What was Germany realistically to do with so many soviet pows...

better not cut yourself on that edge op

ppl are not machines
especially not if you dont conquer them with the intention of eradication
czechs worked fine for the reich (despite the meme resistance and sabotage)

Better not lose the war, then.

That's because the Czech did not have the same situation or hostility against Germany as the Soviets did. Soviet POWs worked just fine in Finland and were pretty willing to surrender, what with the Finns not being evil fascists seeking to exterminate all Slavic peoples and them fighting a defensive war.

There is no section in either the Geneva or Hague conventions that say 'ignore all this if the other guy is not also a signatory".

Better not fucking lose the war, then.

PRO TIP: Germans didnt starve concentration people either until towards the end of the war.

Geneva convention revolves around reciprocity between two signatories. Germans rationalized their bullshit by saying the Soviets weren't beholden to it and would act 100x worse than they were acting.

>ppl are not machines
but Russians are not people.

Everyone had a Russian back than. Came in handy.

what, i mean are you just trying to justify mass murder by starvation? Where do all these people come from, i mean, fuck, can you read that outloud to yourself without puking?

It's another Germany dindu nuffin thread. You're catching up to the Japanese.

>muh morals

lol

what does that even mean? are you too stupid to come up with a justification, so you just use stupid memes everywhere

Justification: the weak will fear the strong.

thats you justification of mass murder by starvation? how does that translate to it? by killing a shitton of people the rest will fear you, so they wont do something? what

The weak can't stop the strong from starving them to death, so they should fear the strong.

To the victor go the spoils.

>mass murdering russians is bad

Nothing personnel, kid.

i get that, but thats not a moral justification. thats a fact of it, they were most likely scared shitless. "the weak cant stop the strong from starving them to death" fucking an hero.

thats your moral justification of mass murder by starvation? care to elaborate (maybe dont, its probably gonna be something terrible about eugenics)

>thats not a moral justification
You do not need a moral justification. The weak should fear the strong.

aww you guys....

my question was, how would you justify mass murder by starvation, and you keep talking about "Weak shoould fear the strong" hope you wont stop citing mein kampf

>justify
There's no need to. Why would you bother with that?

How do you justify a lion tearing a gazelle to shreds? The lion was hungry and the gazelle was weak.

How do you justify Germans mass slaughtering Russians? Germans wanted their land and the russians couldn't defend it.

How do you justify the mass rape of Berlin? The Germans couldn't defend themselves against the Russians.

Might makes right.

because thats how my morality is wired, i dont act to act, i need a reason.
life isnt just a rule of nature dude, all those extepc for that lion are unjustifiable, bacause none of those happen for survival, but out of fucking human depravity

Bullets are not something to waste in a war against the world. Why do you think the Wansee Conference occurred?

Personally I was wondering why The Germans weren't taking Jews, undesirables and Soviets out to the ocean and dumping them in.

>because thats how my morality is wired, i dont act to act, i need a reason.
Yeah and objective moral right or wrong are not things that exist. They're all dependent on the subjective view of the person thinking about them.

>life isnt just a rule of nature dude
Yes it is.

They did work in farms and factories and while there was some sabotage in the latter, their labor was clearly a net gain for the economy. Many POWs also worked as Hiwis for the Wehrmacht.

no its not, we humans, are above basic rules of nature, we developed states, societies and so.
True, there is no objective moral right, but there is such thing as acting agains all the "moral standards" of the time. i cant belive i have to talk to you about something so clear, as tho i needed to deffend my point of view...why are you deffending those human depravities (if you jsut like to philosophically question shit, there are better places and topics)

>itt

>no its not, we humans, are above basic rules of nature, we developed states, societies and so.
All according to the rules of nature.
>why are you deffending those human depravities
Why wouldn't I? What does it matter to me if I'm challenging or outright denying our standing moral standards anonymously? Doing this causes me no harm, so I can freely state my disregard for the lives of people.

...

...

so rules of nature are actually not basic rules of nature, but rather anything involving any living thing according to you?

fair enough, you can say whatever you want online, and its not like Veeky Forums has any high standards for posting.

you are defending this. but yeah, point stands, this is Veeky Forums, go wild if you so desire.

Rules of nature are simply reality. There is no reason to think we're somehow above reality with some kind of destiny manifest that we're bound to rise above everything else on Earth.

"this is Veeky Forums" is not an argument.

rules of nature is implied as rules among animals where indeed strong will prey on the weak, but in a developed society no such thing is happeng, nor should it be happening.

that was not an argument, i was agreeing with you you idiot. there is no reason for you to follow any moral standards on an anonymous board.

>rules of nature is implied as rules among animals where indeed strong will prey on the weak, but in a developed society no such thing is happeng
Yeah, no such thing's happening. Not at all. Mankind totally didn't dominate the rest of the weaker species and rise up to rule this Earth. Nope.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_animal_farming

fair, i was talking among humans tho (and in developed societies, ideally) so no thirds world wars please.

Really, mate? No preying on the weak to be found anywhere?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
You do realise that animals don't murder their own packmates either, don't you?

did you really have to link wikipedia article "war", maybe its a new meme, i dont really follow this crap anymore.
Wrong, some do, but thats not important, i was talking about societies as they are, not in war, its true that war happens, and thats where the original OP comes in, how do you justify war, if you normally act upon cerain moral values. or rather, how do you let those mass murders by starvation be rationalized.

You literally don't justify it. You don't have to. The world operates, by the "rules of nature". The strong do what their power allows them to do and that's it. There is no justification necessary.

and so neither should germany blame the soviets for what they did with their nazi pow.

>if you normally act upon cerain moral values
People don't, or they only apply those to their own kind, since rules of nature and all.

how do you define "own kind" are you talking tribes? nations? ideas?
"you dont have to" is a shitty argument in face of genocide. The strong do what they can because they can. Okay, but now consider not everyone acts upon basic "rules of nature", but insted tries to negate (as in Hegel kinda "negate") the situation better, more ideal.

>how do you define "own kind" are you talking tribes? nations? ideas?
Your own in-group, whatever it is. Doesn't matter.

>"you dont have to" is a shitty argument in face of genocide
No it's not.
>The strong do what they can because they can.
Yes. This is reality.
>Okay, but now consider not everyone acts upon basic "rules of nature",
Does not matter one fucking bit. Not everyone survives genocide either.
>but insted tries to negate (as in Hegel kinda "negate") the situation better, more ideal.
Except that one can only negate if he has power, if he is strong. The weak can't do anything except hope the strong don't use their power on the weak.

And now, in the world of globalisation, how far does that "in-group" reach.

you are so full of shit.
>No it's not.
yes it is

yeah, strong do what they can because they can ok.

how the hell am i suppose to take the "not everyone survies genocide bit" explain.

You do not understand what i meant by "negate" it means to change for the better, or "more perfect. not to just change and control.

>And now, in the world of globalisation, how far does that "in-group" reach.
Nations and ethnic groups.

The same stuff they did for the 2,000,000+ French PoWs they interned at the close of Fall Rot; put them to work in agricultural or mining work in Germany proper. Somehow, they managed to do that without mass slaughter, having a less than 4% mortality rate as opposed to the Soviet prisoners of whom about 57% died.

So your premise

> Feeding them and providing them shelter would cause an unreasonable strain on their logistics and resources.

Is fundamentally flawed. They killed them because they wanted to kill them, not out of some necessity.

>yes it is
Then make an argument, you infantile buffoon. You cannot simply claim that something is because say so.
>You do not understand what i meant by "negate" it means to change for the better, or "more perfect. not to just change and control.
Better is subjective and to change something to whatever ends requires power.

thats quite definite, is it how it will end, or do you imagine whole world standind as a one?
i was making fun of you just saying "no its not"

can you formate that last sentence a little better please? (unless you are quoting hegel, in which case, fuck off, i am too tired for that shit)

>thats quite definite, is it how it will end, or do you imagine whole world standind as a one?
As I said, it doesn't matter.

I'm not quoting anyone.
What people consider to be better is completely subjective. What a Nazi thinks is better is worse for the Soviet and what a Soviet thinks is better is worse for the Nazi.

>to change something to whatever ends requires power.
Everything requires power. Only the strong can act as they see fit and only other powers can stop powers.

of course it does, how big your tribe is, matters in a succes, and advances.

yeah, i agree, but we got a bit off it, i was in the beggining just saying that in my mind, you cant justify mass murder, and none of the thing you said are in any way changing my mind, (bacuse i am not as broad scale kind of guy as you)

Which does not matter for this discussion.

If you consider Slavs to be evil anti-human savages whose destruction benefits the entire world, then you could very easily justify the killing of Soviet POWs.

A perceived necessity is the same thing as an actual necessity when you are evaluating past human behaviors.

i dont consider them to be anit-human.

i know, its just that i got derailed again, and the one i got stuck in, would have no conclusion.

to calrify, germans thought of them like that, i know, but still. thats such a hypothetical shit, i really dont thing i wanna keep talking about it with any of you, really "very easily justify" by their own perceived view on realitty, in no way does that impy the morality i was talking about before, peace.

Except there's been no evidence offered that it was a perceived necessity; unless you count the ideological "necessity" to purge the world of subhumans one. But that certainly doesn't seem to be what the OP is going for, given how he justifies the killing and asks what else could they do.

Present evidence that they 'just wanted to kill them' then. Actions in war aren't taken for pleasure.

>unless you count the ideological "necessity" to purge the world of subhumans one
If someone in power in the Nazi party deemed this necessary and ordered his men to do it, then, as far as they were concerned, it was necessary.

>Present evidence that they 'just wanted to kill them' then. Actions in war aren't taken for pleasure.

Soviet PoW death rates were literally an order of magnitude higher than death rates for 'Western' PoWs such as French, Belgians, British Commonwealth, and later American PoWs. The argument that the number of PoWs overwhelmed the logistical system of the Germans does not seem to work, given that the highest estimate of Barbarossa's PoW haul is a bit less than double what they got when France surrendered, and that still resulted in a death rate of about 12 times as much.

>If someone in power in the Nazi party deemed this necessary and ordered his men to do it, then, as far as they were concerned, it was necessary.

At that point, there is no distinction between "necessary" and simply wanting to do something. If your entire definition of necessity is that someone deems something necessary and then acts on that, or gets another to act on his behalf, then every action ever taken by anyone is necessary.

Furthermore, it opens the door to all kinds of bizarre faulty justifications that people make for their actions after the fact.

>Well officer, it was absolutely necessary to gun down that old lady and the mom across the street. They saw me flee the scene with those jewels I stole from the shop. It would be wrong to charge me with murder.

Again, this has nothing to do with the OP's line of argument, which I'll re-quote for you.

>What was Germany realistically to do with so many soviet pows? Feeding them and providing them shelter would cause an unreasonable strain on their logistics and resources. It's not like the jews where most of them were unfit people that could barely work. These guys could be a major pain in the ass if they revolted.

Fuck the OP, I'm talking to you.
I'm trying to address a problem in how you are defining necessity.
Would you mind spelling it out for me in a way that isn't dependent upon the observations of an intelligent entity?

>killing pows is unlawful

What kind of statement is that?

What does that even mean?

Unlawlful? Russia didn't sign the conventions. They had no law to break.

I would have attempted to militarize them against Stalin after some indoctrination and propaganda.

Necessity can most easily and broadly be defined as a replacement for inevitability in terms of an action. An action or consequence is necessary when there are no other alternatives. In regards to PoW massacring by the Germans in WW2, it is clearly not necessary, because they had other sub-sets of PoWs whom they did not massacre.

Also, given that my initial response was to the OP, and you decided to butt in, I feel more than justified in relating his opinions to the conversation; He was trying to make a moral argument, and I rebutted it. You then tried to completely redirect the conversation to one of why certain historical figures did what they did and not another set of actions, which had absolutely nothing to do with the post I made back in So I have to ask, what's your actual motivation for this? Are you so hooked into your crusade to precisely define "necessity" that you need to accost anyone and everyone who tangentially approaches the subject?

protip video evidence proves you wrong

I'm just seeing a lot of holes in the way you are think about things is all. I'm trying to help you. If that definition is satisfactory to you, good, but I would advise you to put more thought into it.
I can tell by your attitude that discussing this further would be unproductive, so I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

>The argument that the number of PoWs overwhelmed the logistical system of the Germans does not seem to work, given that the highest estimate of Barbarossa's PoW haul is a bit less than double what they got when France surrendered, and that still resulted in a death rate of about 12 times as much.

France was a short and successful campaign during good weather with good road and rail networks whereas during late Barbarossa German logistics were so strained that their own soldiers hungered. It's not really comparable. I might write more about it in a few hours

>25/4
There's 25 months on Canadian years?

And yet in both cases, they managed to transfer said PoWs to camps well behind the lines without issue. Remember, the bulk of the Soviet casualties were in the first six weeks of Barbarossa, in what's now Poland, Lithuania, and the western sections of the Ukraine, not near Moscow at the end of the supply tether. Doubly so for the PoW vis a vis killed and wounded, as the whole "one forward protruding line with little backup on the border" defense plan is just asking to get encircled and yield a lot of prisoners.

It is very much comparable.

I didn't realize you posted on Veeky Forums, David Irving.

We use metric time and dates.

I think I get it, every month has 15 days, that's metric, right? Damn, you rest-of-the-worlders have really complicated methods of measuring things, why can't you all use our much easier systems.

>I didn't realize you posted on Veeky Forums, David Irving.
Oh, do you think I was defending the actions of the Germans? Because that would be incorrect. They made a lot of very bad calls. I was attempting to guide you towards a better understanding of why they made them.

...

>. I was attempting to guide you towards a better understanding of why they made them.

Really? Because that's far from evident in the posts you made to respond to me. After all, since your definition of "necessity" seems to be

>Someone thought it was needed for some goal and had the ability to act on it, possibly by proxy

you might have an internally consistent definition there, but hardly one that explains anything, since it can equally apply to any action undertaken by anyone, right down to the diagnosed schizophrenic who shits his pants because he thinks it blocks the mind control rays from the Denebian aliens.

So yes, the possibility that you're trying to defend the Germans by deflecting blame away from them seems orders of magnitudes higher than you trying to explain why they acted the way they did.

What's problematic here is Germans crying about rapes and what not. They are lucky they didn't exterminate those arrogant delusional fucks after the war.

In order for you to understand why the schizophrenic man is shitting his pants, you must understand that he thinks it will stop the mind control rays. Assuming he just thinks it is fun is incorrect. Now, that doesn't mean he is right, but we aren't discussing if he is right. We are discussing why he did it.
I never gave you my definition of necessity, because you don't want it. Even if I did, it would do nothing but bias you against that opinion because you are already hostile to me for some reason. I guess you assume I am a Nazi sympathizer, which is partially true as I try to be sympathetic to all humans. That doesn't mean I think their way of going about things is the best way. I'm not apologizing for them.

>In order for you to understand why the schizophrenic man is shitting his pants, you must understand that he thinks it will stop the mind control rays

Not really, no. To understand why he shits his pants, you only really need the delusion that it will stop mind control rays, not to analyze that all the way back to first causes.

>Assuming he just thinks it is fun is incorrect.

But nobody is assuming that, and your comment is a non-sequitur.

> Now, that doesn't mean he is right, but we aren't discussing if he is right. We are discussing why he did it.

And to roll that back around to the discussion as to why the Nazis killed so many Slavic PoWs, far in excess of their numbers of other PoWs, the answer seems clear; they were ideologically driven to remove such "Untermenschen" and resettle their lands with ethnic Germans. Going back to further reasons why they had such ideological imperatives isn't necessary to understand the end-step.

>I never gave you my definition of necessity, because you don't want it.

Actually, I would, even though I think you're being dishonest. It would be interesting to see, and of course, make this something of a fairer argument, given that I've laid out my positions quite explicitly.

> Even if I did, it would do nothing but bias you against that opinion because you are already hostile to me for some reason.

Here we are, posting in a thread that OP explicitly tries to justify Nazi actions on the basis of wartime necessity, as to how they did not have the logistical capabilities to adequately care for the number of prisoners they took and to the risk of a hypothetical prisoner revolt. That is an argument very much grounded in a specific set of facts and circumstances, and it's not too hard to point out how they don't really fit, and thus, by extension, that OP's argument is false because at the very least it's based on some false premises.

Then you come along and start posting about the meaning of "necessity", and making bizarre assumptions about my argument, such as they were killing millions of people "just for fun". For someone to take diction and formal argumentation so seriously, you did an absolutely terrible job of actually reading what I wrote and applying it to the subject at hand. You've also stated directly once, and implied 2 more times, that you think arguing with me is a waste of time because I'm not taking what you say seriously, and won't be responding to me further, and yet here you are, continually responding.

That makes it clear that you have some sort of ideological axe to grind. Given that this is after all a nazi dindu nuffin thread, it seems far more likely that you're trying to hide nazi wrondgoing behind some very noble sounding sentiments of argumentation, rather than you caring so much about formal arguments on a Tibetan basket weaving forum.

But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and maybe you are very much about demonstrating how necessity is indivisible from regular motivation; in which case, why should my personal doubts about your bona fides trouble you? You can make your point, and I'll splutter and rage about how you're really a nazi, and everyone can see how reasonable you're being.