From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: continued NitPicking and matters of Political language
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 21:15:55 GMT

spinoza@next05wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi) writes:
{ historical discussion about events related to but not normally
incorported in WWII.}
]  Not to nitpick, drieux, but those Ukranians who tended to look at the  
] Germans as liberators also tended to be fascists. Notice I did not say ALL  
] were fascists, but many were. 

1. we will concede you the point of equivocation that you have
NOT made the flat out, hard line Stalinist Interpretation of
the nature of all Kulacks as being the LapDoglackiesOfReaction,
and thus Justly the Targets of RevolutionaryJustice.

2. But for those who would like to get around some of that
Politically Korrect Think that even our dear spinoza has fallen
prey to, anyone who was a 'rightist deviationalist' from the
correct Stalinist line were catagorized as 'facsists.' {the
leftist deviationalists would grow up and become trotskiest
or maoist opportunists.....}

] That there was a general to be found who'd  
] fight as an ally of the Nazis isn't overly surprising, given the  

1. That's General Vlasov, trust me Lev, it is SAFE to use his name,
the NKVD will NOT arrest you for saying that name in public.

2.  Gen. Vlasov had been a defender of the USSR before he 
became a POW, and like all the other russian POW's, including
Stalin's son, were deemed by Stalin to be TRAITORS and NOT
POW's and thus, there was no support from the USSR for their POW's
and no reciprocity between Germany and the USSR by way of the
Red Cross or Geneva Convention for either side....

3. The vlasovites thus came to the wonderful understanding
that in the choices of life, mother russia did not care about
them and that Uncle Joe was NOT going to do anything for them.
Thus it is better to ply one's trade, as a soldier for an organization
that will at least FEED ONE, than to die in the death camps.

] Please explain why it is that Russian nationals ought  
] not to have been repatriated/extradited to the Soviet Union? In the case  


1. the UK and the USA were strongly committed to the notion that
persons should be treated as POW's based upon the Uniform they
were captured in. This was a way of protecting 'minorities' from
going to death camps as 'jews, slavs, etc' rather than to POW camps
as members of the UK/USA armed forces.

2. Vlasovites, those former members of the Red Army, as well as
White Guards, were taken as POWs in GERMAN UNIFORM and thus should
have been afforded the status of POW's and allowed to resolve for themselves
where they wished to end the war....

3. As stipulated above, it was Stalinist Law that any of what we
would call POW's were, to the RED ARMY, traitors. And Thus any of
them were by definition going back to a minimum of 10-25 years in
the Gulag.

{I refer you to the writings of tolstoy and solzhenitsyn....}

I present this amusing side discussion to show that the matter
of 'ethics' is rarely a clear bifurcation into 'good or evil.'

There is still some debate as to whether or not more Allied
POW's who were liberated by the RED ARMY would have come home
had those persons the Soviets wanted NOT been turned over to Stalin.

You will, of course, concede out of hand that returning White Guard
elements that had been living outside of the USSR after the civil war
was a MOST disgraceful act on the part of the Allies. It was in this
way that Stalin was able to liquidate key elements of the White Guard
opposition to Stalinism....


ciao
drieux

ps: while we are off down this way, need we discuss those germans
who as members of the wehrmacht died in the USSR into the fifties????



-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion