The Missing POW's Of WWII, Held By The Soviets !

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

There have been stories about this topic before, but the numbers are far smaller - articles.baltimoresun.com...
As for Patton's death, that's BillO territory - crooksandliars.com... - and BillO is a bloviating moron with delusions of adequacy.

Patton absolutely WAS killed by the NKVD. He seemed to be the only one who identified the Soviets as the threat they really were, and he was immensely angered by US and UK leaders handing all of eastern Europe to Stalin.

He already had batallions ready to roll on the Red Army and had predicted he could deliver a decisive victory over the Soviets in Berlin in only 6days because they had no proper supply chain behind them from Russia. He was right and if anyone had truly cared about justice, they would have listened to him and prevented the genocide of nearly 50million at the hands of Stalin and Kruschev.

Eisenhower was too busy plotting his future though and torturing old German draftees and last minute hitler youth draftees (read about "Rhineland Meadows", my great uncle was in one of these camps)

Patton kept going on and on about doing the right thing, so they finally got rid of him.



.

I'm sorry, but that's absolute round objects. The US Army was demobbing fast in 1945 - Patton couldn't have done a thing.

You're wrong.



And if you want to say "bollocks" just say it

I'll take the word of my family member who was there thanks.




.

No, I'm right. The US Army demobilised rapidly in 1945, with thousands of men leaving for either the Far East or the USA every month. The occupation force for Germany was supposed to be about 330,000-odd men or eight divisions, far too small for an attacking army, especially attacking the Soviets, who had far more men in Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe as a whole. As for Berlin in six days - total round objects. The Soviets had IS-2's and T34-85s. Patton had a handful of Pershings and far more Shermans. No contest. The USAAF was also demobilising and my god Patton would have needed it to correct the imbalance of forces. As for the lack of Soviet supply routes - total and utter round objects. How the hell did they get to Berlin without a supply network? And finally there was no way on earth that Truman would have been raving mad enough to give Patton his head and unleash him on the Soviets.

We have to remember that the end of WWII was basically the opening salvo of the Cold War and they were certainly not popular, but very powerful.

Much like now. Nothing from this time period is really surprising, but most of Europe, even the NAZIS were trying to abide by the Hague conventions by that point because it was winding down. The Russians just went apesh#t instead.

a reply to: FireflyStars

*Geneva not Hague
My bad, brain lapse.

The most dangerous part of this history is focusing on the Nazis and forgetting what everyone else did.

Also for those that don't know a lot of details/terminology:
- Prison/POW camps were not good conditions but soldiers were adequately quartered and fed in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. They were kept unhealthy enough to not be able to fight. We had these too.
- Labor camps were poor conditions exacerbated by Germany's supply chain breaking up.
- Death/Concentration/Russian "gulags" were where they sent people to work to death or just plain die. Relative few Allied POWs ended up here, mostly due to the locale where they were captured at the end of the war. Many of them contracted typhoid and ended up looking like Holocaust survivors themselves because there was no food. (This is where the hoax conspiracy was born.). Prior to the end of the war the Nazis pulled every soldier mistakenly sent there. The Gulags were Russia's version.

These terms are often used interchangeably so clarification is necessary.

Hope that helps. I'm sure the Soviets had no problems snatching POWs out of camps that they "liberated". They left survivors behind to fend for themselves with zero support.

Also the Allies had a bad habit of "reclassifying" German POWs so they would not have to treat them properly. Nobody is an angel.

In ny opinion if the Soviets had kept coming, we'd all be speaking Russian right now. We were saved(???)by the atomic bomb.

What surprised me was the part were they brokered a deal with the Soviets that a Russian officer would escort a American officer to 5 different POW camps. In exchange for a Russian officer doing the same in allied held territories for Russian POW's. Then after he was inside the Soviet Union they reneged on the deal even though he had full authorization, of coarse his Russian counter part had no issue on the allied side.

Another thread in General right now is talking about a "Black Hole" on Google Maps in Russia.
One of the first replies calls it the "Russian Area 51." Maybe?

They had their own "Operation Paperclip" as well - wonder if all these folks are still stuck in that blob.
Russia's been releasing a lot of their own "top secret man-made ufos of WW2" docs, pics, and vids as of late.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

There have been stories about this topic before, but the numbers are far smaller - articles.baltimoresun.com...
As for Patton's death, that's BillO territory - crooksandliars.com... - and BillO is a bloviating moron with delusions of adequacy.

Patton absolutely WAS killed by the NKVD. He seemed to be the only one who identified the Soviets as the threat they really were, and he was immensely angered by US and UK leaders handing all of eastern Europe to Stalin.

He already had batallions ready to roll on the Red Army and had predicted he could deliver a decisive victory over the Soviets in Berlin in only 6days because they had no proper supply chain behind them from Russia. He was right and if anyone had truly cared about justice, they would have listened to him and prevented the genocide of nearly 50million at the hands of Stalin and Kruschev.

Eisenhower was too busy plotting his future though and torturing old German draftees and last minute hitler youth draftees (read about "Rhineland Meadows", my great uncle was in one of these camps)

Patton kept going on and on about doing the right thing, so they finally got rid of him.



.

I'm sorry, but that's absolute round objects. The US Army was demobbing fast in 1945 - Patton couldn't have done a thing.

You're wrong.



And if you want to say "bollocks" just say it

I'll take the word of my family member who was there thanks.




.

No, I'm right. The US Army demobilised rapidly in 1945, with thousands of men leaving for either the Far East or the USA every month. The occupation force for Germany was supposed to be about 330,000-odd men or eight divisions, far too small for an attacking army, especially attacking the Soviets, who had far more men in Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe as a whole. As for Berlin in six days - total round objects. The Soviets had IS-2's and T34-85s. Patton had a handful of Pershings and far more Shermans. No contest. The USAAF was also demobilising and my god Patton would have needed it to correct the imbalance of forces. As for the lack of Soviet supply routes - total and utter round objects. How the hell did they get to Berlin without a supply network? And finally there was no way on earth that Truman would have been raving mad enough to give Patton his head and unleash him on the Soviets.

NO, you're wrong again.

Patton's third Army would have decimated Russian forces in Berlin, but Eisenhower scuttled it.

www.frontpagemag.com... :

In early May 1945, as the Allies shut down the Nazi war machine, Patton stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army. He pleaded for General Eisenhower’s green light to advance and capture the city for the Allies, which also would have meant containment of the Russians. British Prime Minister Churchill also thought the move a crucial and beneficial one for post-war Europe and insisted upon it, but to no avail. Eisenhower denied Patton’s request, and the Russians took the region, which would pay dearly for years to come. Earlier that year, at the February conference in Yalta, President Roosevelt, with Churchill at his side, extended the hand of friendship to “Uncle Joe” Stalin and signed his Faustian pact. In so doing, the destiny of millions was reduced to mass starvation, blood revenge, and distant gulags. At the time, Patton understood the tragedy of this event and wrote, “We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see that they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it?”

books.google.com... wmjs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FEa7VMK_M4SngwScjYCIDg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=eisenhower%20undermined%20patton&f=false

^Start reading that at page 130.

forum.axishistory.com...

And the Russian supply lines were almost NON-EXISTENT. Are you honestly not aware of how the Soviets decimated every town in their path on the March from Russia to Berlin ??? Seriously? They literally raped and pillaged their way across Europe, living off the land on the way down to Germany. They raided the food and fuel supplies of every city, town, village and person they came across, even stealing their livestock. That's a FACT. Real Soviet supply lines didn't exist until months after the German surrender.

Also it's ironic that Eisenhower was president during the communist witch hunts here under Joe McCarthy.... or maybe not so ironic considering all that he did for Stalin. Eisenhower was a traitor, not just to his country, but to the tens of millions he condemned to die in Eastern Europe. There is no logical reason to explain why Patton could see the monster Stalin was, and Eisenhower couldn't. He was complicit, and Rhineland Meadows proves it!




.

I think their raping and pillaging and utter disregard for what they left behind is what made them such an effective force. Very much like ISIS in that way. They could've taken us on and won just from that fierceness alone and we would have been VERY reluctant to bomb them in Western Europe. Everyone was war weary by then. So I agree and disagree with you both! I do love a good WWII debate though!

It's really important that we don't only remember the Holocaust but the transgressions of every involved party. It's the only way to prevent the same mistakes.

Can you imagine if Truman told Stalin after they dropped the 2 nuke's on Japan, now get all your troops out of Europe including Poland or I am sending a nuke and Patton your way, you have three days to comply.
Oh that would have been fun to watch the reaction.

Patton was also talking about reorganizing the German army from all the POW's and officers which could be used to liberate just the Soviet occupied eastern Germany. From what I read he would have reactivated the German generals under his command and got them to organize a few divisions to fight.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

They would have ran for the hills. Haha. They were fine with killing massive numbers of civilians and had a great grasp on fear tactics but anything that would've laid waste to them would've made them scramble.

I don't think the remaining German army would have made much of a dent but they should have made Goering pass along their commands after weeding out the kids and the elderly.

a reply to: FireflyStars

Those Germans would have had to be rearmed and reorganized and given German officers that were not SS, if 6 months before they were running to the allies to surrender, it showed their mindset, but now with the allies with them and instructed to only liberate their own country of the area of Eastern Germany. They also respected Patton, the German officers would have followed his orders. Patton was right, he was not a political General.

One can only imagine the late 40's and early 50's if Generals Patton and MacArthur got to call the shots and not Truman.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Oh, I thought you meant at the end of the war with Germany. Sorry.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

There have been stories about this topic before, but the numbers are far smaller - articles.baltimoresun.com...
As for Patton's death, that's BillO territory - crooksandliars.com... - and BillO is a bloviating moron with delusions of adequacy.

Patton absolutely WAS killed by the NKVD. He seemed to be the only one who identified the Soviets as the threat they really were, and he was immensely angered by US and UK leaders handing all of eastern Europe to Stalin.

He already had batallions ready to roll on the Red Army and had predicted he could deliver a decisive victory over the Soviets in Berlin in only 6days because they had no proper supply chain behind them from Russia. He was right and if anyone had truly cared about justice, they would have listened to him and prevented the genocide of nearly 50million at the hands of Stalin and Kruschev.

Eisenhower was too busy plotting his future though and torturing old German draftees and last minute hitler youth draftees (read about "Rhineland Meadows", my great uncle was in one of these camps)

Patton kept going on and on about doing the right thing, so they finally got rid of him.



.

I'm sorry, but that's absolute round objects. The US Army was demobbing fast in 1945 - Patton couldn't have done a thing.

You're wrong.



And if you want to say "bollocks" just say it

I'll take the word of my family member who was there thanks.




.

No, I'm right. The US Army demobilised rapidly in 1945, with thousands of men leaving for either the Far East or the USA every month. The occupation force for Germany was supposed to be about 330,000-odd men or eight divisions, far too small for an attacking army, especially attacking the Soviets, who had far more men in Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe as a whole. As for Berlin in six days - total round objects. The Soviets had IS-2's and T34-85s. Patton had a handful of Pershings and far more Shermans. No contest. The USAAF was also demobilising and my god Patton would have needed it to correct the imbalance of forces. As for the lack of Soviet supply routes - total and utter round objects. How the hell did they get to Berlin without a supply network? And finally there was no way on earth that Truman would have been raving mad enough to give Patton his head and unleash him on the Soviets.

NO, you're wrong again.

Patton's third Army would have decimated Russian forces in Berlin, but Eisenhower scuttled it.

www.frontpagemag.com... :

In early May 1945, as the Allies shut down the Nazi war machine, Patton stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army. He pleaded for General Eisenhower’s green light to advance and capture the city for the Allies, which also would have meant containment of the Russians. British Prime Minister Churchill also thought the move a crucial and beneficial one for post-war Europe and insisted upon it, but to no avail. Eisenhower denied Patton’s request, and the Russians took the region, which would pay dearly for years to come. Earlier that year, at the February conference in Yalta, President Roosevelt, with Churchill at his side, extended the hand of friendship to “Uncle Joe” Stalin and signed his Faustian pact. In so doing, the destiny of millions was reduced to mass starvation, blood revenge, and distant gulags. At the time, Patton understood the tragedy of this event and wrote, “We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see that they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it?”

books.google.com... wmjs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FEa7VMK_M4SngwScjYCIDg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=eisenhower%20undermined%20patton&f=false

^Start reading that at page 130.

forum.axishistory.com...

And the Russian supply lines were almost NON-EXISTENT. Are you honestly not aware of how the Soviets decimated every town in their path on the March from Russia to Berlin ??? Seriously? They literally raped and pillaged their way across Europe, living off the land on the way down to Germany. They raided the food and fuel supplies of every city, town, village and person they came across, even stealing their livestock. That's a FACT. Real Soviet supply lines didn't exist until months after the German surrender.

Also it's ironic that Eisenhower was president during the communist witch hunts here under Joe McCarthy.... or maybe not so ironic considering all that he did for Stalin. Eisenhower was a traitor, not just to his country, but to the tens of millions he condemned to die in Eastern Europe. There is no logical reason to explain why Patton could see the monster Stalin was, and Eisenhower couldn't. He was complicit, and Rhineland Meadows proves it!




.

Sorry, but again, NO. Patton may have wanted to take on the Red Army on his own, but that only proves that he had a screw loose. He would have involved the entire Western Allies in a major war at a time when a) the last one was barely winding down and b) when the USA was already starting to convert to a civilian economy. There was an agreement with Stalin about the stop lines. The fact that Stalin regarded these stop lines as a line of control wasn't that apparent at the time. What else could Ike have done? He was a soldier not a politician. He had no control over what happened on the political arena.
And once again, with regard to the Soviet 'non-existent' supply lines - again, total round objects. Where the hell did their ammunition and fuel come from? Not from Poland or occupied Germany, I can tell you that much! And I see that you dodged my point about the tanks that both sides had. If Patton had attacked he would have had a horrible shock the moment that his forces encountered their first IS-2s and T34-85s.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Patton had already experienced facing battled hardened troops with superior armor, and come out ahead.
Also the Americans were in friendly territory essentially if they had fought the Russians, the Russians would have eventually faced an insurgency behind there lines as well. They also had constantly moved there air support forward.
The Russian air force would have been facing good numbers of Spitfire and Mustang pilots in their prime.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

There have been stories about this topic before, but the numbers are far smaller - articles.baltimoresun.com...
As for Patton's death, that's BillO territory - crooksandliars.com... - and BillO is a bloviating moron with delusions of adequacy.

Patton absolutely WAS killed by the NKVD. He seemed to be the only one who identified the Soviets as the threat they really were, and he was immensely angered by US and UK leaders handing all of eastern Europe to Stalin.

He already had batallions ready to roll on the Red Army and had predicted he could deliver a decisive victory over the Soviets in Berlin in only 6days because they had no proper supply chain behind them from Russia. He was right and if anyone had truly cared about justice, they would have listened to him and prevented the genocide of nearly 50million at the hands of Stalin and Kruschev.

Eisenhower was too busy plotting his future though and torturing old German draftees and last minute hitler youth draftees (read about "Rhineland Meadows", my great uncle was in one of these camps)

Patton kept going on and on about doing the right thing, so they finally got rid of him.



.

I'm sorry, but that's absolute round objects. The US Army was demobbing fast in 1945 - Patton couldn't have done a thing.

You're wrong.



And if you want to say "bollocks" just say it

I'll take the word of my family member who was there thanks.




.

No, I'm right. The US Army demobilised rapidly in 1945, with thousands of men leaving for either the Far East or the USA every month. The occupation force for Germany was supposed to be about 330,000-odd men or eight divisions, far too small for an attacking army, especially attacking the Soviets, who had far more men in Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe as a whole. As for Berlin in six days - total round objects. The Soviets had IS-2's and T34-85s. Patton had a handful of Pershings and far more Shermans. No contest. The USAAF was also demobilising and my god Patton would have needed it to correct the imbalance of forces. As for the lack of Soviet supply routes - total and utter round objects. How the hell did they get to Berlin without a supply network? And finally there was no way on earth that Truman would have been raving mad enough to give Patton his head and unleash him on the Soviets.

NO, you're wrong again.

Patton's third Army would have decimated Russian forces in Berlin, but Eisenhower scuttled it.

www.frontpagemag.com... :

In early May 1945, as the Allies shut down the Nazi war machine, Patton stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army. He pleaded for General Eisenhower’s green light to advance and capture the city for the Allies, which also would have meant containment of the Russians. British Prime Minister Churchill also thought the move a crucial and beneficial one for post-war Europe and insisted upon it, but to no avail. Eisenhower denied Patton’s request, and the Russians took the region, which would pay dearly for years to come. Earlier that year, at the February conference in Yalta, President Roosevelt, with Churchill at his side, extended the hand of friendship to “Uncle Joe” Stalin and signed his Faustian pact. In so doing, the destiny of millions was reduced to mass starvation, blood revenge, and distant gulags. At the time, Patton understood the tragedy of this event and wrote, “We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see that they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it?”

books.google.com... wmjs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FEa7VMK_M4SngwScjYCIDg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=eisenhower%20undermined%20patton&f=false

^Start reading that at page 130.

forum.axishistory.com...

And the Russian supply lines were almost NON-EXISTENT. Are you honestly not aware of how the Soviets decimated every town in their path on the March from Russia to Berlin ??? Seriously? They literally raped and pillaged their way across Europe, living off the land on the way down to Germany. They raided the food and fuel supplies of every city, town, village and person they came across, even stealing their livestock. That's a FACT. Real Soviet supply lines didn't exist until months after the German surrender.

Also it's ironic that Eisenhower was president during the communist witch hunts here under Joe McCarthy.... or maybe not so ironic considering all that he did for Stalin. Eisenhower was a traitor, not just to his country, but to the tens of millions he condemned to die in Eastern Europe. There is no logical reason to explain why Patton could see the monster Stalin was, and Eisenhower couldn't. He was complicit, and Rhineland Meadows proves it!




.

Sorry, but again, NO. Patton may have wanted to take on the Red Army on his own, but that only proves that he had a screw loose. He would have involved the entire Western Allies in a major war at a time when a) the last one was barely winding down and b) when the USA was already starting to convert to a civilian economy. There was an agreement with Stalin about the stop lines. The fact that Stalin regarded these stop lines as a line of control wasn't that apparent at the time. What else could Ike have done? He was a soldier not a politician. He had no control over what happened on the political arena.
And once again, with regard to the Soviet 'non-existent' supply lines - again, total round objects. Where the hell did their ammunition and fuel come from? Not from Poland or occupied Germany, I can tell you that much! And I see that you dodged my point about the tanks that both sides had. If Patton had attacked he would have had a horrible shock the moment that his forces encountered their first IS-2s and T34-85s.

Take the time to actually READ the links I provided.

Patton also had German units ready to re-activate and they were more than happy to join forces & roll on the Reds. What you don't even realize is that the Red Army was ALLOWED to take Berlin, while Patton was told to hold station sitting in Prague twiddling his freakin thumbs!

And do you really think the T34 was any match for the Tiger's that Patton had available ???

www.militarian.com...

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
And once again, with regard to the Soviet 'non-existent' supply lines - again, total round objects. Where the hell did their ammunition and fuel come from? Not from Poland or occupied Germany, I can tell you that much!

Actually the majority of their supplies came from the United States!

en.wikipedia.org...

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.[19]

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

a reply to: 8675309jenny

I did read your links, but large numbers of them were wish-fulfilment and also frankly besides the point. Patton did not have German units ready to be re-activated, that would be a political decision - and no-one in their right mind would have wanted to see the German army that had just been rightly smashed into the ground reactivated in any way. Truman certainly wouldn't have done it and Churchill/Atlee would have pitched a fit. If Patton had gone ahead and done it anyway, then he would have been cashiered and court-martialled (correctly) at once. If, by some miracle, he had somehow gotten away with it, then which units would he have used, how would he have equipped them and how the hell would he have fed them? What would they have even been using for tanks? The German war industry was gone by that point. Where would the ammunition for the Tigers and Panthers come from? Spare parts? POL?
Oh and your last link is severely besides the point. It's to a tale about a Tiger versus a bunch of T34s. The arrival of the Tiger was why the T34 was upgraded to the T34-85 and also why the KV2 was upgraded to the IS-1 and later the IS-2. The T34-85 was a match for the Panther and would have any Sherman (apart from the Sherman Firefly) for breakfast. The IS-2 was a match for the Tiger and would also have been a match for the Pershing - which was in Europe in tiny numbers.
What you are basically saying is that Patton was talking (and where is the evidence?) about reactivating the soldiers from a discredited and politically rotten power to attack the far-better equipped forces of an Ally. Yes, we know that the Cold War was about to start, but you talking about absolute madness on the part of Patton. Berlin? He would have been lucky to get ten miles.

What in interesting thread, just love it, see no mention of the Soviets telling the west that if the west wanted its prisoners back, the west had to hand over the surrendered Cossacks, the Cossacks were not happy at all, knowing they would be slaughtered by the Soviets when the Cossacks were 'safely' in Russian hands.
As a side note the Soviets copied the B29's that had to land in russia, right down to the manufacturers logo's on the foot pedals!

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
And once again, with regard to the Soviet 'non-existent' supply lines - again, total round objects. Where the hell did their ammunition and fuel come from? Not from Poland or occupied Germany, I can tell you that much!

Actually the majority of their supplies came from the United States!

en.wikipedia.org...

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.[19]

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

Try again. You just provided evidence that shot down your own theory! The Soviets still had all those trucks and above all they had trains behind them - as well as the ammunition factories to provide them with all that they needed! Their supply lines were just fine.