The Battle of Berlin

And the context is?

 

Not sure what your point is??? Ironcross


By the way where did you obtain these pictures?

The reason I ask is because if you notice is says
Bilddokumente on the right corner.

This is compilation of newsreel material illustrating important events in the chief bell igerent countries immediately before and during World War 1 from a Nazi point of view!!

 

And yes Ironcross it was actually not uncommon for cannibalism to occur in places where there was literally no food.


Not everyone had the luxury of drinking Coca Cola on the battle field. ( Im referring to the Coca Cola factory that was actually shipped over from the U.S. to the African campaign to boost morale )

 

Those are Russian cannibalism on dead German soldiers.

[ 19. October 2006, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Ironcross ]

 

What we see here are a few dead bodies, more or less damaged, and 4 live men standing there for no defined purpose as the pictures don't even have a legend, only that tag stating "image document case 304". So?

Before we jump to the conclusion you apparently want to lead us to, that Russians are cannibals I would like you to present some more 'meat' on this subject, such as context, origin of photos, what do you want to prove, etc.

 

http://www.vho.org/VffG/1998/1/Buecher1.html

 

Thanks for the link Ironcross. Too bad I cant read German.

 

Try http://babelfish.altavista.com/ , even if not perfect, the relevant part in this extensive book review site is here:

"That book was already discussed here in the focus, why one can probably speak rightfully of a kind break-through. Seidler cuts the hot iron of actual or only alleged "German" crimes on in its volume, however he dedicates himself above all to the crimes, which were committed against the German armed forces. So far there was the armed forces investigation place of A. de Zayas (Ullstein, FFM/Berlin 41984) to this topic beside Seidlers volume over the military jurisdiction and the book, where the impressing material was however only zoegerlich presented and hidden in an enormous amount of legal representations quasi. Professor Seidler could some time ago make the original documents of the armed forces investigation place, on which its documentation pushes away. On the basis these documents Seidler presents us the crimes in a detail abundance and to an extent, passed against German soldiers that it strikes the appetite. This completely particularly applies to the many photos of cases Russian cannibalism at German soldiers. It is recommended to the reader therefore to read that book briefly before a meal or before falling asleep. That could have otherwise unpleasant consequences. For the same reason we do without here closer descriptions. To hope it is that this book does not represent the end of the occupation Seidlers with this topic. Already in its introduction to this book Seidler of a cause and effect connections between the crimes of the respective side, on the basis those points out the escalations in the east war becomes understandable."

In any case,

http://katardat.org/marxuniv/2002-SUWW2/Images/images08-nazicruelties/Russia-Kovno.jpg note: the Soviet crime victim on the far left is smiling...

http://katardat.org/marxuniv/2002-SUWW2/Images/images08-nazicruelties/Russia-Latvia.jpg

http://katardat.org/marxuniv/2002-SUWW2/Images/images08-nazicruelties/Russia-Ukrainia1.jpg

http://katardat.org/marxuniv/2002-SUWW2/Images/images08-nazicruelties/Russia-partisanen02.jpg

Funnily I don't see any SS runes or eagles on the left arm, so...?

 

It would be nice to have a war without atrocities. We hear so much about Hiroshima, when the firebombing of Tokyo was so much worse. And I found little rational in the bombing of Dresden other than retaliation for London. In today's sanitized world, we forget that the number of dead civilians is always usually greater than the number of soldiers.

 

I agree!!! Unfortunatly war is ugly and civilians will always be victims especially if the war is in their backyard.

 

Seadog
I am glad war is cruel; otherwise we would love it too much.

 

Actually, while their is extensive evidence for Germans killing or brutally treating civilians in the Soviet Union I have seen few if any reports on widespread German rape of Russian women. There are countless accounts of Russian troops raping not only German women but even Russian women who had been deported to Germany as slave laborers. The Russian atrocities were definitely in response to the German ones but they weren't necessarily "like in kind". The Russians didn't carry out the organized death squads as the Germans did, to their credit, but there was a lot of general brutal treatment handed out to Germans caught by the Red Army, especially in the first weeks the Russians were on German soil.

I think we all need to take a look at the facts and not try and justify or simply deny the actions of our own nations or ancestors. There is plenty of blame to go around but not for all the same things. As historians we should attempt to at least recognize our own biases, even if we can't always escape them.

 

No country is without those troops that commit atrocities. The U.S. gets a lot of criticism for being redneck and 'Deliverance' types. Yet, despite the media criticism, U.S. troops have always leaned more towards shining examples of humanitarism. It is the few that violate the rules that get all the attention. Repressive governments are always the worse for cruelity. They attract those who want to feel superior to others, and reward that attitude. And they are more willing to deny media access to the troops and action. And the wild part is that it works. A repressed media is a license for mistreatment of civilians. A free media is a license to subject the troops to constant intrusion on their open souls. It is like a fat nagging spoiled housewife that can see no good in her spouse.

 

Not always; back in the 19th century when fighting the Indian tribes out west the US army was anything but a shining example of humanitarianism.

I don't see the connection between repressed media and cruelty. The US press was far more free and open in the 19th century and that's when the US army was at its most cruel, at least against Indians. It is rare that an army is overtly engaged in genocidal practices or prescribed abuses of enemy civilian populations; the professionalism necessary to make a good army usually precludes this. Cruelty and abuses are usually found when discipline in the armies breaks down. How many times in ancient history don't we read about a band of barbarians who are defeated ultimately by the civilization they are invading when they are caught literally with their pants down as they enjoy the spoils of their victory as they loot and rape and pillage and forget the enemy reinforcements coming to kick them to the back 'o beyond from where they came.

 

What's the point ? Do you think Soviet soldiers crimes are an excuse for German soldiers crimes, or the other way round ?

Then it's a draw and no one deserves punishment ? If no one is innocent, then no one is guilty ?

Of course it's important, from an ethical point of view, to remind the suffering of all populations involved in WWII.

In my opinion each rape is a crime, and it does not matter if women from the rapist country also go raped before. I don't feel like the suffering that Germany inflicted to France during WWII gives me the right to rape a German woman (Claudia Schiffer you are lucky lol) .

Justice and retaliation are 2 different things.

About US army, of course there were also some rapes, that were minimized, but on a very very much smaller scale, you can't even compare, it was more "individual" actions, and with no complacency from the hierachy (which is very important).

The punishments inflicted by US military justice to rapist soldiers in France were very harsh (especialy if the soldier was black, which is another subject) : most often it was death or a life emprisonement, as a comparison, the few sentenced Serbian rapists during ex-Yugoslavia civil war enjoyed much lighter penalties, even if it occured in the "ethnical purification" policy.


Rape and war is a very interesting subject, because the rape can mean many different thigs depending on the context.

First, you've got "individual" rapes (it does not mean there was only 1 rapist) the rapist(s) is/are lead by sexual frustration, or sharing a woman is also a common way to symbolize the links and solidarity between brothers in arm (sometimes you can witness the same mecanics in sport teams). US army rapes in Europe are in this category.

But there are also other categories, which involves not only individual criminals, but a "genocidal" way to make war :

- state strategy to break morale and resistance among a population (see Hitler's directives above),

- ethnical purification (horrible expression) of a population (which is sometimes heard about the mass rapes that occured in Berlin),

- a way for commanders to have their soldiers feeding their sexual needs on women that are therefore considered as slaves or war-loot, just lkie a deserved reward,

- humiliation of the women relatives (very common for example during the Rape of Nankin)

In this last category, there's often a "system" built around rapes, involving women kept in captivity, used as domestic and sex slaves, being sold or handed over between soldiers.

None of the few recorded US rape cases in France belong to this second category, and that's the reason why it doesn't compare to Eastern front related mass rapes : individuals are to blame, not the way US made war.

 

"One must also remember what the Germans did in the USSR..."

But the Wehrmacht did not rape every Russian woman from 8 to 80. Russia is simply Russia, best understood by Ivan The Terrible, Katherine the Great, and Stalin. Germany killed a lot of Russian civilians, not never as many as Stalin killed before the war. Stalin mainly killed Christians whilst Germany mainly killed Jews. Go figure.