Soviet War Crimes?

[LW]

I forgot to add to the above one further example of Soviet war crimes.

In the Karelian front Soviet partisan activity was very different from the partisans of Ukraine or Byelorussia. Karelian partisans spent most of their time in camps behind their own lines and made patrols to Finnish rear areas from there. These troops were under the authority of Byelomorsk Partisan HQ but I don't know who ordered the HQ around.

Typical Karelian partisan operations lasted from several days (in Winter) to a few weeks (typical Summer operation) to few months (extended Summer operation, very rare).

But anyway, in 1943 the partisan units were between a rock and a hard place. The counter-partisan measures taken by Finns and Germans made successful raids more and more difficult while at the same time the Byelomorsk HQ increased their demand for results.

So, several of the partisan units took the easy way out: they started attacking civilian targets and faking the reports.

For example, partisan commander Alexandr Smirnov attacked the tiny Yliluiro village, took most of the civilian inhabitants as prisoners, and then executed them (I can't remember exactly how many persons died, around 10).

However, in his report Smirnov claimed to have destroyed a German supply depot, killing more than 30 soldiers. In the report he also claimed to have demolished a bridge over a river blowing up an ammo truck at the same time as a part of the attack. The Yliluiro village was more than 20 km away from the nearest road.

I don't know if Smirnov is still alive. In the late 90s he was still a celebrated hero.

 

[headscratcher4]

real history

Beware of people who understand the "real history" as opposed to popular junk history. Clearly, the rest of us, no matter how well read, will ever be able to understand the "real history" because we are unenlightened and dupes. Only the enlightened, like M. find the truth, though it is purposefully hidden by the powers of evil.

Fortunately, there are those like M. who do and are willing to condescend to attempt to enlighten the rest of us.

Methinks of Eco and his wonderful novel: Foucault's Pendulum.

The problem with your method is that it is so auto-didactic. What you want to believe is "real history" is, and anything that challenges that view is somehow intellectually, factually, politically or ideologically tainted.

All history, is tainted. It is the nature of the beast...of course, Dear M., your history isn't tainted, it is real. No preconceived notions, no erroneous facts, no over-political shoe-horning of facts to fit an ideological purpose. Your history recommendations are just right....

And so, you walk off the cliff with a big smile on your face and confident self-rightousness in your heart.

You make me sad.

 

[Malachi151]

The Soviets also used "prisoners" as "cannon fodder".

At the time you could be sentanced to prison for being late to work or petty vandalism or whatever.

You could get out fo prison by volenterring for the prisoners corps. They sent the prisoners coprs into known enemy positions with no weapons so that they could estimate the strength of the opposition. Essentially all of the prisoners were killed, they were just basically made to march into enemy fire with no hope of survival.

Beware of people who understand the "real history" as opposed to popular junk history

As I said, real history is primary sources, junk history is textbook crap. I don't think you will find any "real" historians that would disagree with that.

Just one more bit from Lindbergh's diaries:

He feared that "if England and Germany enter another major war on opposite sides, Western civilization may fall as a result." he believed, however, that Germany's expansion eastward toward the Soviet Union would not present so great a peril.

His view was matched by millions of people around the world. This was also the view OF THE NAZIS themselves.

 

[Hypocolius]

The Soviets also used "prisoners" as "cannon fodder".

At the time you could be sentanced to prison for being late to work or petty vandalism or whatever.

You could get out fo prison by volenterring for the prisoners corps. They sent the prisoners coprs into known enemy positions with no weapons so that they could estimate the strength of the opposition. Essentially all of the prisoners were killed, they were just basically made to march into enemy fire with no hope of survival.

As I said, real history is primary sources, junk history is textbook crap. I don't think you will find any "real" historians that would disagree with that.

However Real History is not the novels of Sven Hassel which is what this sounds like.

 

[Malachi151]

Well, more highlights from Lindbergh, I just can't help it:

As Mr. Lindbergh saw it in his journal, the bulk of the American people were against entering the war; but they were being pushed toward it by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his Administration.

In addition to the Roosevelt Administration, Mr Lindbergh wrote, the chief prowar forces were pro-British elements and the Jews. As early as June 1939, he voiced his concern in a conversation in Washington with Vice-President John Garner.

"We are both anxcious to avoid this country being pushed into a European war by British and Jewish propaganda," he wrote. "I can understand the feeling of both the British and the Jews, but there is far too much at stake for us to rush into a European war without the most careful cool consideration."

Several other diary entries underline Mr. Lindbergh's belief that the Jews were behind a great deal of the pro-war propaganda in the United States.

"I am shocked at the attitude of our American troops. They have no respect for death, the courage of an enemy soldier or many of the ordinary decencies of life. They think nothing whatever of robbing the body of a dead Jap and call him a "son of a bitch" while they do so.

"I said during a discussion with American officers that regardless of what the japs did I did not see how we could gain anything or claim that we represented a civilized state if we killed them by torture."

This was a theme to which Mr.Lindbergh returned several times, as he recorded instances of shooting of Japanese taken as war prisoners or the torture of them.

And when he traveled in Germany shortly after the Nazi surrender in May 1945, he wrote in his journal. "What the German has done to the Jew in Europe, we are doing to the Jap in the Pacific."

Maybe he missed what the Japanese did to the Chinese and Americans?

 

[LW]

However Real History is not the novels of Sven Hassel which is what this sounds like.

There's a grain of truth in there. Soviets did have penal units (though you usually ended in them by committing crimes in normal units) and the survival rate among them was not good.

Sometimes Soviets sent men on dangerous assignments as a punishment instead of arranging a formal court martial. One such example is a signals sergeant (can't remember his name) who was assigned into a "tongue-patrol" (= to get a prisoner, "tongue" in Soviet slang) at Valkeasaari (Byelo-Ostrov) in early June 1944 after he crashed a truck while drunk-driving. What made his case interesting was that he knew a lot of details of Soviet major offensive (since he served in the signals center of the front) that was scheduled to start on 10 June and no-one in the Soviet higher command saw the dangers of sending such a man near enemy. In short, he was mortally wounded in the attempt and captured by Finns. Before his death he revealed most of what he knew to his interrogators. Unfortunately for the Finns, the commander of the IV Army Corps didn't take the information seriously and dismissed the report.

But on the subject of Hassel's books, they are just as reliable and authentic as the memoirs of the Baron Hieronymus von Münchausen.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Malachi, supposing you could ask a few questions to a British 'champagne socialist' who only thougt the war worth fighting once Russia was invaded..........

What would you ask?

 

[Graham]

Malachi,

According to the link you posted, Linbergh:

(a) Was a European imperialist

The British empire has broken down with great suffering, bloodshed and confusion. France has had to give up her major colonies and turn to a mild dictatorship herself.

(b) Was, shall we say, a racial purist

Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through eons of many million lives.

(c) Got a medal from the Nazi party (which he refused to give back)

Marshal Goering, of coarse, was the last to arrive (at the dinner). I was standing in the back of the room. He shook hands with everyone. I noticed he had a red box and some papers. When he came to me he shook hands, handed me the box and papers and spoke a few sentences in German. I found he had presented me with the German Eagle, one of the highest German decorations, "by order of Der Fuhrer"

Which of these three factors, in your opinion, qualifies him as an independent and reliable commentator on the situation?

Why do you assume he is unbiased when he clearly is not, whilst discounting generations of historians against whom you have, apparently, no evidence of bias other than your very own biases?

Graham

 

[Malachi151]

Which of these three factors, in your opinion, qualifies him as an independent and reliable commentator on the situation?

I never said he was an independant and reliable observer.

I said that here is documentation of an American who's views matched those of what i ws basically saying, that many Americans and people of all Western civilizations held the view that the Germans were defnders against teh "evils of Communism".

This was a common view, and it was the view held and promoted by the Nazism themselves.

I have relatives that have said all the same basic stuff that Lindbergh said, I've read the same stuff from a variety of different sources from people like Henry Ford to American soldiers that came back after the war, to even people like Joseph Kennedy.

The fact that the major "fear" at thetime leading up to WWII was a fear of Communism and not Nazism and that in fact many people viewed the Nazis as a productive force against Communism is easy to document, the only problem is, its not the way American history is taught.

There was an American Nazi movement prior to WWII, and in fact some Americans went to Germany to fight for the Germans, and much of the "peace camp" were really just Nazi sympathisers, and there was a large peace camp, in fact it was the majority of people.

About 69% of Americans that went to WWII were drafted. Its not like people were rallying to go fight Nazism.

Many, many people felt like getting rid of the Communsits was more important than fighting to Germans.

Many of those people were in positions of power, both public office and privately, like heads of companies, etc. Especially PRIOR TO the breakout of war people were even more supportive of the Germans. Once war broke out their support fell away, but a lot of that support is what HELPED the Nazis into power in the first place.

Once the war broke out some of that support turned from Nazi support to seeking to protect against Nazi takeover, but prior to the British holdout against the Nazis there was a large hope among many people in Western society that we would all unite behind the Nazis. A lot of serious anti-Communists were very pissed at the British for what they did at the time. They just wanted the west to unite against Russia ws the main thing.

When that didn't happen many reluctantly accepted the position of having to help the British. Churchill himself was dubious about having to ally with the Russians, who he had previously expressed much disdaine for and in fact was against. Churchill didn't like either the Nazis or the Russians, but prior to the outbreak of war he had pinned the Communsits as the greater of the two evils.

Pretty much everyone, except for the radical left, had pinned the Communsits as the greater of the two evils up UNITIL Germany invaded Poland, and even then a lot of people were still on the side of the Nazis. But it was that sentament of being more anti-Communist that ENABLED the Nazis to build up. People KNEW they were breaking the rules, but they didn't want to stop them because the Germans were between Russia and Western Europe and people though that the Nazis, with their anti-Communist rhetoric, would serve as a at least a defense against Communism, if not an offensive force to destroy it.

The Spanish Civil War reinforced this. The Fascists supported Franco and defeated the Marxis-Socialist Spanish Republic there, which the British and French viewed as a threat. When Hitler helped to defeat the Communsits here people viewed him as beneficial overall.

Malachi, supposing you could ask a few questions to a British 'champagne socialist' who only thougt the war worth fighting once Russia was invaded..........

What would you ask?

Probably not much. Most were paws on the Stalinist International most likely. When Stalin took power in Russia he took over The International and in all countries, America included Communsits and Socialists followed the Stalinist party line. During the time of the treaty between Stalin and Hitler virtually all Communsits/Socilaists were anti-war because that's what Stalin said to do. Then when Russia was invaded it changed immediately. The same thing happened in America. In both cases these people represented a small minority.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Probably not much. Most were paws on the Stalinist International most likely. When Stalin took power in Russia he took over The International and in all countries, America included Communsits and Socialists followed the Stalinist party line. During the time of the treaty between Stalin and Hitler virtually all Communsits/Socilaists were anti-war because that's what Stalin said to do. Then when Russia was invaded it changed immediately. The same thing happened in America. In both cases these people represented a small minority.

What a 'paw' of the 'Stalinist International'?

How about a member of the CPGB?

 

[Hypocolius]

There's a grain of truth in there. Soviets did have penal units (though you usually ended in them by committing crimes in normal units) and the survival rate among them was not good.

Granted, and I'm sure they were given some unpleasant tasks (clearing minrfields and the like), but the suggsetion that they were regularly let loose to charge the German guns so the officers could estimate enemy strength is not very credible.

 

[Underemployed]

Granted, and I'm sure they were given some unpleasant tasks (clearing minrfields and the like), but the suggsetion that they were regularly let loose to charge the German guns so the officers could estimate enemy strength is not very credible.

Go read the above-mentioned books and eye-witness accounts. It is sadly all too believable. Have you seen the film "Enemy At The Gates" (based on the book of the same name)? The opening scene of the river crossing and subsequent unarmed charge into German territory was no exaggeration.

 

[Hypocolius]

Go read the above-mentioned books and eye-witness accounts. It is sadly all too believable. Have you seen the film "Enemy At The Gates" (based on the book of the same name)? The opening scene of the river crossing and subsequent unarmed charge into German territory was no exaggeration.

I have, but it isn't what Malachi was talking about. In Enemy the opening sequence showed an under-supplied (not unarmed) unit being thrown into the action, and then shot by there own side when they retreated. Quite believable, and I'm sure events like it happened occasionally, however Malachi was talking about prisoners being able to volunteer for Punishment Battalions whose primary purpose was to go on suicide missions.

You could get out fo prison by volenterring for the prisoners corps. They sent the prisoners coprs into known enemy positions with no weapons so that they could estimate the strength of the opposition. Essentially all of the prisoners were killed, they were just basically made to march into enemy fire with no hope of survival

My contention is that, while it is not impossible for this to have happened, it is unlikely to have happened very often, thus the implication that this was some kind of regular policy on the part of the Soviets is wrong. Only in the realms of fiction do such policies occur. I have read fairly widely on the subject, and while most accounts agree on the apparent disdain the USSR had for its soldiers, there is less agreement on these stories of suicide missions. Would you entrust a prisoner with a suicide mission?

edited to add
I just checked back to see which books you mentioned. I have read both of Beevor's books, and excellent they are. I really don't think he mentions Punishment Battalions being sent on suicide missions, but I'll check tonight to be sure.

 

[LW]

Go read the above-mentioned books and eye-witness accounts. It is sadly all too believable.

Ummm. Which books in particular? Quite a lot of books have been mentioned already. I've read several of those but I don't remember anything about penal batallions. Though, I may remember incorrectly.

Have you seen the film "Enemy At The Gates" (based on the book of the same name)?

Aaarrrrrgh. If I see one more Eastern Front movie where a little Russian boy gets executed, I'll ... I'll ... I'll, well I don't know what I'll do, but I will certainly hate that movie with undying passion. If there is one overused cliche, then that is it.

But anyway, Enemy at Gates should not be taken as authentic history. For the basic plot the screenwriter took the possibly already embellished story of duel between Vasily Zaitsev and "major König" but since it wasn't Hollywood enough he had to write in a personal vendetta. [We can be reasonably certain that Zaitsev hunted down an excellent German sniper. What we don't know is who that sniper was.]

The opening scene of the river crossing and subsequent unarmed charge into German territory was no exaggeration.

And the relevance of that portrayal to the question of penal batallions is ... ?

Anyway, attacks by inadequadly supplied units are not the sole property of the Red Army, though they did them more often than others in the early phases of war. For example, in the Finnish counter attack to Patoniemi at Taipaleenjoki on Christmas Day 1939, some of the attackers started unarmed (they were replacements who arrived just before the Soviet attack and there weren't enough rifles for them).

There are numerous reports of Soviets machinegunning their own withdrawing troops. However, all descriptions that I've found have been from the enemies of Red Army, Finnish or German. Such mass executions are not mentioned in Soviet sources, not even in unofficial ones. I'm not saying that they didn't happen, but I don't think they were the norm.

It is interesting to note that in Sodalla on hintansa by Viktor Stepakov (I don't know if the book is published anywhere else than in Finland even though the author is Russian) there is a lenghty account by a Soviet MG-gunner who participated in the Winter War and fought at Summa in the February 1940 breakthrough attack. The soldier faults the high command as being boneheaded idiots who slaughtered thousands of Russians needlessly. But he doesn't at any point allude for MG fire against own troops, even though some Finnish accounts mention such occurrences at Summa.

Soviet sources show a different kind of executions. Namely, a commissar shooting one or few soldiers who hesistate in following an order. This was a common occurrence in early war. Stepakov's two books (the other is Paraatimarssi Suomeen with Orehov) contain at least ten such cases reported by surviving veterans.

 

[LW]

However, all descriptions that I've found have been from the enemies of Red Army, Finnish or German.

And what I mean here is that the descriptions of the enemy actions are often, how would I put it, inaccurate. Sometimes inaccurate to the extreme.

A nice example for this is a raid by Soviet partisan detachment "Avengers" to a village on the west side of Lake Onega. I've seen two accounts for it, one written by Dmitri Gusarov who was a member of Avengers and one by a Finnish sapper who was positioned in the village.

Well, Gusarov's story tells how the partisans secured the village after a hard battle, and how the battle ended when the "surviving remnants of the garrison" escaped into the forest.

The Finnish account says that the "surviving remants" who climbed out of the window of their house were the whole garrison, a single squad of sappers assigned on a guard duty. They got surprised, put on their clothes, fired a few shots from a window, and escaped.

And since I don't want to give the impression that only Soviet accounts are in suspect, there's the occasion of an another partisan raid in the area. Two men, one Finn (Eino Pietola) and one Karelian (Jaakko Rugojev) have written books about it, one from both sides. Rugojev's book is a sober description of a partisan raid that had to turn back before it met its objectives (Rugojev himself was seriously wounded in an ambush and his survival was a small miracle). Pietola's book is a fantastic story of desperate (but ultimately succesfull) combats against numerically superior partisans who seem to be almost all-knowing .

The books have only one thing in common: both claim that the enemy communicated by faking cuckoo sounds and both claims are false. Neither Finns nor Russians used that method, ever.

 

[Malachi151]

I have, but it isn't what Malachi was talking about. In Enemy the opening sequence showed an under-supplied (not unarmed) unit being thrown into the action, and then shot by there own side when they retreated. Quite believable, and I'm sure events like it happened occasionally, however Malachi was talking about prisoners being able to volunteer for Punishment Battalions whose primary purpose was to go on suicide missions.

My contention is that, while it is not impossible for this to have happened, it is unlikely to have happened very often, thus the implication that this was some kind of regular policy on the part of the Soviets is wrong. Only in the realms of fiction do such policies occur. I have read fairly widely on the subject, and while most accounts agree on the apparent disdain the USSR had for its soldiers, there is less agreement on these stories of suicide missions. Would you entrust a prisoner with a suicide mission?

edited to add
I just checked back to see which books you mentioned. I have read both of Beevor's books, and excellent they are. I really don't think he mentions Punishment Battalions being sent on suicide missions, but I'll check tonight to be sure.

Well, they interviewed a Russian survivor of one of these "so called" penail units on the History Channel. He said that he was only of only a handfull of survivors from these units and he had been sentanced to one year in prison for being late to class or something like that. He described the events, etc, and they then went into further detail about how the prison units worked. So, that's where my info on the matter comes from, call it into question if you will.

 

[LW]

Well, they interviewed a Russian survivor of one of these "so called" penail units on the History Channel.

It might be interesting to get some more details. One thing to remember is that human memory is fallible. If the veteran was interviewed recently, then he has had almost 60 years of time to forget things. I mentioned above the two books by Stepakov. They were compiled in late 80s from interviews of veterans. Some of the accounts contain stuff that is demonstratably false, like one man's account of hand-to-hand combat against Finnish women's batallion [there were no such units in Finnish army]. Some others contain stuff that Soviet soldiers almost universally believed to be true during the war, even though they weren't. For example, there are numerous detailed accounts of "cuckoo-hunting", killing Finnish snipers who were positioned high up in trees. The problem there is that the vast majority of Finnish snipers shot from the ground [and they were very glad of Soviet practice of peppering all nearby treetops with lead after a sniper attack]. I've not been able to find even one confirmed case of Finnish sniper climbing into a tree.

Requoting earlier stuff:

They sent the prisoners coprs into known enemy positions with no weapons so that they could estimate the strength of the opposition.

Soviets definitely had one slightly similar practice. In late war, before they started a major offensive Soviets sent a number of recon probes to attack the enemy lines. However, in all cases that I'm aware of the attackers were armed.

These probes were generally much stronger than probes in other armies. While Finns, for example, used almost exclusively platoon-sized units in them, Soviets did often send companies or even batallions in such attacks.

The idea was that the advance elements would try to capture individual enemy strongpoints that presented the greatest danger for the planned large-scale breaktrough and identfy weak spots in the defences. The probes were often so intense that the enemy believed them to be a part of the main attack. So, for example, all Finnish sources state that the Soviet 1944 offensive started on June 9 while all Soviet sources use June 10. Similarily, Finns usually count the February major offensive at Summa to have started on February 1, 1940, while Soviet sources use February 11 as the start date.

I find it plausible that some men participating in the probes didn't know that they were only probing the enemy, not making a full assault. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if some of the men believed that they were sent there to get killed. Particularly unlucky probing units might suffer heavy casualties if they were aimed at heavy defences and their commanders didn't stop the attack at time.

The veteran in that document may have taken part in some of those probes, though I'm still sceptical about the "unarmed" part.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Beware of people who understand the "real history" as opposed to popular junk history. Clearly, the rest of us, no matter how well read, will ever be able to understand the "real history" because we are unenlightened and dupes.

Still my hero, hs4.

That may sadden you as well, of course. I think I'll avoid asking.

 

[JAR]

Aaarrrrrgh. If I see one more Eastern Front movie where a little Russian boy gets executed, I'll ... I'll ... I'll, well I don't know what I'll do, but I will certainly hate that movie with undying passion. If there is one overused cliche, then that is it.

Are you saying that it didn't happen?

In the book called "Enemy at the Gates: The Battle of Stalingrad", the execution of the boy happened.

Maybe the book's wrong. It happens quite often in historical works. When I read an historical work and I don't find a flaw, it's probably because I'm not familar with the subject.

 

[renata]

Still my hero, hs4.

That may sadden you as well, of course. I think I'll avoid asking.

Yes, another great post from hs4. I already nominated it for the language prize. I wish he would contribute more to the PC&E. Of course, you have to be careful, NoZed, or else HS4 will put that comment of yours in his sig...and then next thing you know you will be knitting him blankets, too. Of course if he does that, I would have to post this comment of his in my sig "Renata -- as always, my heroine! Keep up the good fight!" from a certain troll busting thread of mine. That would really short circuit you, won't it?