PDA

View Full Version : German war dead no one wants to remember



Nickdfresh
06-08-2008, 02:54 PM
June 7, 2008
German war dead no one wants to remember
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00348/GermanHelmets360_348986a.jpg
Steel helmets from German soldiers killed on the Eastern Front: about 2.6 million died in the last phase of the war


Roger Boyes in Berlin

It has been a long, troubled journey for the brittle bones and skull of Obergefreiter Horst F, from the dusty frontline ditch where he was killed in 1945, via a Czech lavatory fittings factory to a military warehouse. Soon, though, he and more than 4,000 German soldiers will be laid to rest: Europe’s forgotten warriors, the corpses that no one wants to bury.

If the the luck of the German lance corporal holds, he will have not only a priest but also a civil servant at his graveside; and if the German War Graves Commission can trace the family in time, there may even be a distant relative. But one thing is for sure: it will not be the funeral of a war hero. More likely, the president of the war graves commission, Reinhard Fuehrer, will say similar words to those he used a few years back when he buried a thousand German Wehrmacht corpses in Krasnodar, southern Russia: “We are here today to represent the German people that has learnt its lesson from history and is now looking to the future.”

Unfinished business: that is the only way to describe the tens of thousands of German corpses rotting in distant fields of Eastern Europe. There are conflicting estimates over the number of German military war dead. German historian Wolfram Wette calculates that about 5.3 million German soldiers lost their lives in the Second World War.” Out of that number about 2.6 million were killed in the last phase between July 1944 and May 1945.” The Red Army was moving up fast from the east, rushing for Berlin, eager to establish a military presence in a huge swathe of Eastern Europe.

There was no time for the Germans to bury the dead as one defensive line after another crumbled. And after the war there was no great incentive to dig holes or to carve crosses for the remnants of an army that had been part of Hitler’s oppressive machine. So their coal-scuttle helmets, mangled weapons and badges were plundered by local teenagers and they were left to decay in woods, under bracken or crunched up by digger trucks as they moved in to build high rise blocks for the new communist societies.

“We are very relieved that agreement has been reached,” says Fritz Kirchmeier, of the war graves commission. The small Czech town of Cheb – custard-coloured Habsburgian buildings fringed by brothels and clip joints for cross-border German tourists – has agreed to expand its graveyard to take in the 4,300 bodies that have been on tour for the past 63 years. “We can give names to 1,350 of them,” says Mr Kirchmeier, “and a decent resting place.” Many German civilians must have been among the dead, killed by vengeful Czechs as they tried to flee westwards away from the Russians. At least 200 of the powdery skeletons were dug out of a mass grave hidden underneath the sports field of the Czech town of Rovensko; immediately after the war the local authorities had set up an internment camp for Sudeten Germans there.

So, no, this is not a heroic moment, not even a historic reckoning. The bodies started to be exhumed about ten years ago – the collapse of communism made it possible; so did the need of local authorities for an influx of Western cash. Cheb will receive several hundred thousand euros to enlarge its graveyard and build an approach road to the church. The original plan of the Germans was to bury their dead in a German evangelical church in Prague but that proved too expensive. The church is listed and millions of euros would have had to flow to make it acceptable for the bureaucracy. The fact is Prague was not keen to take on four thousand dead Germans, especially as some of the dead could have been members of the Waffen SS.

Sealed unceremonoiusly in black body bags, the remains of the Germans were then deposited in a cheerless factory specialising in lavatory bowls and bathroom fittings in Usti nad Labem, the Czech end of the Elbe river. There was no lock on the door – and no telling whether any of the bags were removed by looting locals. Eventually, the Germans got wind of the dismal setting and pressed the Czechs to act. The Czech Army – now a Nato partner – poured the remains into more dignified cardboard coffins, held together by staples, and transferred them to a military barracks where they are at least kept under guard.

“It may take a little time to complete the landscaping of the new cemetery but it is a realistic aim to have everyone buried by the end of the year,” says Mr Kirchmeier.

Across Eastern Europe there are German bodies held in a similar state of limbo. The battle for Berlin, from mid-April to surrender at the beginning of May 1945, claimed more than 400,000 German soldiers. Only a small fraction of them were buried properly. The Germans blame the communist authorities, in East Germany, Poland and elsewhere, who officially venerated the heroic Soviet war dead with massive concrete monuments, but who were not bothered by the fate of those who fought on the losing side.

But at least part of the blame rests with the Germans themselves who have been ashamed for the best part of half a century about the ordinary German soldier, unsure whether he was a hero or a criminal. “In the records of the Wehrmacht the average Joe tends to exist only in anonymous form, a statistic,” says Dr Wette, "the logs of military units generally make no mention of enlisted men by name and the same applies to regimental histories written after the war.” Barely 1 per cent of the holdings of the German military archives in Freiburg deals with enlisted soldiers.

Little wonder that they have been ignored in death - they had already been airbrushed out of history by the Germans themselves. There is no equivalent to the tomb of the unknown soldier under the Arc de Triomphe in Paris or the Cenotaph in London. Instead, villages put up small monuments to those who died “in war and dictatorship, 1914-45” and sometimes the names of locals are etched into the side. But more often than not families do not know where their relatives died or where they now lie.

Thanks to the lobbying work and fundraising of the German War Graves Commission there are now 20 German military cemeteries in Russia, still too few to accomodate the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died in epic encounters like the Siege of Leningrad. Search teams still go out during the summer. German soldiers, on active service or in reserve units, travel to Russia and elsewhere to help.

Archaeology is about the search for lost civilisations. The search for German remains is something else: an attempt to recover the memory of how savage war can be and then put the memory to rest.

Military casualties

Army estimated 13,600,000 served; estimated 4,202,000 killed

Air force estimated 2,500,000 served; estimated 433,000 killed

Navy estimated 1,200,000 served; estimated 138,000 killed

Waffen SS estimated 900,000 served; estimated 314,000 killed

1,419,728 estimated number of German troops killed or wounded on the Eastern Front

Source: Times research (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4083467.ece)

frtychrs
06-08-2008, 07:04 PM
Hi im new to the board I think Germans today have gone thru a tremendos change the past 60 plus years a change for the good but Germans are afraid to express there hertitage and national pride; the ghosts of Nazi Germany I think still resdue inside German life. Germany has a strong army today but the Bundwesir is openly afraid to due what is right helping her allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. You see there is no medals for German soldiers and that is a shame Iron cross for example is forbidden because the Nazis like all other aspects of German life stained it with there ignorance toward there fellow man. It kinda makes you wonder what would have happen before 1989 would West German army stood up aganist U.S.S.R. ? or would they have laid down and wanted peace ? Germany today is a very open and liberal society. What im getting at is the German people are anti-military for the first time in there long history as a nation Prussian Empire thru Willmar Republic to Third Reich; to the occupation of the two Germany's. German people just don't want to be remined of that horrible era.

PANZERCOMMANDER
06-12-2008, 09:42 PM
No manner how or why , the remains once found any where should be treated with respect and paid the attention they deserve. Unkown or not, they should be laid to rest, in peace.

Nickdfresh
06-12-2008, 09:43 PM
These men absolutely deserve a decent burial...

larryparamedic
06-14-2008, 03:14 PM
These men absolutely deserve a decent burial...

I consider any man who dies in combat a soldier that deserves honor no matter what nation or side he fought for.
When it comes to the real reasons soldiers fight, we are all the same.
I can see the difficulty in a country honoring dead that potentially were killers of innocents, but the greater majority of these men were common troops which is precisely why they were forgotten.

About Germany today, I know here in the Midwest USA where I've lived most of my life, they still teach the world wars through school, and there are many books, memorials and monuments dedicated to WW2 in this country, but I think you would be surprised just how supportive we in this country are of a free Germany doing it's thing.
We think nowadays very little of those times. Many germans live in this country now, and germans today are not looked at in anyway as "Nazis".
Americans feel more like shaking hands after a hard fight. We don't hold war grudges.

Moreheaddriller
06-22-2008, 09:14 PM
I think that any man or woman who sheds their blood for their country despite the cause should recieve a proper burial

BearMgk
06-23-2008, 06:19 AM
They fighted for theyr land so did the Soviets
both are Heroic Fighters many of the soldiers in reallity never wanted the war on both sides.

imi
06-23-2008, 09:46 AM
You're wrong if you think we not remember the fallen heroes who fights in the East front.I think every person,who intrested in ww2,give respect his own fallen heroes

Firefly
06-23-2008, 03:05 PM
I have trouble with posters who want to revere the German dead but who have overt Nazi signatures.

Maybe this is the reason that certain deeds in ww2 are not yet about to be forgotten and still feel shameful to some Germans?

aly j
09-19-2008, 05:33 AM
No manner how or why , the remains once found any where should be treated with respect and paid the attention they deserve. Unkown or not, they should be laid to rest, in peace.

yes i agree...even if the remains belong 2 a german soilder

Ivaylo
09-26-2008, 11:00 AM
I am new too here but i join to your opinions - no matter of the nationality every soldier should recieve a proper burial no matter if he or she fought for the USSR , Nazi Germany or USA or whatever else country . They all deserve a respect and to rest in peace . As for nowdays Germany i think the germans should stop to feel guilty or like nazis , they already learned well the lesson that the agression and the war don't bring anything good , so the world should leave them be as they are .

bangalore_andy
11-05-2008, 02:33 AM
poor jerry

SS Ouche-Vittes
11-06-2008, 07:33 AM
rip jerry and all men in service, miss em all.

rove1
11-13-2008, 12:48 PM
Hello guys,

Think some one has to say some reliable things about the German casualties:

2,6 million died after summer 1944? Let us see.......
I come on about 2 million KIA and 1 million+ of deaths in custody.
So 2,6 million may be too low.

IF 5,3 soldiers inclusive Volkssturm and HJ were killed and IF of these 1,5 million died in custody and 0.5 million died of sickness, disease, suicide and other causes THEN 3,3 million were KIA on all fronts. Of these 3,3 million KIA 900.000 were KIA on all fronts (of these 239.000 in France alone) (Atlantic, the Air...in Yugoslavia, North Africa, Italy, the West) except against the Sovjets and roughly 2,4 million were KIA against the Sovjets and their Allies. In nowadays Poland about 468.000 (Warschau, Brody, Breslau, Kolberg, Heiligenbeil, Danzig..) are burried (inclusive 16.000 of 1939), 250.000 in White Russia (Minsk, Bobruisk..), 178.000 in Tjecho-Slovakia, 155.000 in the Baltic States (Vilnius,,), 125.000 in Eastern Germany (in/around Berlin, Halbe...), 75.000+ in Moldavia (Kishinev..), 56.000 in Hungary (Budapest), 50.000 in SU (former northern part of East Prussia, notably Königsberg, Pillau...), 45.000 in Austria, 38.000 in Rumania (Iassy..), 15.000 in Finland & Lapland, 1800 in Bulgaria.
Alltogether they form up about the losses on the Eastern Front (minus those losses of 1939-1941) from the summer until May '45 and totalled are about: 1.4 million soldiers.
In the present SU and Ukraine about 1.000.000 million lost their lives between the summer of 1941 and the summer of 1944. This was mainly near Leningrad, in front of Moscou, Vitebsk, Demjansk, in the Ukraine, Kursk, Voronesh, Charkow, Lower Dnepr (Cherkassy), Crimea (Sevastopol), in the Donetsk area, in the Caucasus (Novorossiysk) and near Stalingrad. About 180-200.000 of this one million died in/ near Stalingrad.
These numbers are in harmony with those published by Rüdiger Overmans (leading author on German Losses) and WASt & Deutsches Rotes Kreuz (DRK).

Of those died in custody the French, US, Soviet, Yugoslav and British official and unofficial numbers are respectivley: 28.000 (x2, x3?); 22.000 (+ unknown number of deaths in Rhine camps; possibly near 40-50.000); 468.000 (x2, x3), 8000 (x2, x3, x >3) and 18-20.000+ (x1?). Alltogether their number is near 1,5 million.
So official numbers can never be correct.

Who dares to challenge this sound "numbers" SUDOKU???;)

Uyraell
02-15-2009, 04:47 AM
Initially, I wasn't going to post on this thread: to any thinking person of the modern age, compassion towards the dead should be obvious, a human action of at least respect, if not always reverence.

With the indulgence of my fellow forum members, I put forward the following reasoning:

In Belgium stands a cemetery, on the site of the 3rd battle of Passchendael, October 4th, 1917. A relative of mine is commemorated on a tablet there, for his body was never recovered.
One day, I hope to visit there, place a poppy by his name.

As I said to a family member recently, I'd then do two more things: Find a grave of a soldier from the same company, and place a poppy on his grave...
...then find the grave of a German soldier who died the same day, October 4th, 1917, and place a poppy on his grave also.

Similarly, that same relative's nephew, a World War 2 death, is commemorated on a tablet in the Military Cemetery at Gibraltar: His body was buried at sea offshore.
I'd place a poppy by his name, and another by the name of a German who died the same day, even if I had to go to a German cemetery to do so.

Why?

My reasoning is simple: regardless the rights or wrongs of the respective nations, those men ALL died in defense of their country, and ALL served their nation in its' hours of strife.

I cannot see that German war dead from World War 2 deserve less compassion, I cannot see that they deserve no place of rest.

I am no Apologist, nor Revisionist on behalf of Germany.

NOR though, do I believe German war dead are any less deserving of simple and respectful human compassion than those of the Allied nations.

Surely, it behooves those of us who live in this day to at least grant the dead of Germany the compassion of decent rest, even IF there be some who would wish to extend generosity no further, and do no more.

Victory means triumph: it also means a certain incumbent measure of compassion, or the Victory itself replaces the Victor as the Oppressor over whom that same Victory was gained.

Message ENDS.

Regards, Uyraell.

Comrade Commisar
02-19-2009, 06:48 PM
I consider any man who dies in combat a soldier that deserves honor no matter what nation or side he fought for.
When it comes to the real reasons soldiers fight, we are all the same.
I can see the difficulty in a country honoring dead that potentially were killers of innocents, but the greater majority of these men were common troops which is precisely why they were forgotten.

About Germany today, I know here in the Midwest USA where I've lived most of my life, they still teach the world wars through school, and there are many books, memorials and monuments dedicated to WW2 in this country, but I think you would be surprised just how supportive we in this country are of a free Germany doing it's thing.
We think nowadays very little of those times. Many germans live in this country now, and germans today are not looked at in anyway as "Nazis".
Americans feel more like shaking hands after a hard fight. We don't hold war grudges.

Very true on the never ending field of battle

freyir_33
03-08-2009, 09:01 AM
I have lived half of my life in Germany, and have had several discussions on these pride vs guild issues with German veteran family members.

So to make it short, I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding towards the issue of pride in remembering the members of the German Wermacht or Waffen SS. I have posted a doku made at the controversial Wermacht exibition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxPwz_emDmM&feature=related), in the dokumentary German vets are disscussing
the crimes of the regular German army.

Before you express any opinion, it is important to deeply understand the difference, between those fighting defending their country, and those fighting for an Ideology like Nazism.

The reason why so few Germans are/was proud their deeds in WW2, is that they actually have nothing to be proud of. They did not fight for, or archived a great collective goal like the Allied did, the pride felt today by some German veterans are more due to individual achievements, or the technical skills they possessed during ww2. I will never downgrade the pride of what individual German soldiers experienced through combat, but there is a great difference due to the course, therefore I prefer to remember them as human beings, and not as soldiers.

Rising Sun*
03-08-2009, 10:25 AM
The reason why so few Germans are/was proud their deeds in WW2, is that they actually have nothing to be proud of.

I think that, from a purely military prowess point of view, Germans have a lot to be proud of in WWII. They achieved some great military feats in western and eastern Europe, the Balkans, and North Africa.

By the second half of 1941 Germany had defeated France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, and Greece, among others, and was giving Britain a flogging in the Mediterranean and North Africa while giving the Soviets a flogging on their home ground. Not bad for a nation with a fraction of the population of the various nations it took on and mostly conquered or fought without being defeated to that point.

Given the previous conduct of the American and British Allies, such as in exploiting China, I don't think there is any great moral difference in Germany trying to take by force of arms what, for example, Britain took in India and China. As for French and Dutch conduct in acquiring and managing their colonial possessions, there's not a lot of ground there for moral superiority to condemn German expansion.


They did not fight for, or archived a great collective goal like the Allied did ...

I think Germany did fight for and temporarily achieved a great collective goal, which was German expansion, and it went pretty close to achieving it permanently in a highly impressive contest with a number of nations which, combined, vastly outweighed Germany militarily and in resources.

As for the great collective Allied goal, America didn't want to get involved in the European war, not least because some of its major corporations were making great profits from one or both sides of the conflict. America was dragged in only by Japan's adventurous assault on America.

Germany wasn't doing anything that other European nations hadn't been doing in the centuries before and the 70 or so years since Germany became a nation, nor was it expressing anything in the way of national arrogance and expansionism that other European nations hadn't been doing for centuries, such as Napoleon invading Russia which in principle was no better and no worse than Germany invading the USSR.

kuuk
03-08-2009, 03:19 PM
Honoring German War Dead luckily did happen by some people in formerly occupied lands.
In spite of our country (NL) having been occupied by the Germans for almost 5 years to the day, my parents always made us respect the fallen soldiers, including the Germans. Case in point: Right across the river from my hometown, there were two graves of German soldiers. We often passed by there on our long weekend walks. My mother always made us stop and say a few prayers. She would say, they were very young and probably didn't want to be here. We weren't the only ones though, as frequently there were flowers on the two graves. Eventually, they were moved to the major German Cementery in IJsselstein. Of course we also visited the four allied cementeries in the area, also within walking distance from our home. One was American but its occupants were eventually all moved to the now one and only American cementery in NL, namely
Margraten, in the south of Limburg province. May the all rest in peace.

flamethrowerguy
03-08-2009, 04:15 PM
Eventually, they were moved to the major German Cementery in IJsselstein.

As kuuk mentioned by today Ijsselstein is the major German military cemetery in all of the Netherlands (31598 graves including 85 of WW1).
Basically all German casualties in the Netherlands from the German invasion of May 1940 to the late war battles in and around the Netherlands (Market Garden, Hurtgenforest, Battle of the Bulge) are buried here.
I've been there last November - directly after our Remembrance Day - and I can confirm these war dead are not forgotten - not even by their former enemies as my photos show:

3255
3256
3257

freyir_33
03-08-2009, 04:34 PM
I think that, from a purely military prowess point of view, Germans have a lot to be proud of in WWII. They achieved some great military feats in western and eastern Europe, the Balkans, and North Africa.

By the second half of 1941 Germany had defeated France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, and Greece, among others, and was giving Britain a flogging in the Mediterranean and North Africa while giving the Soviets a flogging on their home ground. Not bad for a nation with a fraction of the population of the various nations it took on and mostly conquered or fought without being defeated to that point.

Given the previous conduct of the American and British Allies, such as in exploiting China, I don't think there is any great moral difference in Germany trying to take by force of arms what, for example, Britain took in India and China. As for French and Dutch conduct in acquiring and managing their colonial possessions, there's not a lot of ground there for moral superiority to condemn German expansion.



I think Germany did fight for and temporarily achieved a great collective goal, which was German expansion, and it went pretty close to achieving it permanently in a highly impressive contest with a number of nations which, combined, vastly outweighed Germany militarily and in resources.

As for the great collective Allied goal, America didn't want to get involved in the European war, not least because some of its major corporations were making great profits from one or both sides of the conflict. America was dragged in only by Japan's adventurous assault on America.

Germany wasn't doing anything that other European nations hadn't been doing in the centuries before and the 70 or so years since Germany became a nation, nor was it expressing anything in the way of national arrogance and expansionism that other European nations hadn't been doing for centuries, such as Napoleon invading Russia which in principle was no better and no worse than Germany invading the USSR.

Yes, the biggest problem today is not the deeds of the Wermacht SS etc, but that we have people like you who so openly (though indirectly) denies the war crimes committed of the third Reich. So,, try again, and find a more constructive argument, than comparing the third Reich with Napolion, or colonial England for that sake.

Or simply study the ideology of National Socialism and it's consequences, and then come back and tell us if it's makes a difference.

Chers

Rising Sun*
03-08-2009, 07:23 PM
Yes, the biggest problem today is not the deeds of the Wermacht SS etc, but that we have people like you who so openly (though indirectly) denies the war crimes committed of the third Reich. So,, try again, and find a more constructive argument, than comparing the third Reich with Napolion, or colonial England for that sake.


Try responding to what I wrote, rather than what you, through your blinkered and hostile view of Germany, think I wrote.

I confined my comments to Germany's military prowess.

As a point of clarification, the SS was never part of the Wehrmacht.

And don't make such offensively stupid leaps of logic by accusing me of being a denier of Germany's war crimes. There is nothing in what I wrote which could possibly support such an idiotic comment.


Or simply study the ideology of National Socialism and it's consequences, and then come back and tell us if it's makes a difference.

I have studied it, and the Nazi era, off and on for about half a century, both informally and academically. I think I have a reasonable grasp of it by now.

The ideology of National Socialism doesn't make any difference to the views expressed in my last post.

I am well aware of Germany's war crimes and crimes against humanity, but they do not bear on the question of whether or not Germans are entitled to be proud of the purely military achievements of their nation independently of those crimes. And the same goes for Japan.

Rising Sun*
03-09-2009, 03:17 AM
So,, try again, and find a more constructive argument, than comparing the third Reich with Napolion, or colonial England for that sake.

Oh, and by the way, in WWII each Axis power was engaged in its own war of colonial expansion, which was the whole purpose of their wars.

So, my comparisons are apposite while your disparaging dismissal of them merely reveals your lack of understanding of history in general and WWII history in particular.

freyir_33
03-09-2009, 04:02 AM
"As a point of clarification, the SS was never part of the Wehrmacht.
"
I am well aware of that, a misunderstanding due to bad English, sorry.

But I still find your comparison of the Nazi expansion with colonialism grotesque, and it do not serve to enlighten history any further, but rather downgrading the Nazi atrocities.

I have lived in Germany many years, had discussions with many vets, and often been visiting the nearby KZ, where many Europeans lost their lives. So to make it short, the German Wehrmacht cleared the road for the holocaust, or took part themselves in war crimes, not only against humanity, but real people!, so I prefer to honer and remember them instead of the technical skills of the Wehrmacht.

I can understand your fascination of German military from a technical point of view, but the history of National socialism is to complex just to be explained due a simple comparison with colonialism.

Rising Sun*
03-09-2009, 05:00 AM
But I still find your comparison of the Nazi expansion with colonialism grotesque

What else would you call the acquisition of territories which then had the conquering power's governments installed in them to run those territories for the conquering power's benefit?


and it do not serve to enlighten history ant further, rather than downgrading the Nazi atrocities.

You're the one who introduced Nazi atrocities.

I was merely responding to your assertion that the Germans had nothing to be proud of in WWII. I maintain that they do, for the reasons previously set out.


So to make it short, the German Wehrmacht cleared the road for the holocaust

I don’t think the Kriegsmarine had a lot to do with that.

More importantly, the Holocaust process had started long before WWII and was an expression of Nazi Party ideology and activity, which did not involve any branch of the Wehrmacht.


or took part themselves in war crimes, not only against humanity, but real people!.

A crime against humanity necessarily constitutes a crime against real people.


I can understand your fascination of German military from a technical point of view,

I’m not fascinated by the German military or any military. I happen to think that all military activity is a spectacular waste of lives and resources and that it's a pity humans haven't found a better way to manage their affairs. But the fact remains that the Wehrmacht, notably the Heer, generally performed very well during WWII and, so far as purely military activities are concerned, Germans if they’re so minded are entitled to be proud of that.


but the history of National socialism is to complex just to be explained due a simple comparison with colonialism.

I never said it was.

I was talking about German expansion by military means, not the history of National Socialism which involved a much wider range of issues.

So we come back to my question at the start of this post.

freyir_33
03-09-2009, 01:27 PM
First,,, your argument that the Wermacht did not take part in the holocaust is not true, the hole philosophy of the Nazis was the driving force of the Wermacht, who from the first day of Barbarossa had the order to execute all red Army Commissars due to political reasons.

And they did*, the Grand Father of my Ex told me face to face(he served as a member of the Wermacht in Russia).

Secondly, you can't separate the Wermacht from the Nazies on behalf of your needs, because the holocaust could not have been realized without the conquests done by the wermacht, Luftwaffe, and Kriegsmarine. Thought the primary task's of the wermacht was of pure military nature.

So for my part,,combat alone makes no man worth any admiration, only the value of his deeds.

*(there are reports where Wermacht officers denied to take part of executions, mostly they where not sanctioned for it)

Chevan
03-09-2009, 01:57 PM
Thanks to the lobbying work and fundraising of the German War Graves Commission there are now 20 German military cemeteries in Russia, still too few to accomodate the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died in epic encounters like the Siege of Leningrad. Search teams still go out during the summer. German soldiers, on active service or in reserve units, travel to Russia and elsewhere to help.

This is tragic, but there in Russia EVEN the Soviet fallen soldiers still lie in THOUSANDS of unknown mass-graves.
I agree we Russians shall CARE about all cemeteries , GErmans included , like GErmans care about Russian graves in Berlin.
I know there a lot of graves of Russians in Eastern Germany , and local authorities still do MUCH to support them in good condition.

flamethrowerguy
03-09-2009, 02:06 PM
I know there a lot of graves of Russians in Eastern Germany , and local authorities still do MUCH to support them in good condition.

This I can confirm. We got a Russian military cemetery of deceased POW's in our area as well and it's safe to say that it is in a better condition than many German WW2 cemeteries.

freyir_33
03-09-2009, 03:27 PM
I think we can all agree that we should take care of each others war graves, and I know for sure that a lot of Danish SS volunteers found their final rest in a muddy fox hole in Demjansk,(and are probably still there).

4000 of them have a memorial in Mindelunden in Copenhagen, but there have been several attempts to destroy it, even blow it up. So I think the war graves of the fallen SS men posses some problems in most societies, appart from Latvia off course.

Thousands of German civilians who flew from the red Army also found their rest in Copenhagen,(after Danish doctors denied them any medical treatment, caused by an execution of a Danish doctor). But at least our government still take care of the German graves.

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billede:F%C3%A6llesskabets-Mindelund-3.jpg

Cuts
03-10-2009, 08:49 PM
Well this would seem a good point to put in a tale.


A very close friend of mine from the army writes, originally for his own pleasure but now for that of his mates too.
Here follows a true story that he first wrote some years back but which is presently in the process of being published.
He has given me his permission for you blokes get a foretaste of things to come.
(I've had to cut it into a couple of parts.)


I Remember.

By Richard T. Manners.



It was at Staff Parade that I remember seeing Walter for the first time. That was during the late 1960’s, when I was very young squaddie, and just posted to my Regiment in Germany; a long time ago, but I remember Walter quite clearly.

Staff Parade took place at 2200 hours, every evening. It was one of those curious military institutions that combine regimental ritual and regimental retribution in equal measure.
Retribution consisted of the inspection of the delinquent, those who may have transgressed military punctilio in some way. This part of the proceedings was known as ‘Show Parade’ and here an offender might learn the error of his ways without incurring a mark on his record sheet. Items such as, ‘Show Parade, boots insufficiently cleaned’, because, technically, we didn’t ‘bull’ boots anymore, they were just ‘cleaned to a high standard,’ or, ‘Your mess tins are feckin’ mingin’ - Show Parade!’
One lad turned up with his FV432, gleaming and kitted up to CES, only to find out that it had been a wind-up.

The ritual part of Staff Parade was the solemn lowering of the Union Flag to the tune of ‘Sunset’, played by the duty bugler.
In those days everyone, and I do mean everyone, stopped and stood to attention, no matter what they were doing,
‘Stand still, you c--t!’ was sometimes heard, but rarely.

There was another feature of Staff Parade that did not belong to us but was quite unique and oddly poignant. Every night, just outside the gates, stood an old man, scruffy and unshaven, dressed in a dirty old greatcoat.
When I say ‘an old man’, it was difficult to make a guess at his age. At first you might think that he wore his age in the lines on his face and in the slope of his shoulders which seemed bowed and frail with years. But then, if you looked into his eyes, you saw a deep well of sadness that might have lasted for all eternity.
Truly, I suppose he was about sixty, but then anyone over forty was an old man to a youngster like me.

We came to know him as ‘Walter’. Whether that was his real name or not, I don’t know, but he was there every night, without fail, come rain or snow.
As the Battalion Orderly Sergeant gave the order, ‘Duty bugler, sound off!’, old Walter would draw himself up, standing erect, and as the bugle call began, he would salute. When the parade dismissed he turned about and marched off down the road.

If you saw Walter at any other time and attempted to greet him, you got a tirade of abuse; at times like those I was thankful my German was so poor, Tourette’s syndrome wasn’t in it! The locals shunned the old man. They tapped their heads and said he was mad,
‘The war, you understand. He is kukerne !’

The strange thing was, we didn’t mind Walter being there to pay his respects; it seemed right, he belonged, somehow; he was almost one of us.


One night, after Staff Parade, there was a commotion just down the road. A loud squeal of brakes and voices raised; a woman screeching and the sound of running feet. I was the sentry on the gate and I saw one of the lads come panting through the gate,
‘It’s old Walter ! He’s been run down,’ he gasped and ran into the Guard Room, calling for the Guard Commander to phone for an ambulance.

The Drum Major, known to one and all as ‘Piggy’, had been present on Staff Parade, to supervise the bugle debut of a new member of the Corps of Drums. Piggy came hurtling out of the Guard Room, closely followed by the BOS. I knew that Piggy had a soft spot for old Walter and he was one of the voices in favour of allowing the old man to attend, albeit at a distance,
‘He pays his respects and that’s all that counts,’ Piggy used to say and I like to think that most people agreed with him.
Sadly, that was the end of Walter; the car was going too fast and Walter hadn’t seen it coming, probably still wrapped up in whatever strange world of memory he inhabited.

I saw Piggy come back in through the gate. He stopped, looking at something in his hand and I thought that I could see tears on his cheeks.
He saw me staring and turned, glaring at me,
‘Smarten yourself up, boy ! You look like a bag o’ shit ! Show parade tomorrow; those boots need more attention !’ and he stamped off, thrusting whatever it was into his pocket.

Somehow Staff Parade seemed a bit sadder, even more poignant, without Walter standing outside the gate, hunched up, tensely waiting for his moment to take part. We missed him.

A couple of days after the incident Piggy posted a notice on each Company notice board. It said that old Walter’s funeral would take place at the local cemetery on the next Wednesday afternoon.
The CO had given his permission that anyone who wished to attend should give Piggy their names after Staff Parade that evening.
It was a bit of a shock to see just how many turned up. Everyone there seemed to have some sort of story to tell about Walter; usually a tale of being roundly abused by him but oddly no one seemed to have been offended by the old man, it was almost like achieving some sort of award.

There were all kinds of rumours about him; how he’d fought on the Eastern Front, how he’d been taken prisoner by the Russians, how he’d escaped and walked home, avoiding recapture. And how he’d come home to find his family wiped out. Rumour had it that that was when Walter went mad.



cont'd.






Copyright Richard T. Manners.

Cuts
03-10-2009, 09:05 PM
I Remember (Cont'd)

By Richard T. Manners




Piggy was a bit taken aback by the turn out and I think he almost panicked, you could tell by the way that his head twitched back as he viewed the assembled crowd,
‘Three ranks there ! Three ranks !’ he squeaked and we all shuffled into ranks,
‘Urm, urm..Quite a lot, yes, well ! It’s like this, lads. The locals are a bit sniffy about old Walter, y’know. Don’t like to be reminded about the war and all that, so we don’t want to make this too.. urm.. public. Urm.. dress; best bib and tucker, jacket and tie, clean shoes, okay ?’

‘Yes, Drum Major !’ was the dutiful chorus and off we trooped, heading for the NAAFI bar and our Company clubs. No one had any idea what Piggy was planning but if he’d let us in on the secret we would have kept it as close as the Crown Jewels.

It seems that the burgomeister got some faint wind of the fact that British soldiers were going to attend Walter’s funeral. I expect he thought that it would just be one or two but he felt moved to request an interview with the CO. Rumour has it that he expressed his surprise and distress that we should be bothered with someone who was so patently unhinged and worthless,
‘He was an embarrassment to the community,’ he was heard to say.
The CO’s reply was not overheard but, knowing him, it was undoubtedly acerbic and to the point.
The burgomeister left hurriedly, looking very flustered, and the Old Man was in a bad mood for the rest of the day.

Wednesday dawned and we all got our best jackets out, mostly sports jackets but quite a few blazers with regimental badges, old and post amalgamation, and we shined our civvy shoes. After lunch we mustered by the Guard Room and then, in small groups, we made our way on foot to the cemetery.
Walter had no surviving relatives or, at least, none that were prepared to turn up.
I suppose he was what you might call ‘indigent on the parish’, on benefits, the ‘buroo’, the dole or whatever you like to call it.
It also meant that the parish was responsible for burying him. No service, as such, just a quick few words by the pastor for form’s sake, shovel the soil in on top of the box and forget about him and whatever it was he’d done in the war because this was the new Germany and no one wanted to be reminded about the war.

I was in the first group to arrive at the cemetery, with Piggy leading us. The pastor was standing near the chapel, next to Walter’s coffin, which rested on a trolley; one shirt sleeved workman was apparently there to push it along, manhandle the coffin into the grave and fill it in afterwards.
Piggy turned to us, fixed us with a beady eye and said quietly,
‘Listen in, lads ! Tallest on the right, shortest on the left, in single rank, size !’ and we obediently shuffled into line.
‘Quietly now; from the right, number !’ and we called off.
‘Right hand man, stand fast ! Even numbers one pace step forward, odd numbers one pace step back, march !’
‘Front rank to the right, rear rank to the left; ranks right and left, turn !’
‘Form three ranks, quick march !’

The pastor and the workman watched in mute astonishment as we carried out these manoeuvres.
Piggy stood back and considered the squad, now nicely sized off,
‘You short-arses, in the middle,’ he pointed at the two centre files, which included me, ‘You’ll do ! You’re the bearer party; you at the front, you centre and you rear ! Okay ?’ his head jerked back as he pointed at each pair,
‘Remainder of you is escort ! Right, that’s got that sorted out, now we waits for the rest of the mourners to arrive !’ and he arranged us around Walter’s coffin is such a way that there was absolutely no argument as to how things were going to proceed.

Within fifteen minutes the cemetery was filled with soldiers in their smartest civvies, except for six who were wearing beige military mackintoshes over suspiciously dark blue trousers with red stripes and highly polished boots.
‘Jesus Christ !’ muttered someone, ‘it’s the Old Man !’ and there, in his favourite tweed jacket and brown trilby hat, was the CO, closely followed by the RSM and any number of other tweedy, trilby hatted figures.
When the CO decides to turn out for something unofficial, like Walter’s funeral, there is no official requirement for the rest of the Officers’ Mess to turn up as well and nobody tells them to attend; they just do !

The Old Man looked around and nodded, satisfied with what he saw. He doffed his trilby and murmured,
‘Carry on, Drum Major !’
‘Sir!’ said Piggy and he turned to us,
‘Bearer party, take your positions; lift !’

And, led by the pastor, we carried Walter towards the corner of the cemetery where his grave waited. There wasn’t a lot of room in the shaded corner, not with nearly a whole battalion crowded in, but at least it had the advantage of keeping things private from the growing crowd of townsfolk who had started to assemble to see what was going on. Perhaps they thought we were going to have a riot or something.
We set the coffin down on the planks that bridged the grave and slid the strops under it. The pastor stepped forward to speak but Piggy held up his hand,

‘Ein moment, bitte,’ he said and reached down to place something on the coffin.
The pastors eyes bulged and he spluttered, stammering,
‘N-Nein! Das ist n-n-nicht g-g-oooot !’ stretching the last word out in a strangled squeak as he pointed at the object…
It was a small, black cross with a frayed and dirty piece of black, white and red ribbon, surmounted by a small, silver oak leaf brooch.
Piggy glared at the pastor,
‘SPRECHEN SIE !’ he snarled.
The pastor swallowed and began to speak, gabbling his words and trying to get the committal over as quickly as possible.

When he was finished, Piggy said,
‘Bearer party, take up !’ and we took up the strain on the strops and the planks were removed,
‘Bearer party, lower !’ and we carefully lowered Walter into his grave,
‘Buglers, take post !’ and the mackintoshes came off to reveal six buglers in No.1 Dress blues.
Hats and bugles were handed to them, by other members of the Corps of Drums, and the buglers stood at the end of the grave.

Piggy looked around and said,
‘Walter was one of us, even if he was once an enemy; he kept the faith with us every night for as long as anyone can remember. None of us should ever forget him, even if his own don’t want to know him,’ his head jerked back and he barked,
‘Parade! Para-a-de, ‘shun ! Buglers, sound off !’

And the cemetery rang with the sound of six silver bugles, bugles which were never used on a daily basis but only on special occasions, as they played the beautiful, haunting notes of Sunset.
We all stood for several moments after the last notes echoed off the surrounding buildings; I couldn’t see a lot because my eyes were unaccountably full of tears. The silence you could have cut with a knife.

At last Piggy jerked his head up and said,
‘Parade, stand at ease. Before we leave I want everyone to put one shovel of earth into Walter’s grave. I don’t want that Knight’s Cross gettin’ nicked !’ he glared at the pastor again and took up the workman’s shovel. He drove the shovel into the heap of spoil, as if it was the pastor’s head, and carefully dropped the earth over the cross.

The CO stepped up and said,
‘Thank you, Drum Major. That was very well done. My turn, I think,’ and he added his shovel full to the grave.
Piggy stood there and waited until everyone had taken their turn.
By the time it came to the bearer party’s turn, at the last, the grave was pretty well mounded and nearly everyone had left the cemetery.

Piggy took the shovel from us and carefully patted the mound, rounding it off,
‘This’ll need some grass and maybe a few flowers,’ he muttered to himself, then he straightened up, looked at us and his face crinkled up; I’d never seen Piggy smile before and it didn’t really improve his looks but it was something of an event,
‘Thanks, lads. You did well. Off you go, now- Smartly, mind,’ he snapped, the smile gone.

As we left the cemetery the locals had drifted away, all except for a small group of elderly men, who stood hesitantly, by the gate. One of them stepped up to Piggy and stretched out a frail hand, to touch his sleeve,
‘Mein Herr, danke, danke !’ he said and they trooped off into the cemetery, towards Walter’s grave, looking remarkably upright, as if someone had called them to attention after all that time,

‘Well,’ said Piggy, ‘it just goes to show, don’t it. It just goes to show !’ and he marched away, humming a brisk march, his head jerking back as always.






Copyright Richard T. Manners.

navyson
03-10-2009, 09:22 PM
Wow...awesome story Cuts. Very emotional at the end. Thanks for posting the story for us to read.

kiwimac
03-11-2009, 03:06 AM
"At the rising of the sun and at it's going down we will remember them."

Uyraell
03-11-2009, 03:29 AM
Many Many Respectful Thanks to you Cuts, for sharing that record of a deeply personal event in your post.
Personally, I found it very moving, and a great read.

Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

..."At the going down of the sun,
We Will Remember Them."

Valkyrie
06-01-2010, 06:08 PM
I have a collection of death cards of German ( wehrmacht ) soldiers from WW2.What strikes me always is how young they all were; 19,20 21,22,years old when they died.They believed in what they were fighting for,for their homeland.They were brought up to believe this.I doubt very much if they knew what their leaders were really up to.

forager
06-06-2010, 06:51 AM
Acquaintence of mine, SF vet, toured Europe recently, visiting lots of military related sites.

He described the Allied cemetaries in terms of lots of marble, light, and splendor.
Lots of US families chose to let their lost ones to remain there post war.

He characterised the German cemetaries as frightfull dark gothic affairs with lots of miserable abstract art.
There were references like "We died for nothing-our cause was a swindle."

Poor Jerry, indeed-no mention of his countless victims.

The insensitive guys who like to display nazi insignia in avatars and signatures are so far separated from the real world and actual history would be laughable.
Except it ain't a funny subject.
Sieg friggen heil.

SonOfWWIIVet
06-11-2010, 06:17 PM
Hello, I am new to this forum. My father was a foreign born American soldier who served in the US Army in North Africa, Italy and Austria. He told us that the Germans were very tough and proud. They were excellent soldiers. Like most soldiers from any country and any war, they likely fought less for political reasons and more for their fellow soldiers. When I was a boy, I remember a former German soldier who worked for the same company that my father worked for. He would have been about 45 years of age at the time. My father quietly told us not to ask about his wartime service in the Wehrmacht unless he mentioned it first. To our disappointment, he never did. When I was old enough to join and serve during the Cold War, I learned from the German spouses of American service men and women that World War II was a subject not to be spoken of and to be forgotten if possible. I always thought that that practice was wrong. I hope that the German people and their former enemies in Europe and Russia will choose to better understand each other. National cemeteries are for the fallen warriors who died fighting for the societies that later shun them, not the politics that sent them to war.

kurt
06-24-2010, 04:19 PM
Acquaintence of mine, SF vet, toured Europe recently, visiting lots of military related sites.

He described the Allied cemetaries in terms of lots of marble, light, and splendor.
Lots of US families chose to let their lost ones to remain there post war.

He characterised the German cemetaries as frightfull dark gothic affairs with lots of miserable abstract art.
There were references like "We died for nothing-our cause was a swindle."

Poor Jerry, indeed-no mention of his countless victims.

The insensitive guys who like to display nazi insignia in avatars and signatures are so far separated from the real world and actual history would be laughable.
Except it ain't a funny subject.
Sieg friggen heil.

I read that the great Wittmann remains were found in 1978, in a dirty road in France. Fancy cemeteries are just a showing of human vanity and silliness, what remains is the deeds of the men and we will keep them in our hearts as defenders of our fatherland, beyond political considerations.
We are so proud of them.

Valkyrie
06-25-2010, 06:29 AM
The German soldiers who died in WW2 should never be forgotten.Everyones remains deserve to be treated with respect.I recently uploaded photos of German Death Cards on this wed site,poignant reminders that these people did exist;they fought and died for what they believed in,whether one agrees with this or not.They are still fallen soldiers.Atrocities were committed on all sides during the war,the sinking of the Whilm Gustloff,the bombing of Dresden,etc,etc.For a long time all German forces during WW2 seem to have been tarred with the same "SS ATROCITIES BRUSH", how untrue this has now been proven to be.

Luft46
05-08-2011, 09:33 PM
Last year I went to Normandy and visited several German War Cemitery.
In Beauvais I found the grave of Egon Albrecht Lemke, a brazilian born Luftwaffe ace.

colmhain
05-09-2011, 05:18 PM
Politics, ideology, and sociology become remarkably and instantly irrelevent once the lead starts flying. Certainly after death. Honor them.

Wittmann
12-28-2012, 11:45 PM
Some found closer to Germany where probably Volkssturm, 13 years to ?

Washout
01-03-2013, 06:54 AM
Acquaintence of mine, SF vet, toured Europe recently, visiting lots of military related sites.

He described the Allied cemetaries in terms of lots of marble, light, and splendor.
Lots of US families chose to let their lost ones to remain there post war.

He characterised the German cemetaries as frightfull dark gothic affairs with lots of miserable abstract art.
There were references like "We died for nothing-our cause was a swindle."

Poor Jerry, indeed-no mention of his countless victims.

The insensitive guys who like to display nazi insignia in avatars and signatures are so far separated from the real world and actual history would be laughable.
Except it ain't a funny subject.
Sieg friggen heil.
I'm not even sure what this means but in "the real world and actual history," both the Axis and Allied causes were a swindle. We crap on the memory of German soldiers, but if the Allies had lost then it would have been Stalin's death camps exposed for all to see. In that case, today the world would have sneering contempt for the memory of every Allied solider just as we do for the German, who were just as noble and decent as the American or British. The truth is that neither side was a noble cause, but noble people fought for them

tankgeezer
01-03-2013, 09:58 AM
I would enjoy reading more about what parts of the Allied efforts were a swindle,and why. Will you please expand on that thought?

Washout
01-03-2013, 05:03 PM
I would enjoy reading more about what parts of the Allied efforts were a swindle,and why. Will you please expand on that thought?

Well the main thrust of it is that the USSR was at least as great of an evil as the Nazis, and before Hitler had begun starving anyone in concentration camps, the USSR had already killed more than the Nazi regime ever would. In World War Two we destroyed one evil and propped up an even worse and more deviant one. Whenever I say something like this I am accused of being a Nazi, etc, but it's not that at all.

Everyone loves to think of VE day as the end of the holocaust but it wasn't. In fact some of Hitler's death camps were immediately re-opened under new Soviet management, the most famous of these being Buchenwald (not famous for the fact that Russia continued exterminating people... that part is almost universally unknown) which was renamed "Soviet Special Camp #2" and continued to exterminate political undesirables while the world celebrated "the end of the holocaust."

Not only that but the insane Yalta agreements included a provision for the forcible "repatriation" of Soviet citizens, which included citizens of territory that the Soviets had just seized in WW2. Poles, Czechs, Ukranians, etc. Many of them had fought against the Germans alongside Americans, but unfortunately they also knew too much about the Soviets and Stalin was very aware of the threat they presented to him. American troops under Eisenhower (awful general and corrupt)'s orders ended up having to brutally enforce this "repatriation," sometimes hunting down families trying to escape like the Gestapo, bludgeoning screaming innocent citizens and stuffing them onto boxcars, knowingly bound for Soviet death camps... while the Allies tried and hanged Germans for the same thing. These people begged for their lives in front of their American allies, and often became desperate to commit suicide when they realized there was no way out.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. World War Two had no good guys. Only badguys and victims.

tankgeezer
01-03-2013, 05:45 PM
I would disagree that there were no good guys, even if I were to agree with your statements concerning Soviet use of German camps that does not implicate the U.S. or Britain in any way. Some citation of source authority would be appropriate with respect to the Soviet's use of the camps.

Washout
01-04-2013, 05:27 AM
I would disagree that there were no good guys, even if I were to agree with your statements concerning Soviet use of German camps that does not implicate the U.S. or Britain in any way. Sure it does, to the extent that A) The entire American chain of command knew what the Soviets were doing, and helped cover it up B) did the dirty work of rounding up the Eastern European refugees ... precisely as the Gestapo did, and forcing them onto boxcars which they knew were bound for Stalin's death camps. They had to stuff screaming children onto the boxcars and often bludgeon their parents who were begging for their lives. The American soldiers had no choice and were forced to obey orders, but "just following orders" was not taken as an excuse at the Nuremberg sham trials, and many Germans were imprisoned or hanged for the mere act of rounding up Jews and forcing them onto boxcars for death camps in the precise same manner, and "just following orders" was not taken as an excuse.

Of course there were good guys in World War Two... on all sides. There were good Americans, British, Russians, and Germans. But the highest echelons of command were pretty much all badguys. Many came into the war innocent and forthright, but were badly corrupt by the time the war ended (Eisenhower is a good example). The Americans overall were a good, honest, idealistic, but naive people who (under the most corrupt president in American history FDR) allowed themselves to be taken in and hoodwinked into getting a half million of her best sons killed, just to help the Soviet Union take over the world. The history of American involvement in WW2 doesnt begin with Pearl Harbor or even Lend/Lease. The FDR administration, overrun with Soviet Spies, began setting the stage for WW2 immediately after his first inauguration day.


Some citation of source authority would be appropriate with respect to the Soviet's use of the camps. Agreed, and it appears in many books written which focus on the Soviet Union. The only one on the top of my head re: Buchenwald, is by Suvourov, but every time I bring him up people start going cuckoo claiming he's been discredited (he hasn't, but I don't use him as a source because it is so often insisted that he has). As for the Spies in FDR administration, a recent book has come out by Herbert Romerstein and Stan Evans called "Stalin's Secret agents," which documents (the long- proven but seldom acknowledged fact) that the FDR administration was being run from Moscow the whole time. The book covers well, some of their machinations in diverting Japan from Russia's most feared and dangerous enemy into America's, and a multitude of others such as the Yalta concessions that ended with Americans playing Gestapo for Stalin, the penetration of the OSS by the Soviets (which was deep and vast, running all the way to Donovan's office), and the betrayal and even assassination plot against Chiang in China.

If you want a good overview of the war from "my" perspective, the best starting point for clues might be the book "Target Patton: the plot to assassinate General Patton," by Robert Wilcox, which is a fantastic and easy read


EDIT: hate to use Wiki (which is a fine starting point but should never be the final authority) but the Buchenwald -to-Soviet-death-camp fact is even acknowledged there. The forum wouldnt let me post the link (my post count is too low) but search either Buchenwald or Soviet Special camp 2 in Wikipedia and it will come up

tankgeezer
01-04-2013, 08:28 AM
You will need 5 or more posts to attach a link, or a photo, so keep going, it'll happen. I have read lots of "books" that claim any number of things to be factual, be it Aliens, Nazis under the Earth, Atlantis , honest politicians etc. Have yet to find much of actual historic value. But that aside, please feel free to express your perspective, many folks here are capable historians, you should not get bored.

Rising Sun*
01-04-2013, 08:44 AM
The Americans overall were a good, honest, idealistic, but naive people who (under the most corrupt president in American history FDR) allowed themselves to be taken in and hoodwinked into getting a half million of her best sons killed, just to help the Soviet Union take over the world. The history of American involvement in WW2 doesnt begin with Pearl Harbor or even Lend/Lease. The FDR administration, overrun with Soviet Spies, began setting the stage for WW2 immediately after his first inauguration day.


I hadn't seen it that way but, in light of your lucid explanation, I think you're correct.

Now I can see why so many courageous and committed Americans fought and died undercover in Vietnam in a cunningly disguised war against communism when they were really the long dead Roosevelt's commie agents promoting world wide communism by pretending to fight against it under the control of the communist controlled US general staff and the likes of commie plants like McNamara and Kissinger who ran the whole thing for the Comintern.

You seem like the sensible sort of person who would agree with the fact that the way to encourage kids to avoid using cocaine is to give them as much crystal meth as they can handle, because cocaine comes from the commies in Venezuela and when our kids get enough of that cheap commie shit they'll be inert and the commies will be able to invade without any opposition. Whereas crystal meth comes from patriotic outlaw biker gangs, which chop the Venezuelans heads off if they try to sell coke in a proper American area, usually populated by people from south of the border but not Venezuela.

Your clarity of thought on these issues is an example of what should be happening on Capitol Hill.

You should stand for election, on a crystal meth / no commies / our current trillion dollar debt is all FDR's fault / ticket.

P.S. Could you explain how the Soviet Union managed to lose about 25 million people during WWII against about half a million Americans (not all of whom were lost in Europe)? Were the Soviets just careless or was there some other reason why they suffered so much more than the Americans?

Washout
01-04-2013, 09:23 AM
I hadn't seen it that way but, in light of your lucid explanation, I think you're correct.

Now I can see why so many courageous and committed Americans fought and died undercover in Vietnam in a cunningly disguised war against communism when they were really the long dead Roosevelt's commie agents promoting world wide communism by pretending to fight against it under the control of the communist controlled US general staff and the likes of commie plants like McNamara and Kissinger who ran the whole thing for the Comintern.

You seem like the sensible sort of person who would agree with the fact that the way to encourage kids to avoid using cocaine is to give them as much crystal meth as they can handle, because cocaine comes from the commies in Venezuela and when our kids get enough of that cheap commie shit they'll be inert and the commies will be able to invade without any opposition. Whereas crystal meth comes from patriotic outlaw biker gangs, which chop the Venezuelans heads off if they try to sell coke in a proper American area, usually populated by people from south of the border but not Venezuela.

Your clarity of thought on these issues is an example of what should be happening on Capitol Hill.

You should stand for election, on a crystal meth / no commies / our current trillion dollar debt is all FDR's fault / ticket.

P.S. Could you explain how the Soviet Union managed to lose about 25 million people during WWII against about half a million Americans (not all of whom were lost in Europe)? Were the Soviets just careless or was there some other reason why they suffered so much more than the Americans?
Nice pointless gibberish. Care to actually dispute anything I say, or can I expect more childish and vapid comedy?

Rising Sun*
01-04-2013, 10:02 AM
Nice pointless gibberish. Care to actually dispute anything I say, or can I expect more childish and vapid comedy?

It offends me that you are not taking me seriously.

You are exactly the sort of person who thinks you know all the conspiracies n shit, but when it comes time to stand up in the militia for the Republic, you'll be lying on the ground while the rest of us are taking the soda streams.

Washout
01-04-2013, 10:30 AM
It offends me that you are not taking me seriously.says the clown


You are exactly the sort of person who thinks you know all the conspiracies n shit, but when it comes time to stand up in the militia for the Republic, you'll be lying on the ground while the rest of us are taking the soda streams.OK more worthless gibberish. Now you can be be offended on ignore

Nickdfresh
01-04-2013, 11:20 AM
Nice pointless gibberish. Care to actually dispute anything I say, or can I expect more childish and vapid comedy?

That seems to be the guist of your posts to date.


People think you're a Nazi? Gee, perhaps it is your patently ignorant and offensive false "moral equivalencies", politicized conspiratorial simplistic bonk, and you're ad hominem overuse of words like 'corrupt' without actually providing any actual examples?

But I would love to see you answer RS*'s final question on the deaths of 20-30 MILLION* Soviet citizens under one of the most ruthlessly planned and executed invasions in history (by the Nazi's) as the very planning of Operation Barbarossa was in itself a war-crime as it factored in the deaths of millions of Russians through starvation...

Nickdfresh
01-04-2013, 11:50 AM
Well the main thrust of it is that the USSR was at least as great of an evil as the Nazis,

Morally perhaps, but in practice: No they weren't. The Soviet Union never invaded anyone save Finland (and perhaps Poland [twice]), IIRC. And even those invasions were limited in scope and in response to the policies of Nazi Germany. Yes, of course Stalin was a cvnt. But in many respects, he actually handed Hitler several opportunities on a silver platter--such as not responding and preventing his commanders from responding to what was an inevitable invasion on the eve of Barbarossa...


..and before Hitler had begun starving anyone in concentration camps,

"Starving" or gassed? He did "starve" the majority of Soviet POW's do death. In case you are ignorant of this fact, as you seem to be many, the second largest homogeneous grouping of people to die under Nazism were Soviet POW's at around 3.3 million (57% of them according to Wiki).


the USSR had already killed more than the Nazi regime ever would. In World War Two we destroyed one evil and propped up an even worse and more deviant one. Whenever I say something like this I am accused of being a Nazi, etc, but it's not that at all.

But the Nazis sure caught up! They killed more by virtue of their war of annihilation. One which they launched, BTW...


Everyone loves to think of VE day as the end of the holocaust but it wasn't.

Which "Holocaust?" No one here is dumb enough to believe that VE Day was the end or the beginning, as genocide (and democide, which is what the Soviet Union actually mainly practiced) has been practiced since antiquity and certainly continues to modern day in The Congo and recently in The Sudan...


In fact some of Hitler's death camps were immediately re-opened under new Soviet management, the most famous of these being Buchenwald (not famous for the fact that Russia continued exterminating people... that part is almost universally unknown) which was renamed "Soviet Special Camp #2" and continued to exterminate political undesirables while the world celebrated "the end of the holocaust."

Buchenwald wasn't a "death camp" technically in either case, it was a concentration camp in the truest sense of the word and a work camp. Of course, the proprietors didn't mind if the inmates died. But the majority of inmates survived under the Soviets. And of course the Soviets were going to pen up and vet their potential enemies, just as we did after WWII. They were certainly far more lawless and brutal than we were, but upwards of 15,000 Wehrmacht also died under U.S. internment after the war. Mainly this was due to the inevitable famine and economic chaos..


Not only that but the insane Yalta agreements included a provision for the forcible "repatriation" of Soviet citizens, which included citizens of territory that the Soviets had just seized in WW2.

"Citizens?" Do you mean captured and interred Soviets that served in the Wehrmacht? Because, those were mainly the ones we're talking about. And it is hard to have sympathies for the majority of them...


Poles, Czechs, Ukranians, etc. Many of them had fought against the Germans alongside Americans,

Um, no. Many of them had actually fought against Americans at Omaha Beach! For instance, few, if any, members of the Free Polish Army (of The West) whom ACTUALLY fought against the Nazi Germans were forcibly repatriated. Please provide sources for this if you believe otherwise...


but unfortunately they also knew too much about the Soviets and Stalin was very aware of the threat they presented to him. American troops under Eisenhower (awful general and corrupt)'s orders ended up having to brutally enforce this "repatriation," sometimes hunting down families trying to escape like the Gestapo, bludgeoning screaming innocent citizens and stuffing them onto boxcars, knowingly bound for Soviet death camps... while the Allies tried and hanged Germans for the same thing. These people begged for their lives in front of their American allies, and often became desperate to commit suicide when they realized there was no way out.

Complete horse-hockey! Your melodramatic blathering aside, this never happened. You clearly haven't read much on this or have read what amounts to poorly sourced, speculative conspiracy crap not written by actual accredited and generally accepted historians. Ike wasn't an "awful general," nor was he "corrupt". You simply fail to comprehend nuance and the extremely complex situation and simply boil everything down to some school-boy simpleton politics...


That's just the tip of the iceberg. World War Two had no good guys. Only badguys and victims.

You seem to backpedal on this point in later posts. Only if everyone could be an armchair, revisionist heroic "good guy" like you? ;)

Washout
01-04-2013, 11:56 AM
That seems to be the guist of your posts to date.


People think you're a Nazi? Gee, perhaps it is your patently ignorant and offensive false "moral equivalencies", politicized conspiratorial simplistic bonk, and you're ad hominem overuse of words like 'corrupt' without actually providing any actual examples?

But I would love to see you answer RS*'s final question on the deaths of 20-30 Soviet citizens under one of the most ruthlessly planned and executed invasions in history (by the Nazi's) as the very planning of Operation Barbarossa was in itself a war-crime as it factored in the deaths of millions of Russians through starvation... I see alot of sweeping declarations but without anything to back it up. I apologize for causing offense but I am neither lying or mistaken about my claims. If i am misinformed, please enlighten me. I do not mean to cause offense, and I respect you and your point of view

It is not "conspiracy theory" that FDR's cabinet was overrun with Soviet agents, it's simply a matter of fact and it has been proven beyond all reasonable dispute. It is not conspiracy theory that Eisenhower brutally enforced the agreement at Yalta to round up Eastern European refugees and send them to their doom in Russia. It is also not conspiracy theory that the Soviets held onto thousands of American POWs -who were never returned and died in Soviet captivity, and that SHAEF along with the American government knew about it but refused to act or even make it public. Sorry if I label that "corruption," but it is corruption.

As for "moral equivalency," yes, I think that the German sergeant in the field was morally equivalent to the American and the British. There were good men and there were monsters on all sides. I don't make excuses for anything that the Nazis did, but I also do not demonize the German soldier in the field who took no part in such things. The Germans who forced helpless Jews onto boxcars bound for death camps were "morally equivalent" to Americans who loaded Ukranians onto boxcars bound for death camps. In both cases they were following orders from above, could have been killed for refusing, and the fault lies in those who gave such orders.

Nickdfresh
01-04-2013, 12:05 PM
Sure it does, to the extent that A) The entire American chain of command knew what the Soviets were doing, and helped cover it up B) did the dirty work of rounding up the Eastern European refugees ... precisely as the Gestapo did, and forcing them onto boxcars which they knew were bound for Stalin's death camps. They had to stuff screaming children onto the boxcars and often bludgeon their parents who were begging for their lives. The American soldiers had no choice and were forced to obey orders, but "just following orders" was not taken as an excuse at the Nuremberg sham trials, and many Germans were imprisoned or hanged for the mere act of rounding up Jews and forcing them onto boxcars for death camps in the precise same manner, and "just following orders" was not taken as an excuse.

Ridiculous. You're severally confused. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head was the largely ignored forced "repatriation" (otherwise known as Ethnic Cleansing via terror) of German-speaking "Volksdeutch" from Eastern Europe back to Germany after WWII (which was also an atrocity)..


Of course there were good guys in World War Two... on all sides. There were good Americans, British, Russians, and Germans. But the highest echelons of command were pretty much all badguys.

Oh thank you for acknowledging that some people might have fought selflessly for a "good cause", from your lovely abode in Florida...


Many came into the war innocent and forthright, but were badly corrupt by the time the war ended (Eisenhower is a good example). The Americans overall were a good, honest, idealistic, but naive people who (under the most corrupt president in American history FDR) allowed themselves to be taken in and hoodwinked into getting a half million of her best sons killed, just to help the Soviet Union take over the world. The history of American involvement in WW2 doesnt begin with Pearl Harbor or even Lend/Lease. The FDR administration, overrun with Soviet Spies, began setting the stage for WW2 immediately after his first inauguration day.
Agreed, and it appears in many books written which focus on the Soviet Union. The only one on the top of my head re: Buchenwald, is by Suvourov, but every time I bring him up people start going cuckoo claiming he's been discredited (he hasn't, but I don't use him as a source because it is so often insisted that he has). As for the Spies in FDR administration, a recent book has come out by Herbert Romerstein and Stan Evans called "Stalin's Secret agents," which documents (the long- proven but seldom acknowledged fact) that the FDR administration was being run from Moscow the whole time. The book covers well, some of their machinations in diverting Japan from Russia's most feared and dangerous enemy into America's, and a multitude of others such as the Yalta concessions that ended with Americans playing Gestapo for Stalin, the penetration of the OSS by the Soviets (which was deep and vast, running all the way to Donovan's office), and the betrayal and even assassination plot against Chiang in China.

The above is complete conspiratorial horseshat and a completely made-up history. There were communist "spies" in Reagan's administration. Was he "run from Moscow", too? Suvourov is a pseudo-historian fantasy writer that invents completely uncited bonk often used by Nazi-apologists to justify Barbarossa. And Herbert Romerstein is an extremist right wing agenist dipsh!t laughed at by any serious historian...


If you want a good overview of the war from "my" perspective, the best starting point for clues might be the book "Target Patton: the plot to assassinate General Patton," by Robert Wilcox, which is a fantastic and easy read

I bet it's an 'easy read' alright. :)


EDIT: hate to use Wiki (which is a fine starting point but should never be the final authority) but the Buchenwald -to-Soviet-death-camp fact is even acknowledged there. The forum wouldnt let me post the link (my post count is too low) but search either Buchenwald or Soviet Special camp 2 in Wikipedia and it will come up

You don't have to apologize for using Wiki, this is the one case it is actually more reliable than the books you've pseudo-cited...

Washout
01-04-2013, 12:08 PM
Sorry I replied before I saw your later reply.

You seem to posit that it was perfectly OK for the Eastern Europeans to be "repatriated" to the Soviet Union, and many of them had fought alongside the SS (certainly not most of them), but that is the same exact thing as justifying Hitler rounding up Jews because surely a number of them had been collaborators with the USSR. Do you not see that?

I truly do respect you, and do not want to cause offense, but you like almost everyone else views World War Two entirely in terms of black and white, good guy vs badguy. That is, in my opinion, far from the truth.

Nickdfresh
01-04-2013, 12:14 PM
I see alot of sweeping declarations but without anything to back it up. I apologize for causing offense but I am neither lying or mistaken about my claims. If i am misinformed, please enlighten me. I do not mean to cause offense, and I respect you and your point of view

Why don't you challange something? And I'll back it up with an actual historian like Beevor, Tooze, Atkinson, etc....


It is not "conspiracy theory" that FDR's cabinet was overrun with Soviet agents,

You're right! It's actually such a completely idiotic notion of hyperbole, that it doesn't even qualify as a "theory." More like idiotic gratuitous assertion!


it's simply a matter of fact and it has been proven beyond all reasonable dispute.

Why? Because you say so? Which historian says this?


It is not conspiracy theory that Eisenhower brutally enforced the agreement at Yalta to round up Eastern European refugees and send them to their doom in Russia. It is also not conspiracy theory that the Soviets held onto thousands of American POWs -who were never returned and died in Soviet captivity, and that SHAEF along with the American government knew about it but refused to act or even make it public. Sorry if I label that "corruption," but it is corruption.

"Brutally" how? Thousands of American "POW's" when? How would they have had access to thousands of Americans in 1945? Where are you getting this cr@p from?


As for "moral equivalency," yes, I think that the German sergeant in the field was morally equivalent to the American and the British.

What about concentration camp guards and SS men that summarily executed virtually at will? Who are their American or British counterparts? On what scale?


There were good men and there were monsters on all sides. I don't make excuses for anything that the Nazis did, but I also do not demonize the German soldier in the field who took no part in such things.

I don't demonize the average German soldier either. I started this thread! But his cause under Hitler was pretty vile and carried out under a mass brutality virtually unseen in scale in history...


The Germans who forced helpless Jews onto boxcars bound for death camps were "morally equivalent" to Americans who loaded Ukranians onto boxcars bound for death camps. In both cases they were following orders from above, could have been killed for refusing, and the fault lies in those who gave such orders.

Um, no, it isn't! Please explain which Ukrainians you're talking about...

Nickdfresh
01-04-2013, 12:17 PM
Sorry I replied before I saw your later reply.

You seem to posit that it was perfectly OK for the Eastern Europeans to be "repatriated" to the Soviet Union, and many of them had fought alongside the SS (certainly not most of them), but that is the same exact thing as justifying Hitler rounding up Jews because surely a number of them had been collaborators with the USSR. Do you not see that?

I truly do respect you, and do not want to cause offense, but you like almost everyone else views World War Two entirely in terms of black and white, good guy vs badguy. That is, in my opinion, far from the truth.

I do not know if it is "acceptable." But it certainly is understandable! French SS members were certainly not treated well, so why should Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, etc., whom fought for Hitler expect good treatment? To imply that they are some how equivalent of the Jews being rounded up is one of the most disturbing and offensive notions I've come across here!

Washout
01-04-2013, 12:18 PM
The above is complete conspiratorial horseshat and a completely made-up history. There were communist "spies" in Reagan's administration. Was he "run from Moscow", too? Suvourov is a pseudo-historian fantasy writer that invents completely uncited bonk often used by Nazi-apologists to justify Barbarossa. And Herbert Romerstein is an extremist right wing agenist dipsh!t laughed at by any serious historian... This is sad. Would you care to enumerate a single falsehood put forth by Romerstien, Stan Evans, James Earl Klehr, Paul Kengor, or any of the other historians whose findings you would prefer to be untrue? You can DECLARE "he is discredited" all you want, and many do, but i have yet to see any actual debunking -and I've searched in earnest

Nickdfresh
01-04-2013, 01:35 PM
This is sad. Would you care to enumerate a single falsehood put forth by Romerstien,

You already have! You've put forth the singularly doltish thesis that somehow Washington, and FDR, were somehow run from Moscow. Well then sir, what happened five years after WWII when the U.S. found itself fighting "commies" in Korea under an Administration that was descended from FDR's? It makes absolutely no sense! Do you want me to prove we fought in Korea? Do you need some "proof" that we fought communists in Vietnam? How did suddenly Moscow stop "running us" then?

This is pretty silly and any work even implying this is at best based on cherry-picked facts, red herrings, poor scholarship, and is obviously the work of a right wing ****w!t seeming to demonize FDR based more on their hatred of the "pinko-commie, liberal New Deal" than any real evidence. BTW, what evidence is actually cited? I've noticed you toss out authors without any actual citations or quotes. If you're making what are truly fringe speculations that conflict with mainstream history, it is your responsibility to "prove" what you're saying. Not my responsibility to disprove your unsourced hearsay, speculations, opinions misinterpreted as fact, and overall silliness. Who were the commie "Manchurian Candidates" here? About the worst one could say about FDR based on the historical evidence is that he was a bit weak with Stalin at Yalta. Something not unexpected since he was in failing health. But many leftist critics would accuse FDR of fighting Nazism to the death of the last Soviet - as if you hadn't noticed, it was the Soviets that did the most fighting and dying in WWII. Whether they were led by a Red Fascist cvnt or not!


Stan Evans, James Earl Klehr, Paul Kengor, or any of the other historians whose findings you would prefer to be untrue? You can DECLARE "he is discredited" all you want, and many do, but i have yet to see any actual debunking -and I've searched in earnest

Which historical hypothesis are you putting forward. Please provided specific citations and quotes! What is there to 'debunk'?

Sunny Image
01-04-2013, 10:31 PM
These images and words make me think of the classic film"Schindler's List".

Washout
01-05-2013, 06:09 AM
You already have! You've put forth the singularly doltish thesis that somehow Washington, and FDR, were somehow run from Moscow. They were. It's been proven. The archives which were opened after the fall of the USSR acknowledged this, as well as the declassification of the Venona decrypts of communications between FDR cabinet members and their soviet handlers.

The testimony of such figures as Whittaker Chamber and Elizabeth Bentley, both of whom were successfully slandered and dismissed for decades, was proven true. Off the top of my head I can list Alger Hiss, Laughlin Currie, Harry Hopkins, and Harry Dexter White as Soviet Agents in FDR's cabinet, and one reason i can list them off the top of my head is that they were among his top advisors, and indeed Hiss and Hopkins were FDR's two closest aides who accompanied him to Yalta and Casablanca and never left his side.

It is true that much of what FDR signed his name to during his presidency was entirely authored by soviets in the direct service of Stalin, who FDR trusted implicitly and totally. FDR also went on the radio in his famous "fireside chats" and assured the American people that Stalin was completely trustworthy.

None of this is conjecture, my good friend. If we carry on this debate I may prove to be a slow responder as my classes start back monday (student), but in the end you will be frustrated if you continue down the "FDR cabinet was not overrun with Soviet Spies" line. It is a truth, it has been proven well beyond any honest debate, and you will find no honest way to dispute it.


Well then sir, what happened five years after WWII when the U.S. found itself fighting "commies" in Korea under an Administration that was descended from FDR's? It makes absolutely no sense! Do you want me to prove we fought in Korea? Do you need some "proof" that we fought communists in Vietnam? How did suddenly Moscow stop "running us" then?
This is silliness; theatrics. The answer to your question is: 1) FDR was gone, along with most of his cabinet 2) The public was beginning to get wise 3) There were still too many there


This is pretty silly and any work even implying this is at best based on cherry-picked facts, red herrings, poor scholarship, and is obviously the work of a right wing ****w!t seeming to demonize FDR based more on their hatred of the "pinko-commie, liberal New Deal" than any real evidence. If you continue to man this line you will end up being badly embarrassed. Please do an honest investigation of Harry Hopkins, Owen Lattimore, Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, and Laughlin currie. The best you will be able to do will be to try and argue that they "weren't all that important" in the FDR cabinet, which I will be able to shoot down quite easily. If you are an honest and honorable person, and I have no reason to believe you aren't, you will be forced to conclude that the FDR presidency was precisely what I say it was, but then we should start another thread for that.

To be honest this is my first foray into historical forums (I've posted in nature and photography forums for a while), and I have to say that I am taken aback by the ignorance re: FDR the commie stooge. He was, and it's not even seriously debatable. I suppose it's not widely known outside the 65+ military retiree crowd at the VFW. I just wish those guys posted in forums.

Nickdfresh
01-05-2013, 06:48 AM
They were. It's been proven. The archives which were opened after the fall of the USSR acknowledged this, as well as the declassification of the Venona decrypts of communications between FDR cabinet members and their soviet handlers.

The testimony of such figures as Whittaker Chamber and Elizabeth Bentley, both of whom were successfully slandered and dismissed for decades, was proven true. Off the top of my head I can list Alger Hiss, Laughlin Currie, Harry Hopkins, and Harry Dexter White as Soviet Agents in FDR's cabinet, and one reason i can list them off the top of my head is that they were among his top advisors, and indeed Hiss and Hopkins were FDR's two closest aides who accompanied him to Yalta and Casablanca and never left his side.

"Closest aids?" A few quick Google searches indicates you haven't a clue of what you're talking about. Chamber was an idealistic communist who turned after Stalin's purges (as many who were blacklisted had) and a bit of a crackpot. Currie and Hiss were never in the "cabinet" and worked various advisory functions. You're clearly defaming Harry Hopkins who wasn't a communist but a Keynesian capitalist. His "sin" was dealing with the Soviets as an ally in WWII. White may have been a Soviet agent, but he was by no means a close adviser to FDR. He as an as't to the Treasury Sec. and his recommendations regarding Postwar policy on Germany were "rejected". So, how was Moscow "running" Washington, again? Hiss is an infamous spy case, but he by no means had any impact on U.S. policies as he was a State Dept. functionary...


It is true that much of what FDR signed his name to during his presidency was entirely authored by soviets in the direct service of Stalin, who FDR trusted implicitly and totally. FDR also went on the radio in his famous "fireside chats" and assured the American people that Stalin was completely trustworthy.

LOL You're getting into complete troll territory here...


None of this is conjecture, my good friend. If we carry on this debate I may prove to be a slow responder as my classes start back monday (student), but in the end you will be frustrated if you continue down the "FDR cabinet was not overrun with Soviet Spies" line. It is a truth, it has been proven well beyond any honest debate, and you will find no honest way to dispute it.

Are you in college or high school? Ask your teachers what the Presidential Cabinet means...


This is silliness; theatrics. The answer to your question is: 1) FDR was gone, along with most of his cabinet 2) The public was beginning to get wise 3) There were still too many there
If you continue to man this line you will end up being badly embarrassed. Please do an honest investigation of Harry Hopkins, Owen Lattimore, Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, and Laughlin currie. The best you will be able to do will be to try and argue that they "weren't all that important" in the FDR cabinet, which I will be able to shoot down quite easily. If you are an honest and honorable person, and I have no reason to believe you aren't, you will be forced to conclude that the FDR presidency was precisely what I say it was, but then we should start another thread for that.

I did an "honest investigation," and you apparently don't know what "Cabinet" means. By your definition, Ronald Reagan's Administration was run from Moscow, because John Walker was a spy in the Navy...


To be honest this is my first foray into historical forums (I've posted in nature and photography forums for a while), and I have to say that I am taken aback by the ignorance re: FDR the commie stooge. He was, and it's not even seriously debatable. I suppose it's not widely known outside the 65+ military retiree crowd at the VFW. I just wish those guys posted in forums.

You are indeed taken aback by ignorance, alright!

Washout
01-05-2013, 07:41 AM
"Closest aids?" A few quick Google searches indicates you haven't a clue of what you're talking about. So you're now an expert based on a corrupt 5 minute Google search? How many results did you have to wade through to cherry pick that which led you to the results you were so desperate to produce, and why do I get the feeling you have never heard of any of these players until just now? I'm going to try to avoid insulting you, because you're clearly a respectable person overall and not stupid, but you're arguing things that you really have no idea about and you know it. Google is a great starting point but you have too much faith that you can learn everything important and gain accurate perspective in 5 minutes.
Chamber was an idealistic communist who turned after Stalin's purges (as many who were blacklisted had) and a bit of a crackpot. Yes, he turned, and began naming communists in the FDR administration, like Alger Hiss. He was smeared as a crackpot for years but whoops: the fall of communism and the great intelligence windfall of the 90's proved the veracity of every claim he ever made
Currie and Hiss were never in the "cabinet" and worked various advisory functions. Including, in Hiss' case, accompanying FDR to Casablanca and Yalta
You're clearly defaming Harry Hopkins who wasn't a communist but a Keynesian capitalist. I do defame Harry Hopkins, Soviet agent
His "sin" was dealing with the Soviets as an ally in WWII. That was one of his sins, the other sin was being a communist agent with the number 19, according to more than one Soviet defector who came forward at different times throughout the decades. if we follow the Hopkins case to a conclusion, the best you will be able to do will be to say that he was a severely misled dupe, but it takes OJ jury level of credulity and bias to find him "innocent" following an actual honest investigation.
White may have been a Soviet agent, but he was by no means a close adviser to FDR. He as an as't to the Treasury Sec. and his recommendations regarding Postwar policy on Germany were "rejected". Aha, so necause you could find a proposal of his that was rejected, it means that there's nothing to see here? That's what you're saying?
So, how was Moscow "running" Washington, again? through their deeply penetrated spy network throughout the FDR administration including treasury, office of war information, and State department.
Hiss is an infamous spy case, but he by no means had any impact on U.S. policies as he was a State Dept. functionary... Oh really? Because he accompanied Roosevelt to Yalta, and I believe Casablanca too, and was so close to FDR that some joked he was "FDR's boyfriend." He also wrote the charter for the United Nations and served as its first general secretary... but he had no impact on US policy? Stop digging yourself into this hole, please. There is much more to the Alger Hiss story but unfortunately I can not link to it, as it is contained in books



LOL You're getting into complete troll territory here... Oh REALLY? So you're saying that FDR did NOT, in fact, say to the American people, on Christmas eve no less, in a fireside chat, that Stalin was a good and honest man, deserving of our trust? Please corner yourself by saying this



I did an "honest investigation," An honest investigation takes more than 5 minutes on Google, and you surely had to dismiss several results as "right wing" and not credible
By your definition, Ronald Reagan's Administration was run from Moscow, because John Walker was a spy in the Navy... No, by my definition FDR's presidency was run by Soviet spies, because FDR signed his name numerous times to policy that was written entirely by soviet agents, including at Yalta, where FDR was at death's door, drooling on himself and shitting his pants like a 90 year old in a nursing home




You are indeed taken aback by ignorance, alright! Start a new thread devoted to this topic and link to it here, please. I do warn you that it may play out slowly, so you'll want to be careful to curb your smugness, and avoid painting yourself too deeply into corners as you are clearly wading into uncharted territory with your chin in the air. Over time I will demonstrate through examination of original source material that you are very badly mistaken on this subject. In my mind it is the most important and least covered topic in twentieth century history. I will do my best to avoid insulting you, and am prepared to forgive all the insults you hurl as your position becomes more desperate over time. Now I'm off to work. have a good day, and stay honorable

Nickdfresh
01-05-2013, 09:51 AM
So you're now an expert based on a corrupt 5 minute Google search?

Which compares your five minute Google search, listing of books you haven't read, and the use of Wikipedia, how?


How many results did you have to wade through to cherry pick that which led you to the results you were so desperate to produce, and why do I get the feeling you have never heard of any of these players until just now? I'm going to try to avoid insulting you, because you're clearly a respectable person overall and not stupid, but you're arguing things that you really have no idea about and you know it. Google is a great starting point but you have too much faith that you can learn everything important and gain accurate perspective in 5 minutes. Yes, he turned, and began naming communists in the FDR administration, like Alger Hiss. He was smeared as a crackpot for years but whoops: the fall of communism and the great intelligence windfall of the 90's proved the veracity of every claim he ever made Including, in Hiss' case, accompanying FDR to Casablanca and Yalta I do defame Harry Hopkins, Soviet agent That was one of his sins, the other sin was being a communist agent with the number 19, according to more than one Soviet defector who came forward at different times throughout the decades. if we follow the Hopkins case to a conclusion, the best you will be able to do will be to say that he was a severely misled dupe, but it takes OJ jury level of credulity and bias to find him "innocent" following an actual honest investigation. Aha, so necause you could find a proposal of his that was rejected, it means that there's nothing to see here? That's what you're saying? through their deeply penetrated spy network throughout the FDR administration including treasury, office of war information, and State department. Oh really? Because he accompanied Roosevelt to Yalta, and I believe Casablanca too, and was so close to FDR that some joked he was "FDR's boyfriend." He also wrote the charter for the United Nations and served as its first general secretary... but he had no impact on US policy? Stop digging yourself into this hole, please. There is much more to the Alger Hiss story but unfortunately I can not link to it, as it is contained in books

No, um, I've heard of the ones that mattered and you wouldn't know a "spy network" from the Food Network. There were agents at various levels, but all of them low ones. To say that that somehow constitutes an administration controlled by a foreign gov't is foolish...


Oh REALLY? So you're saying that FDR did NOT, in fact, say to the American people, on Christmas eve no less, in a fireside chat, that Stalin was a good and honest man, deserving of our trust? Please corner yourself by saying this

You're no the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? What does that prove at all? What should he have said about Stalin? What a bastard we're in bed with? Should FDR have joined Hitler against Stalin?


An honest investigation takes more than 5 minutes on Google, and you surely had to dismiss several results as "right wing" and not credible No, by my definition FDR's presidency was run by Soviet spies, because FDR signed his name numerous times to policy that was written entirely by soviet agents, including at Yalta, where FDR was at death's door, drooling on himself and shitting his pants like a 90 year old in a nursing home

How would you know? I'm guessing "research" isn't your strong suit. And your definition is why we don't let "special people" make definitions of historical importance.

But, okay. Specifically which "policy" was written by "Soviet agents?"


Start a new thread devoted to this topic and link to it here, please. I do warn you that it may play out slowly, so you'll want to be careful to curb your smugness, and avoid painting yourself too deeply into corners as you are clearly wading into uncharted territory with your chin in the air. Over time I will demonstrate through examination of original source material that you are very badly mistaken on this subject. In my mind it is the most important and least covered topic in twentieth century history. I will do my best to avoid insulting you, and am prepared to forgive all the insults you hurl as your position becomes more desperate over time. Now I'm off to work. have a good day, and stay honorable

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Why don't you just answer my questions, first? Like:

What level of "student" are you?

If these spies were running FDR's Admin from Moscow, then what happened when these same spies were in place in Truman's Admin and he sent us into Korea to fight commies?

Rising Sun*
01-05-2013, 10:03 AM
Care to actually dispute anything I say ....

Yes

And no.

Yes, because so much of it is implausible and demonstrably wrong conspiracy theory bullshit.

No, because arguing with zealots and conspiracy theorists only reinforces them in their misguided belief that they are the only true holders of their special knowledge in a hostile world.

If I was going to dispute anything you say, I'd start with the fact that Alger Hiss was never a member of any President's cabinet. Small fact, I know, but it's rather inconvenient for the grand structure you build on that non-existent foundation. As you do with so many other historical 'facts', which aren't. Such as Hiss writing the UN Charter. That must come as a surprise to the nations which attended the Dumbarton Oaks Conference where the US, Great Britain, USSR and China were under the illlusion that they were thrashing out the Charter.

I'm afraid I have to toddle off now as I must attend to a more important matter. My sock drawer needs tidying.

forager
01-06-2013, 01:28 AM
I don't have a lot of personal insight into this discusion apart from my contempt for German violent and murderous aggression.
Both my grandfathers left their farms in 1917 to fight the kaiser, my father and uncles did the same in WW2. My father was 506th PIR.
I grew up surrounded by vets of both wars and their families. I developed an intense interest in that history.
Most nazi enthusiasts have none of that connection and cannot see past the jackboots and flashy uniforms.

I belong to a discussion group of current and former SF vets, the SF Teamhouse.
Wea re a group of verified guys of all ranks and all periods of SF history, from original manifest to currently serving.
The original manifest guys were mostly foreigners, recruited under the Lodge Act and many were involved in intel gathering and UW operations behind the Iron Curtain. A lot of them were from E European extraction. Some were former Whermacht or Liftwaffe conscripts. Somer were Hungarian freedom fighters. One guy I met was a pole who fought with the French and jumped into DBP with the legion. He later retired from the US Army.
Some of these guys fought in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.
Most all were in serious combat units, Airborne Rangers, Rakkasans, even Marines. All retired US Army Special Forces. Some like me, did only a couple tours and got out.
We are privileged to be qualified to associate with such people.
Point is many of this group are scholars with lots of personal history. Many older guys served with 10th Grp at Bad Tolz and were involved in a lot of cold war operations and indoctrination.

From discussions it has become apparant that some of the Soviet influence on FDR is not fantasy. He is, in fact, a socialist or socialist leaning president.
TR was not better.
Another thing that has become more apparant since the fall of the SU, is that McCarthy was disturbingly right about influences and infiltrations.
About all I can say, but this comes from a learned group of people who were more than a little involved in such things.

Saying FDR was actualy controlled or handled by Soviets may be a bit radical, but not entirely to be dismissed pending actual research.

Washout
01-06-2013, 06:03 AM
Which compares your five minute Google search, listing of books you haven't read, and the use of Wikipedia, how?
1)Let the record reflect that you just admitted that your knowledge is based entirely off of a 5 minute Google search

2)You're making a mistake in assuming that I am as ignorant on this subject as you are, or as lazy. I promise you i have read each book that I mention, and unlike you my research didn't begin with a conclusion that I became desperate to maintain after going far out on a limb.


No, um, I've heard of the ones that mattered This is teenager-type smugness and very undignified. "I've heard of the ones that mattered?" Good gosh man, listen to yourself
and you wouldn't know a "spy network" from the Food Network. There were agents at various levels, but all of them low ones. I humbly beg you to read about some of these "various low-level agents," and find out exactly how "low" they actually were, and what they did
To say that that somehow constitutes an administration controlled by a foreign gov't is foolish... Even more foolish is your smug self assurance; that you understand completely the depth of Soviet penetration in the FDR administration and its effect on world affairs, based on precisely zero study. Aside from exerting daily influence over FDR, spies in FDR's administration pushed through such things under lend lease as the United States providing the Soviet Union with the materials for their nuclear weapons program. In your mind that's low-level and nothing to worry about? What about that it was Soviet Spies Alger Hiss and [name escapes me, Soviet operative] accompanying FDR to the Yalta and Casablanca conferences? Low level? Really?
The OSS was penetrated at the highest level: Duncan Lee was a soviet spy and was literally Donovan's #1, right hand man. That's low-level? What would you consider high level?


You're no the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? Depends on the drawer. If you and I are in the drawer alone together, than indeed I am the sharpest knife -and by a considerable margin. You think that spies in the white house and in OSS headquarters are "low level." You think that spies with the power to see to it that the Russians received uranium from the United States were low level. That's not very sharp
What does that prove at all? It is evidence of just how mesmerized and duped he was by Stalin
What should he have said about Stalin? What a bastard we're in bed with? Well Churchill said that
Should FDR have joined Hitler against Stalin? Well he certainly shouldn't have "joined" Stalin. In reality the best course of action would have been to stay out and let them crush each other OR simply let Patton crush them in 1945, which he said he could do in 6 weeks and there is no reason to doubt him. To have crushed the USSR in 45 might have achieved a semblance of world peace: we certainly wouldn't have had to have fought in Korea or Vietnam

How would you know? I'm guessing "research" isn't your strong suit. And your definition is why we don't let "special people" make definitions of historical importance. You can lash out and hurl insults all you want, but that doesnt make up for your breathtaking ignorance on this subject


But, okay. Specifically which "policy" was written by "Soviet agents?" Here's where you have me at the classic advantage that those who lie have over those who are truthful. For I have to actually consult books, which is something of a painstaking process that can't be done in 8 seconds on Google. This is why I stipulate that this argument will play out slowly: because you will hold me to an impossible standard

That said, I did find a small tidbit this morning in a recent book called Stalin's Secret Agents (you will no doubt simply attack this book, its author M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein, and go further out on a limb, and please do. You're probably a lost cause but there are other observers who can watch you make a fool of yourself, and may be compelled to check for themselves). My own commentary will be in bold


[Typical episodes of egregious FDR stupidity]...were not the most disturbing element of Roosevelt's conduct at the summits. More worrisome in policy terms were cases in which he signed or agreed to things of which he later said he had no knowledge. One significant instance occurred in September 1944, at his second Quebec conclave with Churchill. At this meeting, Roosevelt approved a summary of the so-called Morgenthau plan for Germany but later said he couldn't recall having done so. At this period, he would also sign an important letter about US- GErman occupation policy drafted verbatim by a Soviet Agent of course this is only one example, and not exactly the "smoking gun" that I was looking for, but as I said before: i will produce such evidence in due course. I can not google search my books, and I dont still own each one that I have read. But I promise more are to come, as you have given me a new hobby to busy myself with on the toilet: re reading and highlighting tidbits to cite in this debate.

If I win the lottery this week, then I can devote myself more to providing you with the education you so desperately need, but as it stands I am a full time student and I own a small construction business so I am too busy to hold your hand and gently guide you out of your credulity, especially with you kicking and screaming like a 3 year old being led away from McDonald's playland


ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Why don't you just answer my questions, first? Like:

What level of "student" are you? Undergrad. Studying to be an art teacher


If these spies were running FDR's Admin from Moscow, then what happened when these same spies were in place in Truman's Admin and he sent us into Korea to fight commies? Is there ANYTHING I dont have to hold your hand and guide you through? Truman got rid of a number of them, as he was no Stalin loving idiot like FDR (Truman didn't know how bad the problem really was, but he did act based on what he did know) and also there was the "Red Scare" during Truman's term (McCarthy's Wheeling speech, Senate hearings, HUAC rumblings et. al), which scared a lot of Reds and was a severe, if temporary, handicap to them.

Washout
01-06-2013, 06:28 AM
Yes

And no.

Yes, because so much of it is implausible and demonstrably wrong conspiracy theory bullshit.

No, because arguing with zealots and conspiracy theorists only reinforces them in their misguided belief that they are the only true holders of their special knowledge in a hostile world.

If I was going to dispute anything you say, I'd start with the fact that Alger Hiss was never a member of any President's cabinet. Small fact, I know, but it's rather inconvenient for the grand structure you build on that non-existent foundation. As you do with so many other historical 'facts', which aren't. Such as Hiss writing the UN Charter. That must come as a surprise to the nations which attended the Dumbarton Oaks Conference where the US, Great Britain, USSR and China were under the illlusion that they were thrashing out the Charter.

I'm afraid I have to toddle off now as I must attend to a more important matter. My sock drawer needs tidying.

Really, must you be so smug and nasty? And I love your cheap "Oh I could demonstrate that you're wrong, but my mom is calling, so accept this passing insult as a substitute for honest debate."

I am sorry for you if FDR is your lifelong hero, but the facts which have floated to the surface in the last twenty years... mean you should find a new hero. As for Alger Hiss, perhaps I was a little fuzzy with my details but Wikipedia (whose page isnt very accurate on Alger Hiss, particularly at Yalta) has it as
Hiss was secretary-general of the San Francisco United Nations Conference on International Organization (the United Nations Charter Conference), So excuse me for misremembering (although it wouldn't surprise me if during a review of my facts, i find that i am remembering correctly). I guess he didnt pen the Charter, he was just the general secretary of the Charter Conference.
And you're arguing semantics if you say that Hiss did not serve in the president's cabinet because he did not hold an official title of "cabinet minister."

So toddle off and organize your sock drawer. It is obviously more important to you than actually understanding what you're talking about. I see that I will be held to a perfect standard in this debate, and that is perfectly appropriate, as defense attorneys for guilty clients (which is the role you are playing for FDR) hold prosecutors to such standards. I don't really expect much out of you, to be honest. You seem to be a "hurl insult then run and hide" type of guy. You dont want to swim into the deep end of this argument because I think you implicitly know very well that you'll be drowned.

Rising Sun*
01-06-2013, 10:21 AM
Really, must you be so smug and nasty?

No, I’m just being sarcastic and dismissive. When I’m being nasty, I’m a real ****.

You, on the other hand, demonstrate the inherent smugness of the zealot who will never be swayed by anything which contradicts his belief, no matter how silly, flimsy or unfounded it may be.


And I love your cheap "Oh I could demonstrate that you're wrong, but my mom is calling, so accept this passing insult as a substitute for honest debate."

You clearly misunderstood me.

I didn’t offer or intend any insult. I was just being dismissive of silly opinions based on demonstrably wrong facts. If I wanted to insult you, the language would be clear and direct. You are too thin skinned.

There is no place for ‘honest debate’ about groundless conspiracy theories, so there is no debate to be had.


I am sorry for you if FDR is your lifelong hero, but the facts which have floated to the surface in the last twenty years... mean you should find a new hero.

Ah, another facile baited hook thrown out by the troll disappointed with the prey’s failure to rise to the bait.

It’s not FDR who is my hero.

It is an unknown American soldier who ended this exchange of catcalling between American and Japanese troops in the Pacific, bearing in mind that Eleanor Roosevelt was a long way short of pretty. It went along these lines

Japanese: “**** Roosevelt”
American: “**** Tojo”
Japanese: “**** Eleanor Roosevelt.”
American: “No, you **** her.”



As for Alger Hiss, perhaps I was a little fuzzy with my details

No, you were just plain wrong.



but Wikipedia (whose page isnt very accurate on Alger Hiss, particularly at Yalta) has it as

If you knew it wasn’t accurate, why did you rely upon it?

The first lecture in any History 101 is to get your sources correct.

Major fail.


So excuse me for misremembering

No, you didn’t ‘misremember’, you relied upon Wiki to support a crap argument in support of a crap theory.

Wiki can be a useful source occasionally, if one knows enough about the topic to judge whether it is reliable, or if one refers to it while putting a caveat on its reliability.

You failed on both counts.



(although it wouldn't surprise me if during a review of my facts, i find that i am remembering correctly).

It wouldn’t surprise me. I would be ****ing astonished!


I guess he didnt pen the Charter, he was just the general secretary of the Charter Conference.

The secretary to a committee is a mere functionary and, so far as the creation of important committee resolutions is concerned, is no more than an amanuensis.

Or do you think that the Secretary General of the United Nations sits back in his big chair with fine malt whisky and creates resolutions of the Security Council committing the major powers to conflicts at his whim?


And you're arguing semantics

No, facts.



if you say that Hiss did not serve in the president's cabinet because he did not hold an official title of "cabinet minister."

You need to spend less time following your favourite pastime of porn in your Mastubatory, because apart from harming your eyesight it is seriously damaging your thinking by transferring proteins needed by your brain to Kleenex.

Hiss was never a cabinet member. He was at best a senior member of staff to a cabinet member.


So toddle off and organize your sock drawer. It is obviously more important to you than actually understanding what you're talking about.

No. It’s just that organising my sock drawer is an activity I can undertake in the real world instead of the fourth dimension of conspiracy theories you inhabit.


I see that I will be held to a perfect standard in this debate, and that is perfectly appropriate, as defense attorneys for guilty clients (which is the role you are playing for FDR) hold prosecutors to such standards.

Terribly sorry to inform you, old chap, but you got this horribly wrong as well.

As a practising lawyer for the past 35 years, I can assure you that in a criminal trial defence lawyers like me do not have to hold the prosecution to a standard of perfection, or anywhere near it. All we have to do is create reasonable doubt about our client’s guilt.

So far as your prosecution of the “FDR is the American incarnation of Soviet communism” case is concerned, it doesn’t even get that far. You’d lose on a ‘no case’ submission.


I don't really expect much out of you, to be honest.

I hope I’ve met your low expectations.


You seem to be a "hurl insult then run and hide" type of guy.

I don’t think so.

Just the other day an arsehole in the car behind me kept tooting his horn to encourage me to magically levitate my car over a traffic blockage that I and everyone else apart from the tooting ****head could see would take time to clear. When I’d had enough of his tooting I took my keys out of the ignition and went back to his car, thrusting my keys through the window he was frantically trying to wind up as I said, rather courteously in the circumstances, “Here are the keys. See if you can do any ****ing better.” There was no more tooting.

Even if there was anything insulting in my conduct, I certainly didn’t hide. Unlike Mr Tooter, who discovered a sudden interest in his brake pedal when I reached his car.

I bring the same attitude to this forum.


You dont want to swim into the deep end of this argument because I think you implicitly know very well that you'll be drowned.

No, there isn’t even a shallow end to your argument.

If you push it too far, people might stop responding. Then you’d have nothing to do but tidy up your own sock drawer.

P.S. If you run out of Kleenex in the Mastubatory, you could use your socks. Probably best to do it after they’ve been worn, because then they have to be washed only once.

tankgeezer
01-06-2013, 10:30 AM
*****

Nickdfresh
01-06-2013, 11:18 AM
1)Let the record reflect that you just admitted that your knowledge is based entirely off of a 5 minute Google search

No, that's not at all what I said...


2)You're making a mistake in assuming that I am as ignorant on this subject as you are, or as lazy. I promise you i have read each book that I mention, and unlike you my research didn't begin with a conclusion that I became desperate to maintain after going far out on a limb.

Then you should be able to post some actual quotes from it. Then we'll research to see if it is a crackpot book or not.


This is teenager-type smugness and very undignified. "I've heard of the ones that mattered?" Good gosh man, listen to yourself I humbly beg you to read about some of these "various low-level agents," and find out exactly how "low" they actually were, and what they did Even more foolish is your smug self assurance; that you understand completely the depth of Soviet penetration in the FDR administration and its effect on world affairs, based on precisely zero study. Aside from exerting daily influence over FDR, spies in FDR's administration pushed through such things under lend lease as the United States providing the Soviet Union with the materials for their nuclear weapons program.

Specifically what?


In your mind that's low-level and nothing to worry about? What about that it was Soviet Spies Alger Hiss and [name escapes me, Soviet operative] accompanying FDR to the Yalta and Casablanca conferences? Low level? Really?
The OSS was penetrated at the highest level: Duncan Lee was a soviet spy and was literally Donovan's #1, right hand man. That's low-level? What would you consider high level?

So what? FDR's butler also accompanied FDR to Yalta. "Wild Bill" Donovan was a capitalist that made his fortune on Wall St. while the accusations against Lee were just hearsay that were never proven and in the end, again Soviet Archives, have vindicated him. His only crime was possibly having an affair with an OSS Agent who worked for the Soviets. But that doesn't make him a spy for the Russians! And yes, there were many ideological communists and "champagne socialists" in the OSS. We were at war with the Nazis and IJ at the time, not the USSR. Many openly admitted their political beliefs in fact.

Did you know (since you mention Vietnam) that none other than "Ho Chi Minh" was considered an OSS source (or "agent")? Was he run from Washington?


Depends on the drawer. If you and I are in the drawer alone together, than indeed I am the sharpest knife -and by a considerable margin. You think that spies in the white house and in OSS headquarters are "low level."

They were not cabinet members as indeed there is no evidence the sole high level courtesan with actual access to FDR you have defamed. Even the Soviet archives have shown he was not a spy and many in the NKVD and GRU didn't trust him while some others did. That sole fact alone debunks your silly arguments.

But perhaps you can move on and tell us how the Bush Administration was behind 9/11?....


You think that spies with the power to see to it that the Russians received uranium from the United States were low level. That's not very sharp

You're right, you're not very sharp, because:


Logistical problems the Soviets faced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project#Logistical_problems_the _Soviets_faced)

The single largest problem during the early Soviet project was the procurement of uranium ore, as the USSR had no known domestic sources at the beginning of the project. The Soviet F-1 reactor, which began operation in December 1946, was fueled using uranium confiscated from the remains of the German atomic bomb project. This uranium had been mined in the Belgian Congo, and had fallen into the hands of the Germans after their invasion and occupation of Belgium in 1940. Further sources of uranium in the early years of the program were mines in East Germany (SAG Wismut), Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania (near Stei) and Poland. Eventually large domestic sources were discovered.

The uranium for the Soviet nuclear weapons program came from the following countries in the years 1945 to 1950 (mine production only):

1945: Soviet Union: 14.6 t
1946: Soviet Union: 50.0 t; Germany: 15 t; Czechoslovakia: 18 t; Bulgaria: 26.6 t
1947: Soviet Union: 129.3 t; Germany: 150 t; Czechoslovakia: 49.1 t; Bulgaria: 7.6 t; Poland: 2.3 t
1948: Soviet Union: 182.5 t; Germany: 321.2 t; Czechoslovakia: 103.2 t; Bulgaria: 18.2 t; Poland: 9.3 t
1949: Soviet Union: 278.6 t; Germany: 767.8 t; Czechoslovakia: 147.3 t; Bulgaria: 30.3 t; Poland: 43.3 t
1950: Soviet Union: 416.9 t; Germany: 1,224 t; Czechoslovakia: 281.4 t; Bulgaria: 70.9 t; Poland: 63.6 t[1]



It is evidence of just how mesmerized and duped he was by Stalin Well Churchill said that Well he certainly shouldn't have "joined" Stalin. In reality the best course of action would have been to stay out and let them crush each other OR simply let Patton crush them in 1945, which he said he could do in 6 weeks and there is no reason to doubt him. To have crushed the USSR in 45 might have achieved a semblance of world peace: we certainly wouldn't have had to have fought in Korea or Vietnam

LOL Um, Roosevelt was dead when Patton uttered that, and I believe Hitler also thought he could "crush" the Soviets in six weeks. I could go on and on about how idiotic and impractical that would have been as already there was a movement demanding the U.S. demobilize and send troops home from Europe not long after VE Day. You can even watch the last episode of Band of Brothers (I even read the book, too!) to get more information. Patton was a good field commander, but terribly overrated overall and lousy at logistics and he had very impulsive decision making possibly linked to multiple head injuries suffered early in his career...


You can lash out and hurl insults all you want, but that doesnt make up for your breathtaking ignorance on this subject
Here's where you have me at the classic advantage that those who lie have over those who are truthful. For I have to actually consult books, which is something of a painstaking process that can't be done in 8 seconds on Google. This is why I stipulate that this argument will play out slowly: because you will hold me to an impossible standard

Pardon me if I lash out, but I find such historical conspiracy theories not accepted by anyone but fringe partisans to be completely bullshit and embarrassing...


That said, I did find a small tidbit this morning in a recent book called Stalin's Secret Agents (you will no doubt simply attack this book, its author M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein, and go further out on a limb, and please do. You're probably a lost cause but there are other observers who can watch you make a fool of yourself, and may be compelled to check for themselves). My own commentary will be in bold

of course this is only one example, and not exactly the "smoking gun" that I was looking for, but as I said before: i will produce such evidence in due course. I can not google search my books, and I dont still own each one that I have read. But I promise more are to come, as you have given me a new hobby to busy myself with on the toilet: re reading and highlighting tidbits to cite in this debate.

Of course, because there is no "smoking gun." Because you're interpreting the text way beyond what the author probably meant. Just guessing. But please skip to the part where he asserts that FDR was "run from Moscow."


If I win the lottery this week, then I can devote myself more to providing you with the education you so desperately need, but as it stands I am a full time student and I own a small construction business so I am too busy to hold your hand and gently guide you out of your credulity, especially with you kicking and screaming like a 3 year old being led away from McDonald's playland
Undergrad. Studying to be an art teacher
Is there ANYTHING I dont have to hold your hand and guide you through? Truman got rid of a number of them, as he was no Stalin loving idiot like FDR (Truman didn't know how bad the problem really was, but he did act based on what he did know) and also there was the "Red Scare" during Truman's term (McCarthy's Wheeling speech, Senate hearings, HUAC rumblings et. al), which scared a lot of Reds and was a severe, if temporary, handicap to them.

Um, the biggest "spies" you mentioned were not discovered until after Truman's Admin was over. Hiss wasn't exposed until Ike's Admin IIRC. After Korea was well under way....

I'll post on McCarthy in a minute...

Nickdfresh
01-06-2013, 11:31 AM
From discussions it has become apparant that some of the Soviet influence on FDR is not fantasy. He is, in fact, a socialist or socialist leaning president.
TR was not better.
Another thing that has become more apparant since the fall of the SU, is that McCarthy was disturbingly right about influences and infiltrations.
About all I can say, but this comes from a learned group of people who were more than a little involved in such things.

Saying FDR was actualy controlled or handled by Soviets may be a bit radical, but not entirely to be dismissed pending actual research.

Firstly, Sen. Josef McCarthy was a liar who lied about his military service. At best, he was a ruthless and smarmy **** trying to build his career and power base by "hunting commies." But he never really uncovered a national security threat on his way to defaming people and demonizing those that may have had flirtations with utopian Marxist thought until Stalin's atrocities revealed his dystopian nature in practice (or destroying those he simply didn't like).

BTW, McCarthy was also a big, giant, flaming homosexual that had men "infiltrating" his bedroom and had a very public long time companion. If Edward R. Murrow, possibly the finest radio/TV journalist the U.S. ever produced, hadn't exposed him for the disingenuous demagogue and bully he was--several journalists working with members of both parties were prepared to go public about his apparent love or mens' penises and destroy him by outing McCarthy the way he "outed" so many others...

FDR was not a "socialist." It is argued that he actually saved capitalism by reforming it as it is forgotten that communist or fascist inspired civil insurrection by was a real possibility during the Great Depression and that hungry, unemployed, and homeless masses were already beginning to attack the "rich" by storming five star restaurants and targeting their homes.

Roosevelt was a "Keynesian capitalist." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics)

forager
01-06-2013, 11:25 PM
Guess we'll have to disagree.
I trust my sources and remain somewhat objective.
I believe they contain ewons of cumulative study and observations far beyond any books or personal likes or dislikes.
An unprofessional and reactionary retort.
Do I detect some vitriol?

Washout
01-07-2013, 06:13 AM
My piece of trash computer is having a hard time with this site and wont load "reply with quote," rrrrghh.. You gave me a lot of comedy gold to work with...


It is amusing to observe nickdfresh's instant hypocrisy as he says
Pardon me if I lash out, but I find such historical conspiracy theories not accepted by anyone but fringe partisans to be completely bullshit and embarrassing... ... and then in his very next post launches into a conspiracy theory about McCarthy being a homosexual, which is not proffered by anyone except fringe partisans, and is surely the result of another desperate, halfassed google search. By the way, I would be interested to see your source for that claim; no doubt it is scholarly, reputable, and nonpartisan

Furthermore on McCarthy: it's also amusing to note the dozen or more "innocent" people who pleaded the fifth amendment to McCarthy's question "Have you ever engaged in espionage for the Soviet Union" and then absconded to Russia or China within weeks and sometimes days of their testimony. I guess that's further proof of "innocence." Did you serve on the OJ jury?

As far as your copy/paste from another corrupt, desperate 5 minute google search regarding The Soviet Union receiving uranium from the United States, let us note that your list begins in 1945. Well that's when the Soviets had to start going elsewhere for Uranium because their stooge Franklin was out of office and couldn't help them anymore, and with that I will quote from the book called Dupes: by Paul Kengor (cant wait to see your comedy show response as you personally smear and attempt to discredit Kengor). Again, my own interjections will be in bold


On February 1, 1943, an American chemical company called Chemator received its first Soviet request for various forms of uranium. Harry Hopkins(remember him? The guy you said I was smearing)'s Lend Lease program had approved Soviet requests for other chemicals via Chemator. of course, a request for uranium, the element necessary for producing a nuclear bomb, was something altogether different.

...[Chemator] went to the US government as standard operating procedure for such an unusual request. They were fully prepared to deny the request if uncle Sam said so. Instead, Hopkins' Lend-Lease granted permission to give the Soviets all they asked for.

... With that green light, the Soviets went wild, one month later ordering tons of uranium. this caught the attention of General Leslie Groves (director of the Manhattan project). It seemed to groves, an engineer as well as a military general, that Lend Lease was going far beyond conventional assistance to a wartime ally. later he wemnt public with his concerns in testimony to congress. The general complained that Lend-Lease officials were exerting a "great deal of pressure... to give the Russians evertyhing they could think of," including "this uranium material." Groves said he had personally vetoed the requests, but Hopkins and crew were doing their best to push the orders through. "We didn't want this material shipped," groves said during his congressional testimony, "yet they [Lend-Lease] kept coming back and coming back."

Whoops. I asked you if I was going to have to hold your hand and guide you through everything. I see now that I do. Unfortunately, this is going to play out more slowly than i would prefer because I have to work and go to school. Otherwise i could devote more time to providing you with an education which you need. Of course, you're welcome to take the reigns of your own education

Nickdfresh
01-07-2013, 06:27 AM
I guess we will disagree then. I don't come here to be professional and I have nothing against you...

Rising Sun*
01-07-2013, 06:37 AM
Washout wrote:


My piece of trash computer is having a hard time with this site and wont load "reply with quote," rrrrghh..

I'm having the same problem. I've reported it and hopefully it will be sorted out soon if it's a site problem.

Nickdfresh
01-07-2013, 06:45 AM
My piece of trash computer is having a hard time with this site and wont load "reply with quote," rrrrghh.. You gave me a lot of comedy gold to work with...


It is amusing to observe nickdfresh's instant hypocrisy as he says ... and then in his very next post launches into a conspiracy theory about McCarthy being a homosexual, which is not proffered by anyone except fringe partisans, and is surely the result of another desperate google search by you. By the way, I would be interested to see your source for that claim; no doubt it is scholarly, reputable, and nonpartisan


From Rotten.com:

14 Jan 1952: In his private diary, Washington Post columnist Drew Pearson records the Washington rumor that Senator Joseph McCarthy is gay.

25 Oct 1952: “Joe McCarthy is a bachelor of 43 years. [...] He seldom dates girls and if he does he laughingly describes it as window dressing. It is common talk among homosexuals in Milwaukee who rendezvous in the White Horse Inn that Senator Joe McCarthy has often engaged in homosexual activities.” Hank Greenspun, Las Vegas Sun. McCarthy briefly considered a suit but took no action, because it would have meant testifying.

On NNDB.com:

The Young Republicans held a state convention in Wausua, Wis., at which Sen. McCarthy was an honored guest. During the convention, McCarthy spent the night with William McMahon, formerly an official of the Milwaukee County Young Republicans, in a Eausua hotel room, at which time, McCarthy and McMahon engaged in illicit acts with each other.

From: http://www.blogactive.com/?p=371



Furthermore on McCarthy: it's also amusing to note the dozen or more "innocent" people who pleaded the fifth amendment to McCarthy's question "Have you ever engaged in espionage for the Soviet Union" and then absconded to Russia or China within weeks and sometimes days of their testimony. I guess that's further proof of "innocence." Did you serve on the OJ jury?

Unlike many of the people McCarthy attacked, at least OJ had a jury...

What about the U.S. Army being rife with "communists?" What about Edward R. Murrow being a Soviet or Chinese espionage agent (conveniently after he aired stories unfavorable to McCarthy)?

Interesting you talk about juries though...


As far as your copy/paste from another corrupt,

I used the exact same source you did, dimwit! Wikipedia. I can't help it if it only takes a five minute "Google" search to dispell your B.S...


...desperate 5 minute google search regarding The Soviet Union receiving uranium from the United States, let us note that your list begins in 1945. Well that's when the Soviets had to start going elsewhere for Uranium because their stooge Franklin was out of office and couldn't help them anymore, and with that I will quote from the book called Dupes: by Paul Kengor (cant wait to see your comedy show response as you personally smear and attempt to discredit Kengor). Again, my own interjections will be in bold

Feel free to provide ANY documentation about how the Soviet Union had FDR send them some uranium...


Whoops. I asked you if I was going to have to hold your hand

The thought of you holding my hand is pretty disgusting...


...and guide you through everything. I see now that I do. Unfortunately, this is going to play out more slowly than i would prefer because I have to work and go to school. Otherwise i could devote more time to providing you with an education which you need. Of course, you're welcome to take the reigns of your own education

You're just blatantly trolling now. Good luck getting laughed out of whatever prestigious history dept. you attend though, that was a cool story, bro...

Nickdfresh
01-07-2013, 06:50 AM
On February 1, 1943, an American chemical company called Chemator received its first Soviet request for various forms of uranium. Harry Hopkins(remember him? The guy you said I was smearing)'s Lend Lease program had approved Soviet requests for other chemicals via Chemator. of course, a request for uranium, the element necessary for producing a nuclear bomb, was something altogether different.

...[Chemator] went to the US government as standard operating procedure for such an unusual request. They were fully prepared to deny the request if uncle Sam said so. Instead, Hopkins' Lend-Lease granted permission to give the Soviets all they asked for.

... With that green light, the Soviets went wild, one month later ordering tons of uranium. this caught the attention of General Leslie Groves (director of the Manhattan project). It seemed to groves, an engineer as well as a military general, that Lend Lease was going far beyond conventional assistance to a wartime ally. later he wemnt public with his concerns in testimony to congress. The general complained that Lend-Lease officials were exerting a "great deal of pressure... to give the Russians evertyhing they could think of," including "this uranium material." Groves said he had personally vetoed the requests, but Hopkins and crew were doing their best to push the orders through. "We didn't want this material shipped," groves said during his congressional testimony, "yet they [Lend-Lease] kept coming back and coming back."

Hopkins wouldn't have even known what uranium was or what it was for (at least initially). So did we "give them" uranium or not? Nothing above says we did, just that they made "requests". Reading comprehension my boy..

It seems like maybe the author here is completely full of shit and engaging in selective semantics and sophistry. I would also add that he seems to be a rather poor writer, even accounting for your inability to spell check or use proper grammar. He's certainly fooled you into believing we actually gave the Soviets "tons" of uranium when there is no evidence that we delivered an once of it. It's called using selective facts out of context known as red herrings...

As far as Lend Lease, we certainly gave the Soviets a lot of stuff, after all they destroyed about 80% of the Wehrmacht, IIRC.

Thanks for showing I'm right though, apology accepted in advance...

Nickdfresh
01-07-2013, 06:58 AM
Washout wrote:



I'm having the same problem. I've reported it and hopefully it will be sorted out soon if it's a site problem.

Mine does too, I usually have to repeatedly click on the reply button...

pdf27
01-07-2013, 07:02 AM
I'm having the same problem. I've reported it and hopefully it will be sorted out soon if it's a site problem.Mine has been doing that for ages. Press the button a second time (doesn't look like it will allow you to, but it does) and it should bring up what you're after.

Rising Sun*
01-09-2013, 05:20 AM
Nick and pdf27 are correct.

Wish I'd thought of that before rebooting, and giving up using reply with quote when that didn't work.

Washout
01-16-2013, 05:30 AM
Hopkins wouldn't have even known what uranium was or what it was for (at least initially). All he needed to know was that his Soviet handler really wanted Russia to have it
So did we "give them" uranium or not? Nothing above says we did, just that they made "requests". Reading comprehension my boy.. Indeed you lack reading comprehension. What did you want me to do, transcribe the whole chapter? Sorry I haven't the time to hold your hand and gently guide you along, particularly when you're kicking and screaming the whole way


It seems like maybe the author here is completely full of shit and engaging in selective semantics and sophistry. A hilarious charge, especially coming from you.
I would also add that he seems to be a rather poor writer, even accounting for your inability to spell check or use proper grammar. He's certainly fooled you into believing we actually gave the Soviets "tons" of uranium when there is no evidence that we delivered an once of it. Uhmmm, the company said they gave it to them, and kept records. What further evidence do you require? My guess is that you will raise the standard of evidence as high as it needs to be to maintain your ignorant bliss
It's called using selective facts out of context known as red herrings... Thanks for describing your posting style.

As far as Lend Lease, we certainly gave the Soviets a lot of stuff Including uranium for their nuclear program
after all they destroyed about 80% of the Wehrmacht, IIRC. yeah they sure were heroic, weren't they? But in return, we destroyed 100% of the Japanese, so what's your point?


Thanks for showing I'm right though, apology accepted in advance... Unsurprisingly, you've dug in your heels, closed your eyes and covered your ears. And it's hilarious that you cite Drew Pearson and attempt to discredit Paul Kengor in the same reply. You lack honor, and you lack curiosity

JR*
01-16-2013, 06:38 AM
(Sigh !). Information - fine. Opinion - fine (as long as its expression is intelligible). Corrections - grand (as long as their expression is helpful and respectful). Ad hominem attacks ? No. That sort of thing has no place In Here. Rather a Washout, in fact. By the way - in what country is "the Masturbatory" located ? Or is it a state of mind, like Macbeth's dagger ? Anyway, do we have to put up with infantile smut posing as information as to a poster's location ? Oops ... I shouldn't be bothering with this sort of thing, should I ... ? JR.

Vonss
01-16-2013, 07:47 AM
Quote As far as Lend Lease, we certainly gave the Soviets a lot of stuff, after all they destroyed about 80% of the Wehrmacht, end Quote.

I don't by that. Many will not give the Germans credit. Germans nearly took Moscow / Stalingrad.

Russians had US war equipment and weapons etc... and were getting a beating from the Wehrmacht. Why not sooner? why after the winter hit.?

Rising Sun*
01-16-2013, 07:58 AM
Including uranium for their nuclear program

How much?

What grade?

When?

For what Soviet nuclear weapons program?

Why did the US supply the USSR with uranium during WWII when the US was preoccupied with its own nuclear program, and the USA's only cooperative program for development of nuclear weapons involved the British?

Rising Sun*
01-16-2013, 08:09 AM
Quote As far as Lend Lease, we certainly gave the Soviets a lot of stuff,

Who is 'we'?

As for 'a lot of stuff', that is true. But the Soviets produced vastly more from their own resources. That major contribution to their own survival is overlooked by those who think that without Lend Lease the USSR would have crumbled. Lend Lease probably made a far greater proportionate contribution to Britain's ability to continue to fight the war.



after all they destroyed about 80% of the Wehrmacht

The Heer, perhaps. The Wehrmacht, no. The Soviets weren't prominent in the sea war.


I don't by that. Many will not give the Germans credit. Germans nearly took Moscow / Stalingrad.

Yes, and Germany nearly took North Africa and nearly defeated Britain in the Battle of Britain and nearly won in Normandy after D Day and nearly won in the Battle of the Bulge etc etc etc. But it didn't. Which is why it lost the war, leaving much of Germany in ruins and its people devastated. And that's the loss that matters.

Rising Sun*
01-16-2013, 08:24 AM
By the way - in what country is "the Masturbatory" located ?

It, like wankers, knows no borders.


Or is it a state of mind, like Macbeth's dagger ?

It's a state of mind, but only a seminal one.


Oops ... I shouldn't be bothering with this sort of thing, should I ... ? JR.

Nor should I, but some things are hard to resist.

Nickdfresh
01-16-2013, 01:02 PM
All he needed to know was that his Soviet handler really wanted Russia to have it Indeed you lack reading comprehension. What did you want me to do, transcribe the whole chapter? Sorry I haven't the time to hold your hand and gently guide you along, particularly when you're kicking and screaming the whole way

I want you to UNDERSTAND the chapter. NO uranium was ever sent to Russia. The whole thing is a red herring. There was no "Soviet handler." If there was, then what was his name? All that happened here was a general request of a Soviet wishlist being passed on under the Lend Lease program. Hopkins had nothing to do with specifics! I'm guessing he had little idea of what uranium was nor its significance. The reason why Gen. Groves had to go "public" (to Congress) is because he was in charge of what was largely a top secret research program, and he knew what it was for. Groves "vetoed" the requests, thus none was delivered to the U.S.S.R., which apparently shows you cannot read and also that your author is writing dubiously confusing chapters...

But feel to provide any evidence that the United States actually delivered uranium to the Soviets, because everything else said they got if from Germany, parts of Europe, and then discovered their own domestic sources!



A hilarious charge, especially coming from you. Uhmmm, the company said they gave it to them, and kept records. What further evidence do you require?

They DIDN'T "give it to them." The request was VETOED by the director of the Manhattan Project! One of the relative few that was aware of the scale and scope of developing an atomic bomb designed to wipe out a city center.

BTW, the largest figure associated with the bomb, Oppenheimer, was himself a member of the Communist Party USA! So, by your logic, everyone involved with the project, including Gen. Leslie Grove, must have been communist sympathizers! Dolt!



My guess is that you will raise the standard of evidence as high as it needs to be to maintain your ignorant bliss Thanks for describing your posting style. Including uranium for their nuclear program yeah they sure were heroic, weren't they? But in return, we destroyed 100% of the Japanese, so what's your point?
Unsurprisingly, you've dug in your heels, closed your eyes and covered your ears. And it's hilarious that you cite Drew Pearson and attempt to discredit Paul Kengor in the same reply. You lack honor, and you lack curiosity

If you're going to persist making an *** out of yourself, do not expect to be here long...

Nickdfresh
01-16-2013, 01:18 PM
Quote As far as Lend Lease, we certainly gave the Soviets a lot of stuff, after all they destroyed about 80% of the Wehrmacht, end Quote.

I don't by that. Many will not give the Germans credit. Germans nearly took Moscow / Stalingrad.

What don't you "by" specifically? Who isn't giving the Germans credit? They scored spectacular, almost mindboggling, repeated victories over the Soviets in the first two years of the war and often captured hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers in single operations. It didn't matter...

The Germans came close to Moscow but never were really close of capturing it. They had long blown their wad by diverting forces into Kiev and the Ukraine and other areas of the USSR rather than concentrating on Moscow as most in the German Army commanders wanted to do. The operation was far too late in the year and had the Soviets been a bit better logistically, they not only would have defeated the Germans near Moscow as they did in the harsh winter cold, but might had delivered a crushing blow to the Heer.


Russians had US war equipment and weapons etc... and were getting a beating from the Wehrmacht. Why not sooner? why after the winter hit.?

The Russians had US weapons, but with some notable exceptions, they weren't considered pivotal by the Soviets. Aside from the Sherman tank and the Aircobra fighter, few US weapons were used in significant numbers or for very long. It was the 'non-lethal' aid such as food, equipment, and trucks that had the most direct impact on the Red Forces. But the full effect wouldn't be felt until at least 1943 and the biggest American contribution to the Soviet Red Army was enabling them to become more of a mechanized, mobile army of maneuver with the Dodge Truck in particular getting a lot of love...

royal744
01-31-2013, 10:46 AM
We may not "hold grudges", we may even forgive to a degree, but we will never forget what horrors and despicable acts the Germans (and the Japanese) visited upon the world. I do not condemn the individual German conscript who had to serve in the Wehrmacht; there are plenty of others for whom blame is the lightest of all possible sentences.

royal744
01-31-2013, 11:25 AM
We know from his first campaign for the Senate that Joe McCarthy was a little less than honest. One of his slogans was, "Washington needs a tail gunner in the Senate." Joe McCarthy was never a tail gunner, although it became widely known later on that he was "gunning for tail" of another sort. But, following Washout's line of reasoning, since Joe McCarthy blatantly lied about his military service, I must perforce conclude that Joe McCarthy lied about just about everything, which, amazingly, proved to be true!