of taking sides in those political controversies on this question which too frequently engender excessive passion and obscure its real character. In the interests of objective truth, however, it was of great importance that a legend like that so long connected with the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" should be exposed at the earliest possible opportunity.

Briefly summarized, the facts of this curious historical incident are as follows. A Russian book, published in 1905 by an official named SERGEI NILUS, contained a document described as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and purported to be a summary of the proceedings of a secret meeting of a Jewish organization that was plotting in France to overthrow Gentile civilization and establish a Jewish world State. The document attracted little attention until after the Russian revolution in 1917, when the astounding collapse of a great country through the action of the Bolshevists and the presence of a large number of Jews in the Bolshevist ranks caused many to search for some simplified explanation of the catastrophe. The "protocols " appeared to provide such an explanation, more particularly since the tactics [p. 23] of the Bolshevists in many respects resembled those advocated in the "Protocols." The book was translated into several European languages and made the basis for impassioned dissertations on an alleged Jewish world peril. There was a certain plausibility about this thesis that attracted many; but the authenticity of the "Protocols" was very vigorously called in question, and the whole matter was shrouded in doubt until our Correspondent made his remarkable discovery. A Russian in Constantinople, who had bought some books from an ex-officer of the Russian Secret Police, found among them one in which many passages struck him by their resemblance to the "Protocols." Our Correspondent, whose attention was called to the matter, found on examination that the "Protocols" consisted in the main of clumsy plagiarisms from this little French book, which he has forwarded to us. The book had no title-page, but we identified it in the British Museum as a political pamphlet directed against NAPOLEON III. and published in Brussels in 1865 by a French lawyer named MAURICE JOLY, and entitled "Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu." The book was published anonymously, but the author was immediately seized by NAPOLEON's police and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. A second edition was published in Brussels in 1868, with the author's name and a note on his imprisonment.

The author of the "protocols" simply copied from the "Dialogues" a number of passages in which MACHIAVELLI is made to enunciate the doctrines and tactics of despotism as they were at that time practiced by NAPOLEON, and put them into the mouth of an imaginary Jewish Elder. There can be little doubt that the forgery was perpetrated by some member of the Russian Secret Police. NILUS, who may have acted in good faith, declared [p. 24] that the manuscript of the "Protocols" had been given him by an official named ALEXANDER SUKHOTIN, who professed to have received it from a woman who had stolen it from an Elder of Zion. On the leather back of the copy of the "Dialogues" sent us by our Correspondent we notice the letters A.S., and, seeing that the book was bought from an ex-officer of the Secret Police, it seems possible that this copy belonged at one time to SUKHOTIN, and that it was the copy actually used in the compilation of the "protocols."

For many years there was a close connexion between the Russian and the French police, and one of the confiscated copies of JOLY's book may easily have fallen into the hands of a Russian agent - such as RACHKOVSKY, at one time head of the Russian Secret Police in Paris, to whom other and more clumsy forgeries have been traced - and may have inspired him to invent a weapon for use against Jewish revolutionaries. At any rate, the fact of the plagiarism has now been conclusively established, and the legend may be allowed to pass into oblivion. The historical interest of the discovery is considerable, though, as we have indicated, it does not, in our opinion, affect the Jewish problem, which happily, in this country, cannot be said to exist in its Continental form.



A Revision Or Rewrite Does Not Always Equal 'Forgery'

Commentary
From Q
12-9-3

Dear Jeff,

Revolt Against Civilization - On the Protocols and Geneva Dialogues

The Protocols of Zion is often referred to as a forgery, but can be understood more clearly as a rewriting of the Geneva Dialogues, also called Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. All scriptures of the major religions have all been rewritten numerous times, but these are never referred to as 'forgeries.' Thus, we must look at the history of the times to figure out the truth behind these two texts.

First, there was the American Revolution which was an idea seeded by Freemasons with their motto 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.' This revolution was a revolt against the old order of things: of monarchy. Not that life under the monarchy was too harsh, but it was a fight for a new idea, a new world order, of liberalism. It was in fact the beginnings of a political philosophy that is commonly referred to today as Communism. [1]

Now, France's aid to the American rebels left France bankrupt which did its best to fuel civil unrest. This in turn led to the French Revolution. The bloody revolution, the failed revolution, so-called, and its motto once again, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity' must not be thought of as occurring by happenstance, but as a carefully planned global revolution, an overthrowing of White civilization in which nations fall like dominoes one by one to the new order of liberalism, socialism, anarchism and communism.

Napoleon III, who was essentially a puppet for the Freemasonic plan, played his part to challenge through war Russia and Prussia.

Frenchman Joly's book Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu was made public as against Napoleon III and as a warning to the world of the Masonic plot, but gave no mention of Jews. Shortly thereafter Joly was imprisoned.

A rewritten version of the book now called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was printed privately the same year as the First Zionist Congress in 1897 and later published in 1905 in the second edition of a book titled The Great Within the Small.

The publisher's contradictory remarks about the origin of the text led to a claim of forgery. That and the fact that the text was rewritten to expose a Jewish conspiracy allowed for a 1920 London Times article to denounce it as a hoax.

But it is well known the Jewish involvement in the French Revolution, and later in the Jewish Bolshevik Revolution the Protocols rightly gained credibility.

Still many other protocols have now come true with utmost accuracy and because the protocols never claimed that 'all Jews were plotting against the gentiles' but that a small group of Jews and wealthy members of a secret society were involved in a plot for world domination there is no reason not to believe the truth of which reality has proven.



We must only assume that the Jews referred to in the protocols do not necessarily reflect the actions or intentions of all Jews but of a small group of Zionist Jews as well as gentile oligarchs, rulers and Freemasons.

So, one can see now the true revolt against civilization. A constant subversion and perversion of the old order of things leads a path for the despotic way of the new world order.

No man, woman, or child, gentile or Jew, in support of this new world order shall remain unpunished.

[1] It would be accurate to note that Freemasonry existed before Weishaupt*s Illuminati.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 03:13 PM
If you want to read the "Geneva Dialogues" go to this site;

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/download.html

Scroll down to "Joly.zip" and download the English version.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 03:14 PM
Back to the Ukrainians.

Kulaks (Russian: ºÑƒл?º, kulak, "fist", literally meaning tight-fisted; Ukrainian: ºÑƒÑ€ºÑƒлÑŒ, kurkul) is a pejorative term extensively used in Soviet political language, originally referring to relatively wealthy peasants in the Russian Empire who owned larger farms and used hired labour, as a result of the Stolypin reform introduced since 1906. Among Peter Stolypin's intentions was the creation of a group of prosperous farmers who would support the Tsar's government. In 1912, 16 per cent (11% in 1903) of Russian farmers had over 8 acres (32,000 m²) per male family member (a threshold used to distinguish middle-class and prosperous farmers in statistics).

The peasantry was tentatively divided into three broad categories: bednyaks, or poor peasants, seredniaks, or medium-prosperity ones, and kulaks, the rich farmers. In addition, there was a category of batraks, or landless agriculture workers for hire (farm hands).

After the Russian Revolution, Bolsheviks considered only batraks and bednyaks as true allies of the proletariat. Serednyaks were considered unreliable, "hesitating" allies, and kulaks were seen as class enemies by definition. However, often those declared to be kulaks were not especially prosperous. Both peasants and Soviet officials were often uncertain as to what constituted a kulak, and the term was often used to label anyone who used hired labour or had more property than was considered "normal" according to some criteria. At first, being a kulak carried no penalties, other than occasional mistrust from the Soviet authorities. During the height of Stalinism, however, people identified as kulaks were subjected to particularly harsh measures.

In May 1929 the Sovnarkom issued a decree that formalised the notion of "kulak household" (ºÑƒл?Ñ"*ºоµ Ñ...озя'сÑ"²о). Any of the following characteristics defined a kulak:

regular usage of hired labour;
ownership of a mill, a creamery (м?слобо'ня, butter-making rig), or other complex equipment, or a complex machine with mechanical motor;
systematic letting of agricultural equipment or facilities for rent;
involving in commerce, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or "other types of non-labour occupation".
By the last item, any peasant who sold his surplus on the market could be automatically classified as kulak. In 1930 this list was extended by including those who were letting industrial plants, e.g., sawmills, and who rented land to other farmers. Gregory Zinoviev, a well-known Soviet politician, said in 1924, €œWe are fond of describing any peasant who has enough to eat as a kulak.€ At the same time, ispolkoms (executive committees of local Soviets) of republics, oblasts and krais were given rights to add other criteria, depending on local conditions.

In 1928, there was a food shortage in the cities and in the army. The Soviet government encouraged the formation of collective farms and, in 1929, introduced a policy of forced collectivisation. Some peasants were attracted to collectivisation by the idea that they would be in a position to afford tractors and would enjoy increased production.

Whether peasants were resisting expropriation and exile or collectivisation and servitude they often retaliated against the state by smashing implements and killing animals. Live animals would have to be handed over to the collectives whereas meat and hides could respectively be consumed and concealed or sold. Many peasants chose to slaughter livestock, even horses, rather than to pass it into common property. In the first two months of 1930 millions of cattle, horses, pigs, sheep and goats were slaughtered. Through this and bad weather a quarter of the entire nation€s livestock perished, a greater loss than had been sustained during the Civil War and a loss that was not compensated for until the 1960s.

This huge slaughtering caused Sovnarkom to issue a series of decrees to prosecute "the malicious slaughtering of livestock" (Ñ...¸Ñ"н¸Ñ"µÑº¸' убо' сºоÑ"?) Many peasants also attempted to sabotage the collectives by attacking members and government officials.

Stalin requested harsh measures to put an end to the kulak resistance. In a speech given at a Marxist agrarian conference,he stated that, €˜From a policy of limiting the exploitative tendencies of the kulaks, we have gone over to a policy of liquidating the kulaks as a class.€ The party agreed to the use of force in the collectivisation and €˜dekulakization€ efforts. The kulaks were to be liquidated as a class and subject to one of three fates: death sentence, labour settlements (not to be confused with labor camps, although the former were also managed by the GULAG), or deportation "out of regions of total collectivisation of the agriculture". Tens of thousands of alleged kulaks were summarily executed, property was confiscated to form collective farms, and many families were deported to unpopulated areas of Siberia and Soviet Central Asia.

Often local officials were assigned minimum quotas of kulaks to identify, and were forced to use their discretionary powers to find kulaks wherever they could. This led to many cases where a farmer who only employed his sons, or any family with a metal roof on their house were labelled kulaks and deported.

The same fate met those labelled "kulak helpers" (¿о´ºÑƒл?Ñ"н¸º), those who sided with kulaks in their opposition to collectivisation.

A new wave of repressions, this time against "ex-kulaks", was started in 1937, as part of the Great Purge, after the NKVD Order no. 00447. Those deemed ex-kulaks had only two options: death sentence or labour camps.

According to data from Soviet archives, which were published in 1990, 1,803,392 people were sent to labor colonies and camps in 1930 and 1931. Books say that 1,317,022 reached the destination. The remaining 486,370 must have died or escaped. Deportations on a smaller scale continued after 1931. The reported number of kulaks and their relatives who had died in labour colonies from 1932 to 1940 was 389,521.

It is difficult to determine how many people died because of the "liquidation of the kulaks as a class". The data from the Soviet archives do not tell us exactly how many people escaped and survived and what number of deaths would have been if there had been no deportation. These data do not include people who were executed or died in prisons and gulags rather than died in labour colonies. Many historians consider the great famine a result of the "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" and therefore they estimate the death toll at about 7 million. A collection of estimates is available at this site.

The majority of "kulaks" were hard workers. This sometimes led to situations hard to believe. When resettled to Siberia and Kazakhstan, after some time many "kulaks" gained prosperity again. This fact served as a base of repressions against some sections of NKVD that were in charge of the "labour settlements" (Ñ"ру´о²Ñ"µ ¿осµлµн¸Ñ) in 1938-1939, which permitted "kulakization" (оºÑƒл?Ñ"¸²?н¸µ) of the "labour settlers" (Ñ"ру´о¿осµлµнÑ"*µ²). The fact that new settlers became more prosperous than the neighbouring kolkhozes was explained by "wreckage" and "criminal negligence".



NKVD Order " 00447 by July 30, 1937 ž Ñ€µ¿Ñ€µÑÑ¸Ñ€о²?н¸¸ бÑ"²Ñˆ¸Ñ... ºÑƒл?ºо², у³оло²н¸ºо² ¸ ´Ñ€Ñƒ³¸Ñ... ?нÑ"¸Ñо²µÑ"сº¸Ñ... элµмµнÑ"о² ("About repression of former kulaks, criminals, and other anti-Soviet elements") undersigned by Nikolai Yezhov.

To execute this order, NKVD troikas were created on the levels of republic, krai, and oblast. Investigation was to be performed by operative groups "in a speedy and simplified way", the results were to be delivered to troikas for trials.

The chairman of a troika was the chief of the corresponding territorial subdivision of NKVD (People's Commissar of a republican NKVD, etc.). Usually a troika included the prosecutor of the republic/krai/oblast in question; if not, he was allowed to be present at the session of a troika. The third person was usually the Communist Party secretary of the corresponding regional level. The staff of these troikas were personally specified in the Order " 00447.

Protocols of a troika session were passed to the corresponding operative group for executions of sentences. Times and places of executions of death sentences were ordered to be held in secret.

The same order instructed to classify kulaks and other anti-Soviet elements into two categories: the First category of repressed was subject to death by shooting, the Second category was subject to labor camps. The order set upper quotas per territory and category. For example Byelorussian SSR was estimated to have 2,000 (1st cat.) + 10,000 (2nd cat.) = 12,000 anti-Soviet elements. It was specifically stressed that quotas were estimates and could not be exceeded without personal approval of Yezhov. But in practice this approval was easy to obtain, and eventually these initial quotas were exceeded by orders of magnitude. For example, in September 1937, the Dagestan obkom requested the increase of the First Category from 600 to 1,200; the request was granted the next day.

After this Order, the terms First/Second Category became standard abbreviations in NKVD documentation for "the highest measure of punishment" and "placing into corrective labor camps", respectively.

The implementation was swift. Already by August 15, 1937, 101,000 was arrested and 14,000 convicted.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 03:14 PM
And it all started with Lenin.

The phrase Lenin's Hanging Order refers to a famous handwritten order [1] dated August 11, 1918, written by Vladimir Lenin instructing communists operating in and around Penza to publicly hang at least one hundred kulaks; publicize their names; confiscate their grains and to execute an unspecified number of hostages.

In terms of the Order, this was intended to be demonstrated to "people hundreds of kilometers around" by way of an example, in response to kulak revolts in 5 volosts in the area. The Order was specifically addressed to comrades Kuraev, Bosh, Minkin and other Penza communists and required the recipients to acknowledge receipt of the Order by telegraphic mail and to confirm the execution of the Order.

The Penza area is in the East European plains.

The order was discussed during a controversy around a 1997 BBC documentary, Lenin's Secret Files, based on Robert Service's findings in recently opened Soviet archives.

And here´s a translating of the original order.

11-8-18

Send to Penza To Comrades Kuraev, Bosh, Minkin and other Penza communists

Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volost's must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this, because we have now before us our final decisive battle "with the kulaks." We need to set an example.

You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the public sees) at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers.
Publish their names.
Take away all of their grain.
Execute the hostages - in accordance with yesterday's telegram.
This needs to be accomplished in such a way, that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let's choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks.

Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this.

Yours, Lenin

P.S. Use your toughest people for this.

bienenbaer
03-20-2006, 03:17 PM
Pirschjaeger,

please stop it.

Your not making any points for fruitful discussion and you're out of line with common German thought of today.

We do not need:

- any balancing of Soviet policies, including treatment of German PoW, versus Nazi murder, which is not subject to moral relativism or revisionism.

- any discussion on the protocol of Zions with respect to anything that happened between 1939 and 1945.

I would not know how this relates to history of airpower, airwarfare and aviation in the prop-plane area, which is topic of this forum.

You are doing a disservice to your compatriots.

Period.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 03:17 PM
Take note, Norman Davies points toward 33 million died in SU before WW2 and 17 million after. Just take a gander through this.

Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20 000 000
There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school. The two schools are generally associated with the right and left wings of the political spectrum, and they often accuse each other of being blinded by prejudice, stubbornly refusing to admit the truth, and maybe even having a hidden agenda. Also, both sides claim that recent access to former Soviet archives has proven that their side is right.
Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school:
Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
1939-45: 18,157,000
1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
Cited by Wallechinsky:
Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.
And from the Lower Numbers school:
Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
Cited in Nove:
Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.
Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.
MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.
As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be a rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers, on the other hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to fight off the German invasion.
[Letter]
Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness without straining credulity:
In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.
Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev
Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2.
Daniel Chirot:
"Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
"Highest": 40M
Citing:
Conquest: 20M
Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M
Medvedev: 40M
Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.
Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M
[Ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).]
John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl.
Kulaks: 7M
Gulag: 12M
Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors)
Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths.
Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M
Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million.
AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million.
Individual Gulags etc.
Kolyma
Kuropaty
Vorkuta
Bykivnia
Famine, 1926-38
Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 4.2M in Ukraine + 1.7M in Kazakhstan
Green, Barbara ("Stalinist Terror and the Question of Genocide: the Great Famine" in Rosenbaum, Is the Holocaust Unique?) cites these sources for the number who died in the famine:
Nove: 3.1-3.2M in Ukraine, 1933
Maksudov: 4.4M in Ukraine, 1927-38
Mace: 5-7M in Ukraine
Osokin: 3.35M in USSR, 1933
Wheatcraft: 4-5M in USSR, 1932-33
Conquest:
Total, USSR, 1926-37: 11M
1932-33: 7M
Ukraine: 5M

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by bienenbaer:
Pirschjaeger,

please stop it.

Your not making any points for fruitful discussion and you're out of line with common German thought of today.

We do not need:

- any balancing of Soviet policies, including treatment of German PoW, versus Nazi murder.

- any discussion on the protocol of Zions with respect to anything that happened between 1939 and 1945.

I would not know how this relates to history of airpower, airwarfare and aviation in this prop-plane area, which is zopic of this forum.

You doing a disservice to your compatriots.

Period.

Obviously you are not reading. I am doing nothing of what you claimed.

If you read and pay attention, you'll realize I am pointing out how the Jews were persecuted and the events that lead up to the 39-45 holocaust. If we don't know how these things start then we'll never put an end to it.

The Jews have been wrongly persecuted through history and people are still using the same propaganda against them today. I know it's a lot to read but nothing good comes easy.

bienenbaer
03-20-2006, 03:26 PM
Obviously you are not reading. I am doing nothing of what you claimed.

It doesn't matter what you write in detail.
If you'll read your posts after a night of sleep you will see you are not doing your intentions a favour.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 03:41 PM
Read them? I am copying and pasting them from another thread. I've not only researched this stuff, I already used it in discussions.

I can tell by your posts you haven't read much. You simply skimmed and got only a few words.

I mention what was posted in here(enslaving slavs and Lebensraum) were the secondary goals. Hitler believed that communism was the product of the Jews. I am showing how western governments at the time believed the protocals to be true. At the same time I am proving them to be false.

When you read everything, it's only then that you can start to understand the events that lead up to the 39-45 holocaust. It's only then that you can understand Hitler's reasoning. What I am doing is in no way saying that what he did was right. He was totally wrong.

Kocur_
03-20-2006, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by d4bomb:

And if anyone thinks Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was a pre-emptive strike is totally ignorant. Tell me, when in history did major aggressors ever start a war without giving a pretext of a "pre-emptive strike". No one is ever going to declare a war under the basis that they just don't like the other guy, or that they don't share the same ideologies. It is laughable that anyone would ever consider the Soviet Union of attempting to invade Europe except for revisionist armchair historians who have an axe to grind with the Soviets.



So tell me ignorant, WTF was doing the strongest soviet strategic unit, the 9th Strike Army over SU-Romania border in summer 1941? Was it to defent SU against the mighty Romanian army?

Umm, why am I replying to guy who says that Gulag was just "harsh conditions" in which MILLIONS of people died because they were "not accustomed to" them? Accidental like Great Famine, right?

MB_Avro_UK
03-20-2006, 05:27 PM
Hi all,

PJ is seeking a discussion. PJ is contoversial at times (and so are we all!) but his posts are worth reading as a discussion point.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

msalama
03-21-2006, 12:30 AM
OK, thanks Fritz. Now that I've followed this discussion a bit longer, I realize that I really DID misunderstand you in the beginning. Please accept my apologies for that.

But as for Hitler's ultimate reasons: I've researched this subject - or group of subjects, actually, because there're several - a bit myself too. And first off: NO, Holocaust wasn't an isolated incident at all! A good research into the subject is Deb³rah Dwork's and Robert Jan van Pelt's "Holocaust - a History", which clearly shows us that persecution of the Jews is unfortunately a centuries-old phenomenon. Hitler and NSDAP thus did _not_ invent it, but they DID expand it to levels hitherto unknown. And no wonder, because as we know racial thinking formed a big part of the Nazi core ideology!

Racial thinking, and seeing Germans as herrenvolk, thus shaped and influenced Third Reich's policies a lot both before and during the war. Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg, with his claims of a link existing between Russian Jews and Bolsheviks, was a big influence on Hitler's thinking in the beginning as well. But there were other important factors too, one being the Nazi notion of Communism as a competing totalitarian ideology. Thus the war in the East was necessary from Hitler's POW not only because of the Lebensraum gained from the unter-mensch Soviets, _but_ also because of a need for stamping out Communism - and the international Jewish conspiracy behind it - as an ideology. This war was, therefore, to be one of extermination of (at least) the Russian political elite and Jewry.

Matters were also helped greatly by the Nazi notion of Slavs as sub-humans. The violence of the Eastern war, and various atrocities that followed in its wake, weren't explicitly targeted against Russia's civilian Slavish peasantry or peoples per se. Nothing, however, prevented their treatment as untermenschen with little to no human value, as can be noticed from various Nazi comments and policies of the time, of which starvation and/or robbing the populace of food was one, and working them to death was another.

The reasons for Operation Barbarossa, as can be seen, were thus multiple. But what does link them together, however, is the gross illegality of them all. The fact therefore remains that it _is_ Hitler, as an aggressor and instigator for the operation, who shall forever be the ultimate perpetrator for any bestialities that followed in its wake. And this regardless of what one might think of the Soviet rule per se!

Now that's what I think. And you?

Pirschjaeger
03-21-2006, 02:38 AM
Msalama, we agree. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Never EVER mix Oreos and beer!" Oh yeah, and the other stuff too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The Germans were slowly warped into a racial country. The Nazis got into every aspect of daily life.

I collect identification documents from the Nazi reign and these documents shed some light onto what the life was like back then. I know you'd be interested to see them.

People like to say that we don't learn. This is not true. Sure, there have been various genocides since the 39-45 holocaust but they were all quite different in nature. I am sure we will never see something like what happened in the early part of last century again. That doesn't mean there will be an end to racism or even genocide, it will continue since it is part of our nature.

My point of bringing all this up was to show how lies and ignorance lead to millions of deaths. It wasn't about who was worse, it was more about what is possible.

Too many think of the Jews when you mention genocide and their thoughts go no further. We can blame education and media on this. Racism in society is like a disease in an organism. Until you know the roots and the causes, you cannot find the cure.

People should be more open and willing to talk about these things. As you could see from this thread many people are conditioned to raise a red flag just on keywords alone.

IMHO, it is taboo to not discuss it.

Pirschjaeger
03-21-2006, 02:44 AM
D4bomb, what is it with "pre-emptive" strike?

This is the most BS word of the 21rst century. It's all to often accepted and used as a way to get the general mass to accept the wrong their government intends or does.

If you neighbor jumps out of your flower garden and wacks you in the head with a baseball bat, that can be a "pre-emptive" strike. Why not? He could say he thought you were gonna hit first. Court adjourned.

Also, if you think all you need is a "pre-emptive strike" excuse to validate invading a country, thaen by your ideology, Hitler had the right to invade the SU. He could have said the SU was planning an invasion of Europe, which in fact, they did. He could have held up the Protocals since the western nations leaders believed them.

"Pre-emptive strike" is nothing more than a BS excuse used to keep the sheep in line.

Aaron_GT
03-21-2006, 02:45 AM
As Britain's socialist government

We have no such government. Tony Blair is not a socialist.


cleared the way for a gaudy show trial of that Great Satan of the left, Chile's Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the 65th anniversary of this century's bloodiest crime was utterly ignored. Leftists now baying for Pinochet's head don't want to be reminded of the Unknown Holocaust.

Actually this was one of the things which led to worsening relations between the European communist parties and the USSR, the final blow in the 1930s being Stalin's behaviour in Spain. Only the German invasion in 1941 saved him for a while. Post war the relations became strained again. Many mostly leftist groups in Europe campaigned against Soviet oppression.

Whether it was the bloodiest crime or not is debatable - most suggestions are that Stalin was right - 10 million, and the number killed in the Holocaust is believed to be 12 million. (Additional note: more may have starved, but whether you count those in the total or not is another matter). It is certainly one of several terrible and bloody crimes of the 20th century, and sadly many of them are forgotten apart from WW2.

Stalin was certainly one of the great monsters of the 20th Century, and Lenin was a great admirer of the Great Terror of 18th Century France.

Pirschjaeger
03-21-2006, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

PJ is seeking a discussion. PJ is contoversial at times (and so are we all!) but his posts are worth reading as a discussion point.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Thx Avro http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

When you say I'm controversial, it is nothing short of a compliment. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

msalama
03-21-2006, 03:01 AM
My point of bringing all this up was to show how lies and ignorance lead to millions of deaths. It wasn't about who was worse, it was more about what is possible.

Fritz,

I agree wholeheartedly. Or, as Dvorak and van Pelt say in "Holocaust": Hitler's genocide of the Jews wasn't the first phenomenon - or crime - of its kind, and unfortunately, it won't be the last either. And _that_ is exactly why these things should be discussed openly.

S!

panther3485
03-21-2006, 04:18 AM
All very interesting, but.....

Haven't we strayed somewhat from the original topic?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

panther3485

Pirschjaeger
03-21-2006, 04:30 AM
Ha ha ha, Panther, this turned into the topic I had mentioned to you a few days ago. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

bienenbaer
03-21-2006, 11:28 AM
PJ,

I would like to seriously beg your pardon. It seems MB_AVRO_UK is right and my postings were inappropriate.

I got setup about this *whole* thread for some personal recollections of mine. I will keep more care in these combined historical and Weltbild discussions in the future.

Regards,
Bienenbaer

Ruy Horta
03-21-2006, 02:04 PM
Pirsch,

Sorry, but I still think you are trying to justify or at least make more acceptable the German actions against the Soviet Union.

It is interesting how people with a certain weltanschau, keep offsetting the holocaust with the millions of pre-wars deaths within the Soviet Union - the cost of Bolshevism.

Since Germany attacked the Soviet Union and since it adopted a Vernichtungskrieg from day one, no actually planned to wage such a war from the planning stage, there is no such excuse to be used.

The question is about POWs, well in a sense the Slav was not a POW, he was an untermensch, he did not have any rights as a POW, as a soldier or whatever. If he was a communist, he was to be shot on the spot. That is from 03:15 on the 22nd of June 1941.

Official directive

"in a war against Bolshevism, handling the enemy according to humane rules or the Principles of International Law is not applicable."

(Communists) "are hitherto, wether in battle or found conducting resistance, in principle, to be shot immediately"

Halder

"Clash of two ideologies. We must foget the concept if comradeship between soldiers. A communist is no comrade before or after the battle. This is a war of extermination... We do not wage war to preserve the enemy."

Hoepner

"It is the old battle of Germans against the Slav people, of the defense of the European culture against Muscovite-Asiatic inundation, and the repulse of Jewish Bolshevism."

"The objective of this battle must be the demolition oof present-day Russia and must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity. Every military action must be guided in planning and execution by an iron resolution to exterminate the enemy remorselessly and totally. In particular, no adherents to the contemporary Russian Bolshevik system are to be spared."

Now if the Germans had entered the Soviet Union and limited their treatment to those "criminal" Bolsheviks, they might have been able to make a case for themselves, but they had a clear mission of subjugation an entire people - the Slav culture.

Vernichtungskrieg, followed by Lebensraum for the German people, not liberating Russians, Ukranians, etc etc etc, from Bolshevik suppression, but replacing it by one of their own making.

The Bolsheviks were an outcome of Russian social history, perhaps unavoidable, they took roughly 20 years to do their dirty work, the Germans did it in less than 3 years fighting on the Eastern Front.

There are still some old ideas working here, which are dangerous. Perhaps I am a little sensitive, but if I even suspect some brownish element I am out of the discussion.

LUFT11_Hoflich
03-21-2006, 05:54 PM
Life in the camps was terrible, and they were treated as subhumans.


Can someone define for me sub-humans? If you mean by that an awful treatment of humans. Or worse than animals. Then we must look that animals often are treated better than Humans. I think the term sub-human belongs more to the Nazi side of the fence.

I think it's an incorrect word.

But thats just my opinion just based by my way of thinking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

H¶f... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

panther3485
03-22-2006, 05:27 AM
Hi there, LUFT11_Hoflich

My understanding of the term 'sub-human' (or 'untermensch' if you like), as applied in the context of this general discussion, is as follows:

The term would literally mean 'below human'; that is, inferior to human in such a way that the person so classified is not entitled to be treated with the respect, courtesy, compassion, mercy or care that would usually be considered normal, appropriate or fair when dealing with a fellow human being.

In fact, in this particular application, the unfortunate person classified as 'sub-human' would most likely be considered 'lucky' to receive the same treatment as an animal and often would be treated worse than that.

Part of the propaganda/brainwashing used, to convince people that cruel or oppressive acts against other humans are 'justified', includes:

(a) Persuading them that the victims are somehow dangerous to one's own country or people, or are unreasonably standing in the way of one's own peoples' welfare or progress.
(b) Persuading them that the victims 'deserve to be punished' for something.
(c) Worst of all, persuading your people that the other people are in any case 'inferior', not really human at all and therefore not worthy of decent consideration and/or humane treatment. Taken to its extreme, this line of thinking will argue that your people are actually doing humanity a difficult but very necessary service, by ridding the World of these 'sub-human' vermin!


So, I would go much further than to say that 'sub-human' is merely an 'incorrect' word.

It is a word used to justify the worst kinds of evil that can be perpetrated among humankind. The whole concept is sick, twisted and perverted.


Does that help?


Best regards,
panther3485

LUFT11_Hoflich
03-22-2006, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, LUFT11_Hoflich

My understanding of the term 'sub-human' (or 'untermensch' if you like), as applied in the context of this general discussion, is as follows:

The term would literally mean 'below human'; that is, inferior to human in such a way that the person so classified is not entitled to be treated with the respect, courtesy, compassion, mercy or care that would usually be considered normal, appropriate or fair when dealing with a fellow human being.

In fact, in this particular application, the unfortunate person classified as 'sub-human' would most likely be considered 'lucky' to receive the same treatment as an animal and often would be treated worse than that.

Part of the propaganda/brainwashing used, to convince people that cruel or oppressive acts against other humans are 'justified', includes:

(a) Persuading them that the victims are somehow dangerous to one's own country or people, or are unreasonably standing in the way of one's own peoples' welfare or progress.
(b) Persuading them that the victims 'deserve to be punished' for something.
(c) Worst of all, persuading your people that the other people are in any case 'inferior', not really human at all and therefore not worthy of decent consideration and/or humane treatment. Taken to its extreme, this line of thinking will argue that your people are actually doing humanity a difficult but very necessary service, by ridding the World of these 'sub-human' vermin!


So, I would go much further than to say that 'sub-human' is merely an 'incorrect' word.

It is a word used to justify the worst kinds of evil that can be perpetrated among humankind. The whole concept is sick, twisted and perverted.


Does that help?


Best regards,
panther3485

yes it did Panther.

Thanks
H¶f...

Blutarski2004
03-22-2006, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by LUFT11_Hoflich:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Life in the camps was terrible, and they were treated as subhumans.


Can someone define for me sub-humans? If you mean by that an awful treatment of humans. Or worse than animals. Then we must look that animals often are treated better than Humans. I think the term sub-human belongs more to the Nazi side of the fence.

I think it's an incorrect word.

But thats just my opinion just based by my way of thinking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

H¶f... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The term "sub-human" needs to be viewed in the context of the times. It was connected with a widely held social and scientific view of the previous (19th) century that primitive natives such as African tribesmen were not quite fully evolved human beings. They seemed clearly more evolved than apes, but they did not appear to be as fully evolved as citizens of the civilized world viewed themselves. Hence the origin of the "White Man's Burden" idea.

The roots of National Socialist anti-semitism and racial ideas go back to those 19th century beliefs. It was a short step to apply the concept of sub-humanity to other racial and ethnic groups such as the Slavs, who had been historic enemies of Germanic ethnic groups.

The idea of sub-humanity, like phrenology, eugenics, and other such concepts, has fallen into disrepute. But such notions did enjoy a considerable period of intellectual status within mainstream society.

panther3485
03-23-2006, 04:22 AM
Quote:

"The term "sub-human" needs to be viewed in the context of the times. It was connected with a widely held social and scientific view of the previous (19th) century that primitive natives such as African tribesmen were not quite fully evolved human beings. They seemed clearly more evolved than apes, but they did not appear to be as fully evolved as citizens of the civilized world viewed themselves. Hence the origin of the "White Man's Burden" idea.

The roots of National Socialist anti-semitism and racial ideas go back to those 19th century beliefs. It was a short step to apply the concept of sub-humanity to other racial and ethnic groups such as the Slavs, who had been historic enemies of Germanic ethnic groups.

The idea of sub-humanity, like phrenology, eugenics, and other such concepts, has fallen into disrepute. But such notions did enjoy a considerable period of intellectual status within mainstream society."


Yes, there is much truth in this and that's why it has proved to be so dangerous and damaging, for all of humanity, for these ideas to be pursued to their apparently 'logical' conclusion.

Certainly, there were 'small steps' involved in applying 'the concept of sub-humanity' the way the Nazi regime did. But not just one!

The process was actually an extended series of such 'small steps', taken one after another, in small bites, at a rate that could be widely digested and accepted. Indeed, for some it assumed a perceived validity, aided by carefully cultured racist propaganda and a twisted and hateful psuedo-scientific establishment.

History has shown us how such tools can be used to manipulate people into a condition of hatred and contempt for others.

However, while such ideas have historically enjoyed considerable acceptance, for the last 150 years at the very least (probably longer), they have been far from universally accepted. For example, one only needs to look at the strong and dedicated Abolitionist movements, in the middle of the 19th century (1840's, 50's & 60's in Britain, Europe and the USA among other places).
They first argued, then campaigned actively, for the total abolition of human slavery (albeit largely without success to begin with - but they never gave up). Such movements were based on the concept that all human beings were created equal, should be treated equally and were entitled to equal rights. Ideals like this are not new.


Best regards,
panther3485

Pirschjaeger
03-23-2006, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by bienenbaer:
PJ,

I would like to seriously beg your pardon. It seems MB_AVRO_UK is right and my postings were inappropriate.

I got setup about this *whole* thread for some personal recollections of mine. I will keep more care in these combined historical and Weltbild discussions in the future.

Regards,
Bienenbaer

It's the net http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Can see faces or hear tones. Besides, I did through a lot of info all at one time, but is was as minimal as possible. It's a huge topic that requires a lot of info.

No apologies from anyone is necessary. Time will always sort things out.

For those who still think I am trying to justify anything, well, I see it as simply the effects of the forum.

Typically, someone will always try to put things in black and white. This is far from the reality.

"Nazi are incarnate evil, all of them."

"The Russians made the Lada."

Truth is, there were good and bad on all sides. If we don't look at all sides we will be missing a lot of info.

I've already offered a lot of info supporting my point I was trying to make. It all started with the primary and seconsary reasons for Hitler's hatred.

I made my point and won't argue any further. Can't afford the time right now.