Stalingrad - Germans that never surrendered

I have to agree with Iwd. Through my research I have never encountered any documents or literature illustrating the mercy of the Soviets as fact.

 

Again, very useful and honest observation. There are no just pure Saints and Vilians. However, it is very difficult to state that the Germans "reaped the whirlwind" at the East. The whirlwind over Germany came from the West.

Allegedly, German women said: "Better the Russian on your belly than the British above your head, alluding to systematic destruction of German cities by the Anglo-Saxon air forces.

In this case the truth is so obvious without exact comparison by-the-numbers. It is mercy when you have an opportunity and means to retaliate and then you refrain from revenge. That's a genuine mercy.

 

It's not so clear that they did however. Indeed there is strong evidence that they didn't in many cases.

 

I have not seen evidence to the contrary. In fact, history shows events transpiring during the German collapse that there were German lives taken in revenge. I am not defending the unforgivable atrocities committed by the Germans during Barbarossa, we all know the plan they had in store from the jump, but I see no widespread mercy being practiced by the Soviets in retaking their territory. I agree that there must have been incidents of kindness, but few and far between.

 

Only during the Finno-German Siege of Leningrad 1.042.000 civilians died under horrifying conditions, mostly by starvation. Just a year after the end of the siege Red Army opened kitchens in Berlin to feed the German population. Isn't that an ultimate act of mercy?

 

Dear Otto,

I do understand quite well your view but sometimes the truth isn't comprehensible if you don't dare to drive your reasoning to the very limits. Only then the truth becomes apparent.
My conclusion is: If the fate of the 6th Army had depended on the OKW only, the number of German survivors at Stalingrad would have been zero. This means that Soviets have saved lives of 6.000 German soldiers which is quite remarkable achievement. Please note that I am not cynical here, I just want to comprehend the truth: Red army valued lives of the German soldiers much more than their countrymen in the Wehrmacht headquarters.

 

The endlessly merciful Red Army performing ultimate acts of mercy? Now you are saying the 6,000 German survivors of Stalingrad were saved by the Russians? If I didn't know better I would have thought you were talking about a devout religious sect. Holy Shit Tamino, that is not logic that I think many share.

 

I do really appreciate your point of view but there is too much of propaganda on this subject and we will never end-up with some coherrent and unique view on this subject. In my view, German soldiers who survived encirclement at Stalingrad were at least extremely lucky.

Now, let's get back to the subject:

These remaining 11.000 fugatives were captured during March 1943 by the NKVD units. Therefore, the lack of information on this subject is concievable: 2.418 died in combat and 8.646 were arrested. Some sources use wording "Liquidiren" (Ger. Liquidiren= liquidate, eliminate, kill) but, obviously, that isn't the case because the most of them ended in captivity like all others who surrendered at the end of February.

 

The coherent and unique view on the subject? There is a coherent and unique view. Historians across the world have come to a pretty complete consensus on the subject, and the merciful Soviets is not fact. Just look at the events in East Prussia.

 

I'd agree with that but don't think it makes much of a case for Soviet "mercy". In fact it may actually make a stronger case against it.

??? "All" the others? That really doesn't sound right to me.

 

I've said this before, it's not the number of German civilians killed by the Russians that is suprising it's the fact they didn't kill everyone. You do not see the total and systematic destruction of German towns and villages that occurred in Russia. The Russians weren't forgiving I know that but despite the fact that in Belarus alone the Germans destroyed 5000 settlements and wiped out the entire population of 600 villages they did not totally lay waste to Germany.

 

I completely get your point, and I agree it probably could have been much worse. This all stems from the use of the term merciful to describe the Soviet Forces on their way to Berlin. You cannot be called merciful just because you didn't completely eliminate everyone and everything in your path. You just seem a little less ruthless then your predecessors.

 

Have to agree with that, I would not call them merciful (can any Army be?). The Red Army just indulged less in the of slaughter of civilians than the Heer.

 

I ain't no native speaker but according to Merriem-Webster Dictionary, the term mercy is defined as:

kind or forgiving treatment of someone who could be treated harshly.

The Red Army soldiers had millions of reasons to treat Germans harshly, had means and opportunity to do so and yet... Could someone among you, native speakers propose more suitable wording?

Even though this conversation seems to be a bit of-topic it helps to understand anxiety of German soldiers from captivity at the Eastern Front.

 

Because of course they did treat the Germans harshly. Admittedly they could have treated them worse but that doesn't make it mercy. I simply don't see how a case can be made for the Soviets treatment of Germanas being either kind or forgiving except in isolated incidents.

 

Exactly

 

@otto

First about that quote you've just mentioned: Its from Beevor, whom else. I will review my library and will get back to you with the quote as soon as possible.
(EDIT: I've found even more. That anecdote was initially published in May 1965 in German Magazine "Der Spiegel" in an article "Die Russen in Berlin 1945". The original text was: "Lieber einen Russen auf dem Bauch als die Amis auf dem Kopf." which was translated by Beevor to "Better a Russki on the belly than an Ami on the head." (Beevor, A, The Fall of Berlin 1945, Penguin Books Limited). But the version I have cited must be from the third source, in French I believe, but I don't really remember now where that was. I'll dig a bit more. That's a promise.)

I do really appreciate your point of view because it is a view of a well-intentioned man.

During the war governments employ propaganda to spread lies against the enemies. The problem is that after the war finishes they don't have the ministry of truth (D. Irwing). Therefore historical "facts" are often reiteration of the war propaganda and are rather obfuscating the underlying truth. Below I have attached two photos just as a starting point of consideration. The below photos are primary sources and it is up to you to draw your own conclusions. I did.