The only nonfiction that ever gave me bad dreams

[mosta]

I don't have the ability of some posters here to retain and recollect massive amounts of historical detail, but for a first hit on a simple search I get this summary:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/1941.html
(not an especially impressive looking source, but it gets the idea across):
----------------------------------------------------------
The 900 day siege of Russia's second largest city cost the lives of around one and a half million civilians and soldiers. Food was so scarce that thousands were dying each day from hunger, disease and cold. With temperatures reaching minus 40oC, around 53,000 people died in the month of November. On Christmas Day, 1941, an estimated 3,700 inhabitants died from starvation. Many just collapsed in the street, their bodies soon covered by snow and their whereabouts not known until the spring thaw.
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't gloss over the number, 900 days, that's over 2 1/2 years the Germans tried to starve or freeze everyone in the city to death. Personally, I think I'd rather have been in Dresden or Tokyo. At least those were decided quickly. (and in case anyone has forgotten, Leningrad=St. Petersburg, the most cultured and beautiful city in Russia.)

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
Your inability to understand the difference between Allied bombing raids and Red Army atrocities reveals your complete unfettered hatred of americans.

I'll have to spell it out for you I guess.

The Allies bombed enemy territories still resisting and under the control of enemy forces. It may have been a questionable tactic but it was an effort to win the war. It had strategic goals.

The Red Army committed their atrocities against civilians who were living in conquered territories after the fighting had ended. Their leaders made almost no effort to stop it or punish any crimes committed, even though they knew it was a crime and even though the Communist Party leaders back home urged more civilized behaviour.

This is a world of difference. How you can't see that is beyond me.


[/ QUOTE ]

He can't see it for the same reason I can't see it; we don't see it because we think targeting civilians is abhorrent whether or not it allegedly had "strategic goals." As I said in an earlier post it may slightly mitigate it, but not to the extent you seem to believe; it is far worse than a "questionable tactic." It comes down to a moral viewpoint; Cyrus is not missing anything, he simply sees it differently to you. I do too.

Following you too go at it has been one of the most interesting exchanges on here in recent times; you've both made a lot of illuminating points.

[zaxx19]

Liberalism has truly run its course with thinking like this. Only truly detached individuals dug deep into bookland can castigate those who saved the world at trmemndous sacrifice and make victims out of the people who tried to destroy it...truly groundbreaking fellows.

[Cyrus]

It must be for some jai alai ball that struck you on the head. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Only truly detached individuals dug deep into bookland can castigate those who saved the world at tremendous sacrifice and make victims out of the people who tried to destroy it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Natedogg has made vaild points and I tried to make a few of my own. But nobody in this thread tried to make victims out of the Nazis or to castigate the Soviets for beating the Nazis!


Apparently the whole exchange has been wasted on you. Thanks for the hits, anyway.