Stalin's War of Extermination 1941-1945 :
Szaki
<< His book is a huge success in Germany where left-wingers unsuccessfully
tried to urge the parliament to ban it and punish its author. >>
JS
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967985684/103-0654395-3159068?v=glance
Product Description:
Since the 1920s, Stalin planned the "World Revolution." The outbreak of war
in 1939 gave him the opportunity to realize his plans violently. This did
not escape Germany's notice who in turn planned a preventive strike. Dr.
Hoffmann's book proves Stalin's aggressive intentions, shows how the
Bolsheviks used unimaginable violence to force their own unwilling soldiers
to fight against the Germans. Furthermore, this book reveals not only the
atrocious treatment of German POWs by the Red Army, but explains also how
Soviet soldiers were incited to unlimited hatred against everything German.
Finally, it gives the reader an unpleasant glimpse into the gigantic wave of
looting, arson, rape, torture, and mass murder that befell East Germany at
the end of the war. Stalin's War was a war of extermination both against
Germany and against the peoples of the Soviet Union. It was not before 1948
that the US government realized that it fought against the wrong enemy in
Europe during WWII. The author, a former historian of the German government,
is one of the world's finest experts on the German-Soviet war. His book is a
huge success in Germany where left-wingers unsuccessfully tried to urge the
parliament to ban it and punish its author.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Phillipson
news:IvqdnWnAsNP...@comcast.com...
> Since the 1920s, Stalin planned the "World Revolution." The outbreak of
war
> in 1939 gave him the opportunity to realize his plans violently. This did
> not escape Germany's notice who in turn planned a preventive strike.
For the years 1939-1941 when Stalin's USSR was allied
with the Third Reich this "opportunity to realize his plans
violently" seems to make no sense whatsoever. Stalin's
actual aggressions in 1939 (against Japan and Finland)
were both defeated. (He attacked Finland again later, with
more success.)
Secondly we should not suppose the "outbreak of war"
and Stalin's "opportunity" was the basis of Hitler's plan
to invade Russia, indicated unambiguously in Mein Kampf
since 1923. (That was what made the KPD so made in
all those years until the Nazis outlawed it . . . )
> Dr.Hoffmann's book proves Stalin's aggressive intentions.
It's just that what is wholly missing is:
(a) any Russian orders to attack the German ally 1939-41,
(b) any Russian deployments that looked like preparations
for "aggressive intentions" against German-occupied Poland.
> It was not before 1948
> that the US government realized that it fought against the wrong enemy in
> Europe during WWII.
Since it was Germany that chose to declare war against the
USA, how could this possibly lead to the USA's fighting
"the wrong enemy" ? The USSR was then allied with Britain.
Should the USA have bombed Britain too?
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Claus-Jürgen Heigl
> His book is a
> huge success in Germany where left-wingers unsuccessfully tried to urge the
> parliament to ban it and punish its author.
Not true. This book did find critical acclaim from the usual supects of
holocaust-deniers and revisionists. In the general audience the book was
reviewed as, how to put it, controversial.
Also it is not true that "left-wingers unsuccessfully tried to urge the
parliament to ban it and punish its author." Parliament isn't able to
ban a book in Germany, that's left to law enforcement. A book can be
banned only if it breaks the law. If one wants a book to be banned, he
has to make a complaint to law enforcement.
What has happened is that one "left-winger" used a parliament session to
ask government (not parliament) if the book was an official release of
the office of military history research (no) and if yes, if they would
do anything about it in the light of holocaust denial (not applicable).
It was also asked that credits given within that book be removed, that
it made it appear as if it was approved by said research office (yes).
Another question was if active government officials that contributed to
this book (not the author, as he was retired) breached the law of
professional conduct (no) and if yes, if disciplinary measures would be
taken (not applicable). Apparently a publicity stunt.
Accounts of this are available online in the archive of German
parliament records, where I checked it.
http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/13/057/1305773.asc
To me the text at amazon looks like a blurb along the line Banned in
Germany! Almost! Forbidden knowledge! Those Evil Left-Wingers! Grab it
now in America before it is banned in Germany! to make it interesting.
Claus-Juergen
William Black
. Furthermore, this book reveals not only the
> atrocious treatment of German POWs by the Red Army, but explains also how
> Soviet soldiers were incited to unlimited hatred against everything
German.
They shouldn't have started it then should they.
In reality of course a German POW in the hands of the Russians had a far
greater chance of survival than a Russian soldier in the hands of the
Germans.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Szaki
banned in Germany? Can you buy it in the book stores? I'm not talking about
antique copies, but newer prints in German.
Few years ago Yahoo and Amazon tried to sell the Mein Kampf through on line
in Germany, but the government gave a warning to them, so they stopped.
I know there is copy right on the Mein Kampf till 2015.
JS
"Claus-Jürgen Heigl" <un...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote in message
news:d43b6s$51c$1...@news2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de...
Szaki
prevented it by attacking 2-3 weeks before.
Hungarian magazine HVG had a big article about it in details few years ago,
also found a Hungarian web site talks about it too.
Stalin's army was in a offensive position, that's why the German attack was
so successful, pushed the Red army back to Moscow.
Regarding Germany declaring war first on the US after the Jap Pearl Harbor
attack, was long due. US made moves 7-8 months before, like attacking German
submarines on the Atlantic, changing the guards on Iceland from Brits to US
etc... that pressured the Germans to declare war. Hitler waited for the
right moment, it was the Japanese attack at Hawaii!
JS
"Don Phillipson" <d.phil...@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message
news:CR89e.1290$_G2....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Szaki
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d43lbd$gk3$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Szaki" <sza...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:IvqdnWnAsNP...@comcast.com...
>
> . Furthermore, this book reveals not only the
>> atrocious treatment of German POWs by the Red Army, but explains also how
>> Soviet soldiers were incited to unlimited hatred against everything
> German.
>
> They shouldn't have started it then should they.
>
> In reality of course a German POW in the hands of the Russians had a far
> greater chance of survival than a Russian soldier in the hands of the
> Germans.
>
> --
> William Black
Not a chance guy, where do you get that BS? Russians committed many
brutalities against German POW.
Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus army captured at Stalingrad over 90
thousands German POW's, only 5 thousand returned after the war.
I knew people who were in Russian captivity after the war, heard lot of
stories, so don't give your BS.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/MalmedyMassacre02A.html
<<They had fought some fierce battles on the Eastern front and seen
unbelievable atrocities committed by our Russian allies, including mutilated
bodies on the battlefield, sodomy on German POWs and cannibalism in which
parts of the bodies of German POWs had been sliced off and eaten.
The photograph below, taken in the fall of 1941 on the eastern front, was
published in a book by Professor Franz W. Seidler who found it in the files
of the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, Case 304, after the war.>>
<<Because the Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva Convention of 1929, the
Germans were not required to observe the international rules of warfare with
regard to our Russian allies who were committing the most sickening
atrocities on the battlefield with no regard for the unwritten rules of
civilized warfare.>>
JS
Claus-Jürgen Heigl
> I assume Claus, you live in Germany! Can you tell me if the Mien Kampf is
> banned in Germany? Can you buy it in the book stores? I'm not talking about
> antique copies, but newer prints in German.
As far as I know, newer unedited prints in German don't exist. The
current owner of copyright, the state of Bavaria, does not print the
book and rigorously enforces the copyright. Older prints (before 1945)
can be owned and sold. It is a rare item, so common book stores don't
have it in stock.
An audio version is available on CD. I don't know if it is complete.
Also two newer edited and commented versions of the book are in print
and available.
Technically the book isn't banned, it is just out of print. If there
were no copyright issue, an unchanged reprint might violate several
german laws. This question hasn't been tested so far and until 2016 it
won't.
Of course anyone interested and with access to the internet can read the
unedited original version in German online, including Germans.
Claus-Juergen
Szaki
Thanks, but wouldn't the Mein Kampf fall under the general "ban" of Nazi
literature, artifacts and even the Nazi solute in public in Germany?
Here are few things I found on the net!
<<""While it is not illegal for Germans to own copies of "Mein Kampf,"
written by Hitler in 1924, its sale in Germany is banned under a law that
prohibits the dissemination of Nazi propaganda.
Annotated copies are available for academic purposes, but it is difficult
for ordinary Germans to obtain a copy.
In the meantime, anyone who wants to publish "Mein Kampf" or quote extended
passages from it must seek permission from the Bavarian Finance Ministry.
Most requests are rejected, according to ministry spokesman Bernd
Schreiber."">>>
I think it's a sort of a "BAN" through copy right.
<<""When the war ended, publication of Mein Kampf in Germany became illegal.
The Allies transferred the non-English rights to the German state of Bavaria
in 1951, but Bavaria has not used them as an ownership interest in the
traditional, property-based sense of copyright. Rather, it has treated them
as a mandate to restrict the spread of the book, and it has consistently
attempted to prevent foreign editions from being published. In 1992, for
example, when the Swedish publisher Kalle Haegglund published Mein Kampf,
Bavaria filed a complaint in the Swedish courts. A lower Swedish court
agreed that Bavaria's copyright had been violated and ordered that the
publication be halted. In 1998, however, the Swedish Supreme Court refused
to recognize Bavaria's copyright, but it ruled that someone's copyright had
been violated, and the court upheld the authority of the Swedish public
prosecutor's office (which had joined the case) to enforce that unknown
copyright holder's interests. The edition did not return to bookstores. In
rare cases, Bavaria has refrained from intervening, such as a 1995 critical
edition published by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and in those
instances it has refused to collect any royalties."">>
JS
Szaki
Also, here is the German law:
JS
>>>
Section 86 Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional
--- begin excerpt ---
>Paragraph 4: "Distributing propaganda materials, whether produced
>domestically or imported from abroad, the content of which seeks to promote
>the agenda of the former National Socialist organization, is punishable by
>up to three years in prison or by monetary fine."
This is meant to be Section 86, subsection 1, number 4 of the German
Criminal Code. In German nomenclature: Paragraph 86, Absatz 1, Nr. 4; or
short: 86 I Nr. 4, II StGB.<<<<
Geoffrey Sinclair
>"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d43lbd$gk3$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> "Szaki" <sza...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:IvqdnWnAsNP...@comcast.com...
>>
>> . Furthermore, this book reveals not only the
>>> atrocious treatment of German POWs by the Red Army, but explains also how
>>> Soviet soldiers were incited to unlimited hatred against everything
>> German.
>>
>> They shouldn't have started it then should they.
>>
>> In reality of course a German POW in the hands of the Russians had a far
>> greater chance of survival than a Russian soldier in the hands of the
>> Germans.
>>
>
>Not a chance guy, where do you get that BS? Russians committed many
>brutalities against German POW.
Actually he is quite correct.
> Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus army captured at Stalingrad over 90
>thousands German POW's, only 5 thousand returned after the war.
Going to note the army was starving to death and as a result many
were going to die anyway? Then add the forced marches across
the Steppes in winter.
>I knew people who were in Russian captivity after the war, heard lot of
>stories, so don't give your BS.
Ah the usual cry, first hand knowledge of presumably a few people,
which is meant to say they know all about the millions of people
involved. Of course the stories all were true is the other big
assumption.
Try Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century
by Colonel General Krivosheev for the Red Army's idea of the figures.
PoWs taken by the USSR,
1941 10,602
Jan to Jun 1942 6,683
Jul to Dec 1942 172,143
Jan to Jun 1943 364,881
Jul to Dec 1943 77,742
Jan to Jun 1944 256,415
Jul to Dec 1944 948,530
Jan to Apr 1945 1,305,344
1 to 8 May 1945 634,950
Total 3,777,290, composed of 2,389,560 Germans, 156,682 Austrians,
513,767 Hungarians, 201,800 Romanians, 48,957 Italians, 2,377 Finns,
with the remaining 464,147 made up of French, Slovaks, Czechs,
Bulgarians, Spanish, "etc.".
It notes some 450,000 Germans, 54,700 Hungarians and 40,000 Romanians
died in captivity. The table that footnotes the deaths in captivity gives a figure
of 182,000 PoWs from men from Austria, Sudeten German, natives of Alsace,
Lorraine and Luxembourg serving in the Wehrmacht.
Note the figures do not include men taken prisoner post 8 May 1945.
Assuming these figures are correct then the German death rate was
around 450,000/2,389,560 or 18.8%.
Also of the 3,777,290 PoWs said to be captured over 600,000 "of
various nationalities were freed at the front without being sent to
camps on the rear, and at the same time documents were not drawn
up for a further 183,618."
The book states there is very little documentation on the number of
Soviet PoWs in German hands before 1942, it was apparently not
a requirement to keep good records.
On 25 July 1941 the Germans issued an order that lasted until
13 November 1941 that PoWs of certain nationalities were to
be freed, Volga Germans, Balts, Ukrainians and later Byelorussians.
Some 318,770 prisoners were freed, including 277,671 Ukrainians.
The later use of men as "helpers" meant by 1 May 1944 some
822,230 PoWs had been released.
If you want to use the German figures for prisoners taken the problem
is the way the system scooped up civilians, people like party workers
and railway men. Also how do you count a Red Army reservist captured
on his way to join his unit?
It seems some 4,559,000 Soviet military personnel went missing or
were taken prisoner during the war. Of these it is believed 500,000
were in fact killed in action. Some 1,368,849 men returned from
German PoW camps after the war, 939,700 men were redrafted
when they were recovered during the war. The book notes German
documents state 673,000 died in captivity but claims this is around
half the actual deaths in captivity. The above numbers do not add up
by the way, the book gives two figures for PoWs returned at the end
of the war, 1,368,849 or 1,836,000 I suspect the second is a typo
that ended up being used in the calculations. This is because the
German figure for Soviet PoWs is put at 1,680,287 on 1 January 1945.
If the Soviet figure for PoWs is correct and the German figure for
deaths is correct the died in captivity rate is around 16.6%, if the
book is correct the actual figure is around double that.
Of the men still in the camps at the end of the war some 672,705
were captured in 1941. The Germans reported some 2,561,000
PoWs in 1941. On 1 February 1942 the OKW camps held
1,020,531 PoWs, the concentration and work camps held 147,736
with men officially held by the Army, OKH, not recorded.
Again the Soviet figures are for people the USSR considered military,
and excludes things like the mainly civilian Defence Construction
Directorate and so on, whereas the Germans counted them as PoWs.
Given the known mistreatment of people taken prisoner in 1941, the
lack of food and shelter that lasted through the winter I am confident
the Nazis killed a higher number of Soviet prisoners than the other
way around, but you can see from the above figures the problems in
coming up with anything more than a basic figure.
>http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/MalmedyMassacre02A.html
><<They had fought some fierce battles on the Eastern front and seen
>unbelievable atrocities committed by our Russian allies, including mutilated
>bodies on the battlefield, sodomy on German POWs and cannibalism in which
>parts of the bodies of German POWs had been sliced off and eaten.
It is remarkable when you read all these stories that the atrocities
said to be committed against the German soldiers tend to involve
things like sodomy and castration, from France to the Volga, the
high arctic to Crete. All seem to be cranked out of the one word
processor.
>The photograph below, taken in the fall of 1941 on the eastern front, was
>published in a book by Professor Franz W. Seidler who found it in the files
>of the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, Case 304, after the war.>>
Oh yes, there is nothing in the picture to date it or identify the
dead man as a German soldier.
In fact Stalag 305 was a German army camp in the Ukraine. Given the
numerous deaths from starvation in the German camps it seems like
an example of cannibalism is shown, and then blamed on the Soviets.
The idea appears to be to claim the Germans over ran a Soviet PoW
camp, you know where they were in the Urals and so on, instead we have
the victim of a German PoW camp.
><<Because the Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva Convention of 1929, the
>Germans were not required to observe the international rules of warfare with
>regard to our Russian allies who were committing the most sickening
>atrocities on the battlefield with no regard for the unwritten rules of
>civilized warfare.>>
Try again, the Geneva convention required a country to treat prisoners
it had according to the rules, even if the other country had not signed it.
Germany was bound by the rules, the USSR was not.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Geoffrey Sinclair
>I heard it from different sources, Stalin was ready to attack Europe, Hitler
>prevented it by attacking 2-3 weeks before.
Ah yes, the attempts to push a myth by saying many people have
repeated the myth.
The best way to see it is a myth is the way it is repeated here, rather
than actually replying to the problems with the myth.
For example, no reply to,
"It's just that what is wholly missing is:
(a) any Russian orders to attack the German ally 1939-41,
(b) any Russian deployments that looked like preparations
for "aggressive intentions" against German-occupied Poland."
Oh yes, there appears to be no mention the expansion of the USSR
in eastern Europe, with the exception of Finland, was allowed by
the Nazis as part of their August 1939 treaty. That gets lost.
>Hungarian magazine HVG had a big article about it in details few years ago,
>also found a Hungarian web site talks about it too.
So how about the Heer or Wehrmacht documents that detail this
attack. The Luftwaffe was flying a large number of reconnaissance
aircraft over the USSR. They failed to find any evidence of an
attack being planned. The German Generals found no evidence of
an attack plan when they over ran the frontiers.
How about the directives for the attack on the USSR being signed
in 1940?
>Stalin's army was in a offensive position, that's why the German attack was
>so successful, pushed the Red army back to Moscow.
No, Stalin's army was undertrained, under equipped (tanks than did not
work, artillery without tractors, a lack of ammunition) and poorly lead,
thanks to the purges, and taken by surprise, hence the initial failures.
It was also busy building fortifications, rather the wrong thing to do if
planning to attack.
>Regarding Germany declaring war first on the US after the Jap Pearl Harbor
>attack, was long due. US made moves 7-8 months before, like attacking German
>submarines on the Atlantic, changing the guards on Iceland from Brits to US
>etc... that pressured the Germans to declare war.
So FDR agreeing with Denmark to keep Iceland out of Nazi
rule is a provocation to Germany?
Want to note the US merchant ships the Germans sank or
captured, starting in 1939?
In March 1941 Hitler declared Iceland and it waters were now in the
war zone so on April 9 the US agreed to protect Greenland.
On 10 April USS Niblack had an encounter with what it thought was a
U-boat near Iceland, dropping embarrassment depth charges.
On 18 April 1941 the US extended its Atlantic security zone to 26 West,
around 1,000 miles closer to Europe than previously (60 West), effectively
to around the coast of Iceland.
On 15 May the USN base at Argentia Newfoundland established.
On July 1 the US convoy carrying Marines sailed to Iceland, arriving
on the 7th. From then on the official position became the US was
running convoys to its men in Iceland and ships of other nations
were welcome to join those convoys.
On September 4 1941 USS Greer had its encounter around 175 miles
from Iceland. This is the first instance of a US destroyer trying to attack
a U-boat, some 3 months before December 1941, not 7 to 8 months.
On September 7 a US merchant ship was sunk by axis aircraft in the
Red Sea.
On September 11 came the orders for the USN to shoot on sight.
USS Kearny was hit on 17 October 1941, after reinforcing the escort
of SC-48 south of Iceland.
USS Reuben James was sunk on 31 October while part of the escort
of HX-156 in position 51 59 N, 27 05 W.
On 6 November the USN captured the blockade runner Odenwald,
using the official excuse "suspected slaver".
On 7 November US merchant ships were allowed to enter war zones.
>Hitler waited for the right moment, it was the Japanese attack at Hawaii!
Ah yes, Hitler ensured his country would lose the war well within his
lifetime by being at war with Britain, unable to defeat it quickly, so
attack the USSR, unable to defeat it quickly, so start a war with the USA.
You know with Japan attacking the US December 1941 was a good
time for Hitler to ignore the US and have its strength sent to the Pacific,
rather than to Europe.
Szaki
>>> . Furthermore, this book reveals not only the
>>>> atrocious treatment of German POWs by the Red Army, but explains also
>>>> how
>>>> Soviet soldiers were incited to unlimited hatred against everything
>>> German.
>>>
>>> They shouldn't have started it then should they.
>>>
>>> In reality of course a German POW in the hands of the Russians had a far
>>> greater chance of survival than a Russian soldier in the hands of the
>>> Germans.
>>>
>>> William Black
>>
>>Not a chance guy, where do you get that BS? Russians committed many
>>brutalities against German POW.
>
> Actually he is quite correct.
>
>> Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus army captured at Stalingrad over 90
>>thousands German POW's, only 5 thousand returned after the war.
>
> Going to note the army was starving to death and as a result many
> were going to die anyway? Then add the forced marches across
> the Steppes in winter.
BS! Stalin used them to rebuild Stalingrad! Most died in Russia cause the
bad treatment as a POW.
>>I knew people who were in Russian captivity after the war, heard lot of
>>stories, so don't give your BS.
>
> Ah the usual cry, first hand knowledge of presumably a few people,
> which is meant to say they know all about the millions of people
> involved. Of course the stories all were true is the other big
> assumption.
>
> Try Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century
> by Colonel General Krivosheev for the Red Army's idea of the figures.
****Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses by the Soviets? Must be true!!!!!
(o:
>
> PoWs taken by the USSR,
>
> 1941 10,602
> Jan to Jun 1942 6,683
> Jul to Dec 1942 172,143
> Jan to Jun 1943 364,881
> Jul to Dec 1943 77,742
> Jan to Jun 1944 256,415
> Jul to Dec 1944 948,530
> Jan to Apr 1945 1,305,344
> 1 to 8 May 1945 634,950
>
> Total 3,777,290, composed of 2,389,560 Germans, 156,682 Austrians,
> 513,767 Hungarians, 201,800 Romanians, 48,957 Italians, 2,377 Finns,
> with the remaining 464,147 made up of French, Slovaks, Czechs,
> Bulgarians, Spanish, "etc.".
***BS! 513,767 Hungarians --- Only the Second army of 200,000 was send to
Russia and most were captured, how can you have 513 thousands POW's? Is this
another one of those 6 million Jew died figures?
>
> It notes some 450,000 Germans, 54,700 Hungarians and 40,000 Romanians
> died in captivity. The table that footnotes the deaths in captivity gives
> a figure
> of 182,000 PoWs from men from Austria, Sudeten German, natives of Alsace,
> Lorraine and Luxembourg serving in the Wehrmacht.
>
> Note the figures do not include men taken prisoner post 8 May 1945.
>
> Assuming these figures are correct then the German death rate was
> around 450,000/2,389,560 or 18.8%.
>
> Also of the 3,777,290 PoWs said to be captured over 600,000 "of
> various nationalities were freed at the front without being sent to
> camps on the rear, and at the same time documents were not drawn
> up for a further 183,618."
*Another BS guy! There was plenty of room in the Gulags, even their own
Russian POW's comrade freed from German camps were send there or killed.
When the Russian Army came to Hungary, captured any one they can, were send
to Russia by the train loads, including my father, who tried to hide in
civilian clothes in Hungary.
STOP Bull Shitting man, Stop using Rusky figures, they all lies any ways!
Are you a Russian Jew?
JS
Szaki
"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
news:4265f044$0$24689$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Szaki wrote in message <3rednTfut9R...@comcast.com>...
>>I heard it from different sources, Stalin was ready to attack Europe,
>>Hitler
>>prevented it by attacking 2-3 weeks before.
>
> Ah yes, the attempts to push a myth by saying many people have
> repeated the myth.
>
> The best way to see it is a myth is the way it is repeated here, rather
> than actually replying to the problems with the myth.
>
> For example, no reply to,
>
> "It's just that what is wholly missing is:
> (a) any Russian orders to attack the German ally 1939-41,
Soviet/ Allies propaganda states Germany was the aggressor and started the
war..
Victors write history!
> (b) any Russian deployments that looked like preparations
> for "aggressive intentions" against German-occupied Poland."
Well, of course there were troop movements before operation Barbarossa, you
think they were able to mobilize few million solders + equipment over night
on both side?
Stalin/Hitler pact was only for both side to gain time, that's all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
<< Allegedly, the Germans feared the Red Army was making preparations to
attack them, and it was thus presented as a preemptive war.>>
Stalin all ways had a long term ambition of taking over Europe, that's why
Communist hysteria were spreading all over Europe years before the war.
Hitler asked Poland to align with Germany many time and there were long
diplomatic negotiation over that.
Poland mobilized it's army way before Germany did. They thought England or
Russia will help them if they hold out long enough, well we know what
happened.
> for "aggressive intentions" against German-occupied Poland."
>
> Oh yes, there appears to be no mention the expansion of the USSR
> in eastern Europe, with the exception of Finland, was allowed by
> the Nazis as part of their August 1939 treaty. That gets lost.
>
>>Hungarian magazine HVG had a big article about it in details few years
>>ago,
>>also found a Hungarian web site talks about it too.
>
> So how about the Heer or Wehrmacht documents that detail this
> attack. The Luftwaffe was flying a large number of reconnaissance
> aircraft over the USSR. They failed to find any evidence of an
> attack being planned. The German Generals found no evidence of
> an attack plan when they over ran the frontiers.
>
> How about the directives for the attack on the USSR being signed
> in 1940?
>
>>Stalin's army was in a offensive position, that's why the German attack
>>was
>>so successful, pushed the Red army back to Moscow.
>
> No, Stalin's army was undertrained, under equipped (tanks than did not
> work, artillery without tractors, a lack of ammunition) and poorly lead,
> thanks to the purges, and taken by surprise, hence the initial failures.
****Another BS!! Stalin had the biggest army before WW2 , every one thought
Hitler was out of his mined attacking it.
Germany was not allowed to build any heavy weapons till 1932.
>
> It was also busy building fortifications, rather the wrong thing to do if
> planning to attack.
>
>>Regarding Germany declaring war first on the US after the Jap Pearl Harbor
>>attack, was long due. US made moves 7-8 months before, like attacking
>>German
>>submarines on the Atlantic, changing the guards on Iceland from Brits to
>>US
>>etc... that pressured the Germans to declare war.
>
> So FDR agreeing with Denmark to keep Iceland out of Nazi
> rule is a provocation to Germany?
***It was a serious provocation!
>
> Want to note the US merchant ships the Germans sank or
> captured, starting in 1939?
***Allies knew German Navy had strict orders not to attack or engauge Allies
Navy.
U-boats did shadow US ships sailing to England!
JS
sig...@binet.is
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> >Regarding Germany declaring war first on the US after the Jap Pearl
Harbor
> >attack, was long due. US made moves 7-8 months before, like
attacking German
> >submarines on the Atlantic, changing the guards on Iceland from
Brits to US
> >etc... that pressured the Germans to declare war.
>
> So FDR agreeing with Denmark to keep Iceland out of Nazi
> rule is a provocation to Germany?
FDR made no agreement to Denmark about Iceland, the US made an
agreement with Denmark about basing US troops in Greenland.
Iceland became independant in 1918 and so any agreements FDR made were
done with the Icelandic government.
David Thornley
Szaki <sza...@comcast.net> wrote:
Another example of the neo-Nazi revisionist in action.
>Any one bought or read this book?
>
><< His book is a huge success in Germany where left-wingers unsuccessfully
>tried to urge the parliament to ban it and punish its author. >>
>JS
>
This has already been exposed as a lie, according to official German
parliamentary records.
>Product Description:
>Since the 1920s, Stalin planned the "World Revolution." The outbreak of war
>in 1939 gave him the opportunity to realize his plans violently.
Which is standard neo-Nazi revisionist cant, ignoring the facts.
Stalin seems to have been averse to starting violence when he wasn't
sure of the outcome, and only took any sort of action after he had
a shield in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. If the Nazis hadn't given
Stalin the go-ahead, there is no reason to think he would have done
anything risky.
I can, of course, trace back the German encouragement of Communism,
through Karl Marx, the considerable assistance the Germans gave
Lenin, the recognition of the Soviet government in the Brest-Litovsk
treaty, and the secret military cooperation in the 1920s, but
I doubt a neo-Nazi revisionist would be comfortable.
This did
>not escape Germany's notice who in turn planned a preventive strike.
There are indeed problems with this statement that the typical
revisionist hopes we won't notice.
First, the German plans were not for a preventative strike. The
original Hitler directives are readily available, as is the
revisionist's hero's book (Mein Kampf), and those make it clear that
the German attack was intended as conquest and racial extermination.
Second, the Soviets were not about to launch an attack in 1941.
This is clear from contemporary German reports and research in
Soviet (now Russian) archives. Of course, a revisionist has to
read primary source documents like Halder's war diary carefully,
lest the revisionist encounter flat statements that contradict
the revisionist's agenda.
Dr.
>Hoffmann's book proves Stalin's aggressive intentions, shows how the
>Bolsheviks used unimaginable violence to force their own unwilling soldiers
>to fight against the Germans.
The revisionist here omits the horrifying atrocities the Germans
committed, and their role in encouraging the Red Army to fight.
While Red Army discipline was strict (Stalin was quoted as saying
"It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Red Army"), the Soviet
soldiers had plenty of reason to kill Germans.
Furthermore, this book reveals not only the
>atrocious treatment of German POWs by the Red Army,
Apparently not mentioning the considerably more atrocious treatment
of Soviet POWs by the Germans.
but explains also how
>Soviet soldiers were incited to unlimited hatred against everything German.
Well, start with the German murders, looting, rapes, and so on. That
was a good start.
>Finally, it gives the reader an unpleasant glimpse into the gigantic wave of
>looting, arson, rape, torture, and mass murder that befell East Germany at
>the end of the war.
One would suspect that a revisionist would completely avoid mentioning
the gigantic wave of looting, arson, rape, torture, and mass murder that
befell the Soviet Union during the war, of course. Perspective can
be so inconvenient when one has irrational beliefs to push.
Stalin's War was a war of extermination both against
>Germany and against the peoples of the Soviet Union.
There's a problem in here that anybody except a revisionist might
notice.
If it was a war of extermination, it was a singularly unsuccessful
one, in that Germany suffered less of a population loss than, say,
Poland did at the hands of Germans. Similarly, the peoples of the
Soviet Union do seem to have survived, by and large. In neither case
(East Germany or the Soviet Union) was life actually pleasant under
Stalin, of course, but Stalin was not a complete incompetent. One
might think that, if he had waged a war of extermination, he would
have come a lot closer than that.
It was not before 1948
>that the US government realized that it fought against the wrong enemy in
>Europe during WWII.
The US has never realized that particular quasi-fact, and with good
reason. The US fought against the enemy that launched unprovoked
attacks against neighboring countries with the intention of committing
genocide, and which did indeed commit genocide. It is possible to
make the case that Stalin was worse than Hitler (although much harder
than the typical neo-Nazi revisionist realizes), but there is no
doubt that Nazi Germany was by far the greater threat.
The author, a former historian of the German government,
>is one of the world's finest experts on the German-Soviet war.
I have noted that neo-Nazi revisionists have different meanings of
the word "expert" than I do. I consider an expert historian to be
one who knows about his or her subject, whereas the revisionists
insist on flagrant bias and a deliberate disregard for the elements
of history they don't like.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
David Thornley
Szaki <sza...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Going to note the army was starving to death and as a result many
>> were going to die anyway? Then add the forced marches across
>> the Steppes in winter.
>
>BS! Stalin used them to rebuild Stalingrad! Most died in Russia cause the
>bad treatment as a POW.
>
Germans among millions, and is trying to present that as typical.
There were reasons why so many of those soldiers died, including
being in extremely poor physical shape at the time of surrender,
and the inexperience of the Red Army in taking lots of prisoners.
Nobody is claiming that the Soviets treated German POWs well, only
that the Germans treated Soviet POWs worse.
>> Try Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century
>> by Colonel General Krivosheev for the Red Army's idea of the figures.
>
>****Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses by the Soviets? Must be true!!!!!
The Soviets had two somewhat contradictory tendencies in their military
history.
First, there was the desire to present what happened as they wished others
to believe it.
Second, there was the desire to improve the Red Army by writing
thoroughly honest things about history, so that it would be possible
to learn from mistakes.
Soviet facts intended for internal consumption and not for propaganda
are just as good as anybody else's, sometimes better.
>> Total 3,777,290, composed of 2,389,560 Germans, 156,682 Austrians,
>> 513,767 Hungarians, 201,800 Romanians, 48,957 Italians, 2,377 Finns,
>> with the remaining 464,147 made up of French, Slovaks, Czechs,
>> Bulgarians, Spanish, "etc.".
>
>***BS! 513,767 Hungarians --- Only the Second army of 200,000 was send to
>Russia and most were captured, how can you have 513 thousands POW's? Is this
>another one of those 6 million Jew died figures?
>>
The figure of 6 million Jews is, of course, approximate, while this
figure for Hungarian POWs is precise (if not necessarily accurate).
The revisionist seems to have forgotten that the war continued into
Hungary in 1944, and that the Germans overthrew the Hungarian
government and replaced it with one that would fight on on German
instructions, and so some of the bitterest fighting between
Hungarians and Soviets took place in 1944 and 1945 in Hungary.
Since this is a total figure, it would of course include prisoners
from this period in addition to the prisoners from the Hungarian
expeditionary forces.
>> Also of the 3,777,290 PoWs said to be captured over 600,000 "of
>> various nationalities were freed at the front without being sent to
>> camps on the rear, and at the same time documents were not drawn
>> up for a further 183,618."
>
>*Another BS guy! There was plenty of room in the Gulags, even their own
>Russian POW's comrade freed from German camps were send there or killed.
The revisionist doesn't realize, or doesn't admit, that the Red Army
was rather short of instantaneous teleporters, and that sending prisoners
to the rear was something of a strain on rather sketchy logistics.
If releasing them would not have caused an immediate problem, it was
a reasonable thing to do.
>When the Russian Army came to Hungary, captured any one they can, were send
>to Russia by the train loads, including my father, who tried to hide in
>civilian clothes in Hungary.
Ah, here we see the typical revisionist floating memory. Up above,
we note that the revisionist forgot about the Soviet invasion of
Hungary, and now it is remembered.
We further note that "trying to hide in civilian clothes" presumably
means that the individual was a soldier who forfeited all claims of
prisoner of war status.
>STOP Bull Shitting man, Stop using Rusky figures, they all lies any ways!
>Are you a Russian Jew?
>
Ah yes, the hallmark of the neo-Nazi: the use of the accusation of
Judaism. It combines two irrational beliefs: the belief that only
Jews would contradict a neo-Nazi revisionist, and the belief that
being a Jew is a bad thing.
Claus-Jürgen Heigl
> Thanks, but wouldn't the Mein Kampf fall under the general "ban" of Nazi
> literature, artifacts and even the Nazi solute in public in Germany?
> <<""While it is not illegal for Germans to own copies of "Mein Kampf,"
> written by Hitler in 1924, its sale in Germany is banned under a law that
> prohibits the dissemination of Nazi propaganda.
Editions before 1945 are not banned because they are considered
pre-constitutional. The Third Reich law situation is seen as seperated
from today's Germany. An old copy can't break today's law. This is a
verdict about distribution of old copies from the Bundesgerichtshof
(supreme court).
A new copy can violate the law because it would be printed under the law
of the Federal Republic of Germany. Any reprint that showed up has been
found illegal under copyright law. Other laws weren't used, so it still
has to be tested whether laws apply about use of symbols of Nazism,
incitement of the people and what else. The issue has been avoided so far.
> Annotated copies are available for academic purposes, but it is difficult
> for ordinary Germans to obtain a copy.
The edited and commented versions of "Mein Kampf" can be purchased
through every bookstore and amazon. Old originals are difficult to
obtain because they are collectors items. I don't even know what the
ebay policy is, no item was listed.
> I think it's a sort of a "BAN" through copy right.
I think that's the intention. But of course, foreign editions can be
bought and are not banned. Also the internet can't be banned and it is
allowed to download the book, German language version. It is also
completely legal to xerox an old copy for personal use, as this is not
publicising. The issue is more about distribution than about possession.
The local branch of the State Library in my city (Karlsruhe) has four
copies of the original Mein Kampf. They can't be lent, but can be read
in the library and xeroxed there. This is a public library accessible to
everyone. You have to have a valid library card, but no personal
identity check is made.
> <<""When the war ended, publication of Mein Kampf in Germany became illegal.
This is it. Publication is illegal, existing copies are unaffected.
Claus-Juergen
William Black
>
> "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d43lbd$gk3$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >
> > "Szaki" <sza...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:IvqdnWnAsNP...@comcast.com...
> >
> > . Furthermore, this book reveals not only the
> >> atrocious treatment of German POWs by the Red Army, but explains also
how
> >> Soviet soldiers were incited to unlimited hatred against everything
> > German.
> >
> > They shouldn't have started it then should they.
> >
> > In reality of course a German POW in the hands of the Russians had a far
> > greater chance of survival than a Russian soldier in the hands of the
> > Germans.
> >
> > --
> > William Black
>
> Not a chance guy, where do you get that BS? Russians committed many
> brutalities against German POW.
Read the numbers.
You'll find I'm correct, assuming you can read...
> Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus army captured at Stalingrad over 90
> thousands German POW's, only 5 thousand returned after the war.
I think you'll find that most of then died of malnutrition because they'd
been starved into submission.
> I knew people who were in Russian captivity after the war, heard lot of
> stories, so don't give your BS.
So you've met some people...
So have I, including one who was a prisoner of the Russians in WWII, he
wasn't terribly well treated, but he did survive...
> <<Because the Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva Convention of 1929,
the
> Germans were not required to observe the international rules of warfare
Actually they were, read it and see.
am...@hotmail.com
David Thornley wrote:
> In article <IvqdnWnAsNP...@comcast.com>,
> Szaki <sza...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Another example of the neo-Nazi revisionist in action.
>
> >Any one bought or read this book?
> >
> ><< His book is a huge success in Germany where left-wingers
unsuccessfully
> >tried to urge the parliament to ban it and punish its author. >>
> >JS
> >
> This has already been exposed as a lie, according to official German
> parliamentary records.
>
> >Product Description:
> >Since the 1920s, Stalin planned the "World Revolution." The outbreak
of war
> >in 1939 gave him the opportunity to realize his plans violently.
>
> Which is standard neo-Nazi revisionist cant, ignoring the facts.
> Stalin seems to have been averse to starting violence when he wasn't
> sure of the outcome, and only took any sort of action after he had
> a shield in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
I'm afraid that you are missing one thing: in 20's Stalin could plan
very little in the terms of a foreign policy by a simple reason of not
being
in charge.
a425couple
"David Thornley" <thor...@visi.com> wrote in message
> In article Szaki <sza...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The revisionist has picked out the usual special case ---
> -- and is trying to present that as typical.
> Nobody is claiming that the Soviets treated German POWs well, only
> that the Germans treated Soviet POWs worse.
> >When the Russian Army came to Hungary, captured
> > any one they can, were send to Russia by
> > the train loads, including my father, who tried to hide in
> >civilian clothes in Hungary.
>
> Ah, here we see the typical revisionist floating memory. Up above,
> we note that the revisionist forgot about the Soviet invasion of
> Hungary, and now it is remembered.
> We further note that "trying to hide in civilian clothes" presumably
> means that the individual was a soldier who forfeited all claims of
> prisoner of war status.
> >STOP Bull Shitting man, Stop using Rusky figures, they all lies any
ways!
> >Are you a Russian Jew?
> Ah yes, the hallmark of the neo-Nazi: the use of the accusation of
> Judaism. It combines two irrational beliefs: the belief that only
> Jews would contradict a neo-Nazi revisionist, and the belief that
> being a Jew is a bad thing. David H. Thornley
Sad.
I saw Szaki's first two posts, and I had hope, since he
was just posting two things others had written, he might
be interested in being informed.
And now we have seen the recent posts.
David, I think you did a good job in phrasing above response.
I saw it early, but was just to discouraged to answer.
Sad when someone wants to stay in their delusional anger.
Sad when their anger has to be placed on someone else.
Sad when they can't learn from the past, accept that past
is past, shake off any tough breaks, and knuckle down,
doing what is needed, to work for a better future.
>> they all lies any ways! Are you a Russian Jew?
What is a better future? When we don't blame scapegoats!
Geoffrey Sinclair
>>>> . Furthermore, this book reveals not only the
>>>>> atrocious treatment of German POWs by the Red Army, but explains also
>>>>> how
>>>>> Soviet soldiers were incited to unlimited hatred against everything
>>>> German.
>>>>
>>>> They shouldn't have started it then should they.
>>>>
>>>> In reality of course a German POW in the hands of the Russians had a far
>>>> greater chance of survival than a Russian soldier in the hands of the
>>>> Germans.
>>>>
>>>> William Black
>>>
>>>Not a chance guy, where do you get that BS? Russians committed many
>>>brutalities against German POW.
>>
>> Actually he is quite correct.
>>
>>> Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus army captured at Stalingrad over 90
>>>thousands German POW's, only 5 thousand returned after the war.
>>
>> Going to note the army was starving to death and as a result many
>> were going to die anyway? Then add the forced marches across
>> the Steppes in winter.
>
>BS! Stalin used them to rebuild Stalingrad! Most died in Russia cause the
>bad treatment as a POW.
By definition most died as prisoners, and a large number did so
because the army was starving to death before surrender. The
only way the death toll could have been cut back was major
medical intervention and good shelter, things the Red Army was
short of at the time. The Red Army was also short of compassion
as well, making the survivors march across the steppes in winter.
The survival rate of prisoners taken later was higher.
>>>I knew people who were in Russian captivity after the war, heard lot of
>>>stories, so don't give your BS.
>>
>> Ah the usual cry, first hand knowledge of presumably a few people,
>> which is meant to say they know all about the millions of people
>> involved. Of course the stories all were true is the other big
>> assumption.
>>
>> Try Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century
>> by Colonel General Krivosheev for the Red Army's idea of the figures.
>
>****Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses by the Soviets? Must be true!!!!!
>(o:
Ah I see, the immediate announcement unwanted facts are to be
ignored.
>> PoWs taken by the USSR,
>>
>> 1941 10,602
>> Jan to Jun 1942 6,683
>> Jul to Dec 1942 172,143
>> Jan to Jun 1943 364,881
>> Jul to Dec 1943 77,742
>> Jan to Jun 1944 256,415
>> Jul to Dec 1944 948,530
>> Jan to Apr 1945 1,305,344
>> 1 to 8 May 1945 634,950
>>
>> Total 3,777,290, composed of 2,389,560 Germans, 156,682 Austrians,
>> 513,767 Hungarians, 201,800 Romanians, 48,957 Italians, 2,377 Finns,
>> with the remaining 464,147 made up of French, Slovaks, Czechs,
>> Bulgarians, Spanish, "etc.".
>
>***BS! 513,767 Hungarians --- Only the Second army of 200,000 was send to
>Russia and most were captured, how can you have 513 thousands POW's?
>Is this another one of those 6 million Jew died figures?
Ah yes, just ignore the fighting in Hungary, sort of like the way the
Nazi apologists try and avoid the death camps to make claims about
death figures. You do know about the fighting in Hungary and the
destruction of the Hungarian army in 1944/45 correct? The army
fought well but was totally defeated.
>> It notes some 450,000 Germans, 54,700 Hungarians and 40,000 Romanians
>> died in captivity. The table that footnotes the deaths in captivity gives
>> a figure
>> of 182,000 PoWs from men from Austria, Sudeten German, natives of Alsace,
>> Lorraine and Luxembourg serving in the Wehrmacht.
>>
>> Note the figures do not include men taken prisoner post 8 May 1945.
>>
>> Assuming these figures are correct then the German death rate was
>> around 450,000/2,389,560 or 18.8%.
>>
>> Also of the 3,777,290 PoWs said to be captured over 600,000 "of
>> various nationalities were freed at the front without being sent to
>> camps on the rear, and at the same time documents were not drawn
>> up for a further 183,618."
>
>*Another BS guy!
Ah yes, ignore the fact the armies attacking the USSR were a mixture of
many ethnicities, and the countries that changed sides, and like the
Germans the USSR freed some prisoners.
>There was plenty of room in the Gulags, even their own
>Russian POW's comrade freed from German camps were send there or killed.
The Soviets were as short of manpower as the Germans, hence the
various prisoner releases.
>When the Russian Army came to Hungary, captured any one they can, were send
>to Russia by the train loads, including my father, who tried to hide in
>civilian clothes in Hungary.
I really like this, above we are told the figure for Hungarian prisoners
is too high, now we are told it is too low. Hungary had a pre war
population of around 10,000,000.
Very good, cannot keep the story straight between paragraphs.
>STOP Bull Shitting man, Stop using Rusky figures, they all lies any ways!
Yes folks, if a Soviet document says something bad about the USSR
it is to be believed, if it says something good, or contradicts the preferred
fiction it is to be ignored. No alterations to this rule allowed.
>Are you a Russian Jew?
Ah yes, the standard cry of someone who prefers Hitler to be the
good guy in WWII.
I see the "atrocity" has been dropped, after all it was in a German
PoW camp, hard to blame it on the communists, plus, of course,
the figures of those killed in German captivity.
Geoffrey Sinclair
>news:4265f044$0$24689$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Szaki wrote in message <3rednTfut9R...@comcast.com>...
>>>I heard it from different sources, Stalin was ready to attack Europe,
>>>Hitler prevented it by attacking 2-3 weeks before.
>>
>> Ah yes, the attempts to push a myth by saying many people have
>> repeated the myth.
>>
>> The best way to see it is a myth is the way it is repeated here, rather
>> than actually replying to the problems with the myth.
>>
>> For example, no reply to,
>>
>> "It's just that what is wholly missing is:
>> (a) any Russian orders to attack the German ally 1939-41,
>**Yes, they going to post it in Time magazine any one to see it, when
>Soviet/ Allies propaganda states Germany was the aggressor and
>started the war.. Victors write history!
Ah yes, so the new lead lifebelt is the attempt to say the orders
are so secret no one else has seen them. Very good.
>> (b) any Russian deployments that looked like preparations
>> for "aggressive intentions" against German-occupied Poland."
>Well, of course there were troop movements before operation Barbarossa, you
>think they were able to mobilize few million solders + equipment over night
>on both side?
Yes folks, this is really meant to be a reply, troop movements are
now troop movements for preparations to attack, at least on the
Soviet side, move the Red Square guard and the Germans start
to panic.
Just ignore which side was building fortifications, the Soviet, and
which side was flying reconnaissance missions over the other,
the Germans. It should be the other way round for the myth to work.
>Stalin/Hitler pact was only for both side to gain time, that's all.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
Well it was also to divide up eastern Europe.
><< Allegedly, the Germans feared the Red Army was making preparations to
>attack them, and it was thus presented as a preemptive war.>>
Yes folks, the "allegedly" is to be taken as proof. Scouring
the web now to find anything that even vaguely fits? Of course
the Nazis presented it as pre-emptive.
>Stalin all ways had a long term ambition of taking over Europe, that's why
>Communist hysteria were spreading all over Europe years before the war.
Actually Stalin reigned in the comintern to concentrate on making the
USSR safe, to minimise the hostility being generated. He made the
long term plan longer. Meantime Hitler came along with his plan to
take over Europe and implemented it.
And communist "hysteria" seriously over states the situation, except
in places like Germany where it was a propaganda tool of the
government.
>Hitler asked Poland to align with Germany many time and there were long
>diplomatic negotiation over that.
Hitler was nice to Poland as long as Hitler felt the military balance
was in Poland's favour, hence the non aggression pact in January
1934. As for the rest the various Nazi guarantees were all based
around changes to the corridor to the Nazi's satisfaction.
Nazi Germany did not want a Polish ally.
>Poland mobilized it's army way before Germany did.
Ah I see the need to use fiction, the reason the Poles did so badly in
September 1939 was they were still mobilising. The Germans
mobilised on 25th August, the Poles on 30th August. Remember
Hitler's first invasion date was 26th August.
>They thought England or
>Russia will help them if they hold out long enough, well we know what
>happened.
As usual this ignores the reality of what happened. The British and
French could only make it clear to Hitler that there would be no
isolated war with Poland, and they convinced everyone bar Hitler
and Ribbentrop of this. As to the USSR the Nazis did a deal to
divide the country with it.
>> for "aggressive intentions" against German-occupied Poland."
>>
>> Oh yes, there appears to be no mention the expansion of the USSR
>> in eastern Europe, with the exception of Finland, was allowed by
>> the Nazis as part of their August 1939 treaty. That gets lost.
Yes folks, it still gets lost.
>>>Hungarian magazine HVG had a big article about it in details few years
>>>ago, also found a Hungarian web site talks about it too.
>>
>> So how about the Heer or Wehrmacht documents that detail this
>> attack. The Luftwaffe was flying a large number of reconnaissance
>> aircraft over the USSR. They failed to find any evidence of an
>> attack being planned. The German Generals found no evidence of
>> an attack plan when they over ran the frontiers.
>>
>> How about the directives for the attack on the USSR being signed
>> in 1940?
Yes folks, no reply.
>>>Stalin's army was in a offensive position, that's why the German attack
>>>was so successful, pushed the Red army back to Moscow.
>>
>> No, Stalin's army was undertrained, under equipped (tanks than did not
>> work, artillery without tractors, a lack of ammunition) and poorly lead,
>> thanks to the purges, and taken by surprise, hence the initial failures.
>
>****Another BS!!
Amazingly the reports of the time all agree on the state of the Red
Army, including Finnish, German and Soviet. It is a hard fact to
wish away.
>Stalin had the biggest army before WW2 , every one thought
>Hitler was out of his mined attacking it.
Mainly because he then started a two front war.
>Germany was not allowed to build any heavy weapons till 1932.
Ah I see, the Russian Steamroller is pushed out again, without noting
the wheels falling off.
I suppose the Germans then did nothing about their heavy weapons
situation in the 1932 to 1941 period.
The Red Army and Navy total personnel on June 22 1941 was 4,826,907.
The mobilised German military was around 7,200,000. Even the UK
military and auxiliary services was up to 3,383,000. Not surprising
when the Germans and British were at war but the USSR was not.
Then the USSR mobilised after being attacked and the Red Army
became much bigger.
The Germans had a numeric advantage on the frontiers.
>> It was also busy building fortifications, rather the wrong thing to do if
>> planning to attack.
No reply again.
>>>Regarding Germany declaring war first on the US after the Jap Pearl Harbor
>>>attack, was long due. US made moves 7-8 months before, like attacking
>>>German
>>>submarines on the Atlantic, changing the guards on Iceland from Brits to
>>>US
>>>etc... that pressured the Germans to declare war.
>>
>> So FDR agreeing with Denmark to keep Iceland out of Nazi
>> rule is a provocation to Germany?
>
>***It was a serious provocation!
Yes folks, the US going to Iceland is a serious provocation, the
question is why.
>> Want to note the US merchant ships the Germans sank or
>> captured, starting in 1939?
>
>***Allies knew German Navy had strict orders not to attack or engauge Allies
>Navy. U-boats did shadow US ships sailing to England!
Want to mention the times the axis forces did more than just shadow?
deleted text,
On September 4 1941 USS Greer had its encounter around 175 miles
from Iceland. This is the first instance of a US destroyer trying to attack
a U-boat, some 3 months before December 1941, not 7 to 8 months.
Geoffrey Sinclair
am...@hotmail.com
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> Szaki wrote in message ...
>
> >**Yes, they going to post it in Time magazine any one to see it,
when
> >Soviet/ Allies propaganda states Germany was the aggressor and
> >started the war.. Victors write history!
>
> Ah yes, so the new lead lifebelt is the attempt to say the orders
> are so secret no one else has seen them. Very good.
Actually, what he/she/it is saying is that something _will_ be
published
but is not published yet. How the creature gets inside knowledge on
what
exactly will be published in this specific magazine and who are "they"
is
anybody's guess.
Actually, it is rather easy to figure out who started WWII by the dates
of
declarations of war. IIRC, Germany was the 1st to declare it on Poland,
which
makes her an aggressor under any conceivable definition.
>
> >> (b) any Russian deployments that looked like preparations
> >> for "aggressive intentions" against German-occupied Poland."
>
> >Well, of course there were troop movements before operation
Barbarossa, you
> >think they were able to mobilize few million solders + equipment
over night
> >on both side?
>
> Yes folks, this is really meant to be a reply, troop movements are
> now troop movements for preparations to attack, at least on the
> Soviet side, move the Red Square guard and the Germans start
> to panic.
>
... And sending troops into the summer camps without a heavy equipment
adds to
the whole sinister picture: Soviets clearly had something bad in mind
when
doing so....
> Just ignore which side was building fortifications, the Soviet, and
> which side was flying reconnaissance missions over the other,
> the Germans. It should be the other way round for the myth to work.
Neah, the facts can't be an obstacle for a myth. If they were, there
would be
no myths, only discussion of a reality. :-)
IMO, this myth (as perpetrated by "Suvorov" and his ilk) is based on a
very
simple schema:
1. Soviet propaganda advertised power of the Red Army.
2. The Red Army was numerous and had a lot of equipment.
3. There was a lot of troops along the Soviet-German border.
Conclusion: Stalin was planning to attack Germany in the summer of
1941.
The inconvenient questions are simply ignored:
1. Explicit Stalin's orders of not provoking Germans (extended to
allowing the
reconnaissance German flights over the Soviet territory).
2. Soviet supplies to Germany until the day of attack.
3. Maintaining the minimal readiness level of the troops in a border
zone.
4. Fact that most of the border zone was newly acquired and not
completely
"pacified".
5. Fact that rearmament of the Red Army was in the initial stages.
etc.
[]
>
> ><< Allegedly, the Germans feared the Red Army was making
preparations to
> >attack them, and it was thus presented as a preemptive war.>>
>
> Yes folks, the "allegedly" is to be taken as proof. Scouring
> the web now to find anything that even vaguely fits? Of course
> the Nazis presented it as pre-emptive.
Actually, this is far from being the best. At least some of the Nazy
generals
stated in their post-war memories that they were actually fighting
for the Western civilization against the Bolshevism menace. Can you
beat
_that_? :-)
>
> >Stalin all ways had a long term ambition of taking over Europe,
that's why
> >Communist hysteria were spreading all over Europe years before the
war.
>
> Actually Stalin reigned in the comintern to concentrate on making the
> USSR safe, to minimise the hostility being generated.
And tried to make an agreement with GB and France before he was more or
less
pushed toward Germany by their indifference.
>He made the
> long term plan longer. Meantime Hitler came along with his plan to
> take over Europe and implemented it.
Ah, but as he clearly explained, the Czechs and then Poles had been
engaged
in a systematic castration of the Germans. BTW, IIRC, the same issue
had been
used as an explanation for the cruelty toward the Soviet POW's. Looks
like
castration of the Germans was an international (or at least Eastern
European)
obsession and I wonder why all these hundreds of thousands of the
German
soldiers captured by the Soviets ended up with their <youknowwhat>
intact.
>
> And communist "hysteria" seriously over states the situation, except
> in places like Germany where it was a propaganda tool of the
> government.
>
Rather flexible one: Ribbentrop openly stated that he felt himslef
quite at
home in Moscow. Similar ideological flexibility had been demonstrated
on
another side with the chering the victories of the German socialism
over the
rotten western democracies.
> >Hitler asked Poland to align with Germany many time and there were
long
> >diplomatic negotiation over that.
>
> Hitler was nice to Poland as long as Hitler felt the military balance
> was in Poland's favour, hence the non aggression pact in January
> 1934. As for the rest the various Nazi guarantees were all based
> around changes to the corridor to the Nazi's satisfaction.
>
Clear show of ingratitude on Polish side. Add to this castration of the
Germans and it's clear that they did not leave Adolph any option
whatsoever. :-)
>
> >Poland mobilized it's army way before Germany did.
>
> Ah I see the need to use fiction, the reason the Poles did so badly
in
> September 1939 was they were still mobilising. The Germans
> mobilised on 25th August, the Poles on 30th August. Remember
> Hitler's first invasion date was 26th August.
Following the same logic as with the SU, even if the Poles did not
mobilize
by the time of Hitler's attack, they _could_ mobilize at some point in
the
future. The very existence of the Polish army clearly indicated that
they
did have intention to fight a war (otherwise, why would they need an
army).
In other words, this was just a preventive attack. As with the SU.
Basically, if anybody had the armed troops, especially anywhere near
the border,
he was planning to attack Germany. As a part of a preparation to this
attack,
a potential aggressor was castrating the German males (long-term
planning
with a clear purpose to deprive the 3rd Reich of the fduture soldiers).
:-)
>
> >They thought England or
> >Russia will help them
Polish goverment explicitly rejected all British/French suggestions
regarding inclusion of the SU into the treaty. Why would they expect
any
help from Russia?
> if they hold out long enough, well we know what
> >happened.
>
> As usual this ignores the reality of what happened. The British and
> French could only make it clear to Hitler that there would be no
> isolated war with Poland, and they convinced everyone bar Hitler
> and Ribbentrop of this. As to the USSR the Nazis did a deal to
> divide the country with it.
>
Poles were not necessarily aware of the M-R Pact but there was no
plausible
scenario under which they could expect Soviet help in the case of a
German
attack: no mutual defence treaty, history of a mutual distrust, Peace
of
Riga, etc.
> >> for "aggressive intentions" against German-occupied Poland."
> >>
> >> Oh yes, there appears to be no mention the expansion of the USSR
> >> in eastern Europe, with the exception of Finland, was allowed by
> >> the Nazis as part of their August 1939 treaty. That gets lost.
>
> Yes folks, it still gets lost.
>
IIRC, occupation of the Baltic republics had been done somewhat
contrary to
the M-R Pact, just because Hitler was too busy elsewhere to do anything
about it: initial schema assumed maintaining the buffer states with the
Germans and Soviet "interests" being equally represented.
However, what this has to do with an alledgedly planning Soviet attack
on
Germany is beyond me. It's one thing to occupy the tiny states (with
the
Soviet troops already being garrissoned on their territories) and quite
another to start a major war against what looked like the 1st military
power
in Europe. Especially after debacle in Finland.
>
> >Germany was not allowed to build any heavy weapons till 1932.
>
> Ah I see, the Russian Steamroller is pushed out again, without noting
> the wheels falling off.
>
> I suppose the Germans then did nothing about their heavy weapons
> situation in the 1932 to 1941 period.
AFAIK, it is not a secret that before this time, German army had been
doing
training on the Soviet territory. Connections between the militaries on
both
sides had been quite close.
Not that the Red Army had a lot in the terms of the "heavy weapons" in
most of 20's. Only as a result of the 1st 5 year plan (1929 - 32) the
SU developed heavy industry capable to support a mass weaponry
production.
[]
> >>
> >> So FDR agreeing with Denmark to keep Iceland out of Nazi
> >> rule is a provocation to Germany?
> >
> >***It was a serious provocation!
>
> Yes folks, the US going to Iceland is a serious provocation, the
> question is why.
By definition. Anything that stood between Hitler and his plans was a
"provocation". Otherwise, it would be quite reasonable to ask a
question:
what were Hitler's interests in Iceland? (did the locals castrate any
Germans?)