The World's #1 Russian, Ukrainian & Eastern European Discussion & Information Forum - RUA!

This Is the Premier Discussion Forum on the Net for Information and Discussion about Russia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Discuss Culture, Politics, Travelling, Language, International Relationships and More. Chat with Travellers, Locals, Residents and Expats. Ask and Answer Questions about Travel, Culture, Relationships, Applying for Visas, Translators, Interpreters, and More. Give Advice, Read Trip Reports, Share Experiences and Make Friends.

Author Topic: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?  (Read 1025 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Slumba

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • 10:27 AM
  • Status: Just Looking
  • Trips: 1-5
https://aussiesta.wordpress.com/2017/07/30/winning-the-battle-of-stalingrad-with-biological-warfare/

Admittedly a "conspiracy theory" but thought-provoking.  Stalin had used chemical warfare previously, after all...

Anchors Rewoven

Offline Confederate

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7357
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Dating
  • Trips: 1-5
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2018, 01:39:09 PM »
https://aussiesta.wordpress.com/2017/07/30/winning-the-battle-of-stalingrad-with-biological-warfare/

Admittedly a "conspiracy theory" but thought-provoking.  Stalin had used chemical warfare previously, after all...

Did Stalin use chemical weapons against the Germans during the battle of Stalingrad?  Probably. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion

Did Hitler violate the agreement he had with Stalin and invade a country he didn't belong in? Obviously so.

Don't invade other countries which don't belong to you and bad things won't happen to your soldiers.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. P. J. O'Rourke

Online rosco

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3447
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Married
  • Trips: 10-20
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2018, 04:41:07 AM »
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.


Online andrewfi

  • Supporting Member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17551
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Articles About Almost Anything!
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2018, 07:01:14 AM »
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.

Who did such a heinous thing?
...everything ends always well; if it’s still bad, then it’s not the end!

Online rosco

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3447
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Married
  • Trips: 10-20
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2018, 08:02:08 AM »
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.

Who did such a heinous thing?

 :biggrin:

Online yankee

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouses Country: Russia
  • Status: Married
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2018, 10:35:47 AM »
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.

just a very rough calculation.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki 130,000 killed.  WWII 50 million??  130,000 was just a drop in the bucket.  about 0.25%  ???
What is worse than not being able to get what you don't even want?

Offline Jerash

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 680
  • Country: ru
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Dating
  • Trips: Resident
Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2018, 11:01:23 AM »
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.

just a very rough calculation.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki 130,000 killed.  WWII 50 million??  130,000 was just a drop in the bucket.  about 0.25%  ???

It’s hard not to admire the audacity of attempting to justify your country’s nuclear bomb drops into civilian areas just to see if their new toys worked.

But, this toll was the result of two strikes, on one nation, whereas the larger figure you cite was the result of total war over a 6 year period in many countries.

Online rosco

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3447
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Married
  • Trips: 10-20
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2018, 12:03:02 PM »
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.

just a very rough calculation.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki 130,000 killed.  WWII 50 million??  130,000 was just a drop in the bucket.  about 0.25%  ???

I had wondered if anyone was going to try and glorify it. It was a truly horrific thing to do and had a non allied country dropped them on the west, the portrayal would be night and day.

Online yankee

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouses Country: Russia
  • Status: Married
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2018, 01:05:16 PM »
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.

just a very rough calculation.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki 130,000 killed.  WWII 50 million??  130,000 was just a drop in the bucket.  about 0.25%  ???

I had wondered if anyone was going to try and glorify it. It was a truly horrific thing to do and had a non allied country dropped them on the west, the portrayal would be night and day.

 glorify? Have you ever fought in a war?  there is no glory in war.
What is worse than not being able to get what you don't even want?

Offline Confederate

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7357
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Dating
  • Trips: 1-5
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2018, 01:47:13 PM »
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.

just a very rough calculation.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki 130,000 killed.  WWII 50 million??  130,000 was just a drop in the bucket.  about 0.25%  ???

I had wondered if anyone was going to try and glorify it. It was a truly horrific thing to do and had a non allied country dropped them on the west, the portrayal would be night and day.

More horrific would have been the casualties involved with invading Japan to bring the war to an end. He didn’t glorify anything, that’s just you trying to re-interpret reality so you can bad-mouth the USA. Not today please.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. P. J. O'Rourke

Offline Slumba

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • 10:27 AM
  • Status: Just Looking
  • Trips: 1-5
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2018, 02:02:52 PM »
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.

Your argument would be better if:

1) The USSR hadn't signed the Geneva Protocol on chemical and bio weapons in the 1920s, which specifically prohibited the weapons' use  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol (search for Russia)

2) It wasn't "whataboutism".

3) I can do whataboutism, too: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/untold-story-vengeful-japanese-attack-doolittle-raid-180955001/
Anchors Rewoven

Online rosco

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3447
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Married
  • Trips: 10-20
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2018, 03:28:56 PM »
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.

My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.

Carry on.

Offline Confederate

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7357
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Dating
  • Trips: 1-5
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2018, 04:01:29 PM »
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.

My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.

Carry on.

It’s a normal reaction when Russians talk about sending couple million German civilians to Siberia and starving them to death. I’ve heard some Russians real proud that hundreds of thousands of German babies born in Germany at the end of WWII have Russian paternity due to a million German women being raped in Berlin and surrounding areas, some victory party.

Eisenhower starved at least a million German soldiers at wars end. Then there are the horrific firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden, a more horrific way to die if there ever was as opposed to an instant death.

War is hell and to be blunt the Japanese brought it upon themselves when they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Japanese soldiers committed some horrific atrocities against the Chinese and Japanese scientists conducted horrific medical experiments.

We didn’t fight to lose back then and the damn media was totally controlled by the government.

Carry on.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/aladinsmiraclelamp.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/review-of-gruesome-harvest-the-allied-attempt-to-exterminate-germany-after-1945′/amp/
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. P. J. O'Rourke

Online AvHdB

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11357
  • Country: nl
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouses Country: Ukraine, Kiev
  • Status: Married
  • Trips: 20+
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2018, 05:29:15 PM »
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.
“If you aren't in over your head, how do you know how tall you are?” T.S. Eliot

Offline Slumba

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • 10:27 AM
  • Status: Just Looking
  • Trips: 1-5
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2018, 10:47:16 PM »
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.

My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.

Carry on.

I should have been more succinct, in that what I should have pointed out is that I was dealing with the narrow question of whether Stalingrad was defended by using CBW agents. I wasn't intending to get into "what are the limits of morality in war" which is a separate discussion.
Anchors Rewoven

Online rosco

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3447
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Married
  • Trips: 10-20
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2018, 01:47:59 AM »
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.

Why, are you really that precious?

Online rosco

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3447
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Married
  • Trips: 10-20
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2018, 01:49:47 AM »
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.

My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.

Carry on.

I should have been more succinct, in that what I should have pointed out is that I was dealing with the narrow question of whether Stalingrad was defended by using CBW agents. I wasn't intending to get into "what are the limits of morality in war" which is a separate discussion.

Fair enough but I was only giving some context as to what was considered acceptable at that time.

Online rosco

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3447
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Married
  • Trips: 10-20
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2018, 02:02:59 AM »
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.

My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.

Carry on.

It’s a normal reaction when Russians talk about sending couple million German civilians to Siberia and starving them to death. I’ve heard some Russians real proud that hundreds of thousands of German babies born in Germany at the end of WWII have Russian paternity due to a million German women being raped in Berlin and surrounding areas, some victory party.

Eisenhower starved at least a million German soldiers at wars end. Then there are the horrific firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden, a more horrific way to die if there ever was as opposed to an instant death.

War is hell and to be blunt the Japanese brought it upon themselves when they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Japanese soldiers committed some horrific atrocities against the Chinese and Japanese scientists conducted horrific medical experiments.

We didn’t fight to lose back then and the damn media was totally controlled by the government.

Carry on.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/aladinsmiraclelamp.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/review-of-gruesome-harvest-the-allied-attempt-to-exterminate-germany-after-1945′/amp/

And I agree, war is hell and the Japs did some pretty horrific things.....which they have since apologised for. All forgotten absolutely not but acknowledged none the less. But my point wasn’t about the Japs, it’s the US attitude even today.

Just read this thread and none of you put the hand up and admit it was horrific. Instead murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children is still justified to this day because of Jap scientists and Japan attacking a military target during war.

Not sure you’ll ever really get my point but then again, that’s kinda the point I was making. The Brits carried out many a barbaric act over time, many of them truly horrific. Was it nessesary? Perhaps considering it got the job done but we can all admit today that murdering civilians to win a war is never justified.

Offline Confederate

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7357
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Dating
  • Trips: 1-5
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2018, 03:01:16 AM »
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.

My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.

Carry on.

It’s a normal reaction when Russians talk about sending couple million German civilians to Siberia and starving them to death. I’ve heard some Russians real proud that hundreds of thousands of German babies born in Germany at the end of WWII have Russian paternity due to a million German women being raped in Berlin and surrounding areas, some victory party.

Eisenhower starved at least a million German soldiers at wars end. Then there are the horrific firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden, a more horrific way to die if there ever was as opposed to an instant death.

War is hell and to be blunt the Japanese brought it upon themselves when they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Japanese soldiers committed some horrific atrocities against the Chinese and Japanese scientists conducted horrific medical experiments.

We didn’t fight to lose back then and the damn media was totally controlled by the government.

Carry on.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/aladinsmiraclelamp.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/review-of-gruesome-harvest-the-allied-attempt-to-exterminate-germany-after-1945′/amp/

And I agree, war is hell and the Japs did some pretty horrific things.....which they have since apologised for. All forgotten absolutely not but acknowledged none the less. But my point wasn’t about the Japs, it’s the US attitude even today.

Just read this thread and none of you put the hand up and admit it was horrific. Instead murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children is still justified to this day because of Jap scientists and Japan attacking a military target during war.

Not sure you’ll ever really get my point but then again, that’s kinda the point I was making. The Brits carried out many a barbaric act over time, many of them truly horrific. Was it nessesary? Perhaps considering it got the job done but we can all admit today that murdering civilians to win a war is never justified.

Yes we killed some Japanese civilians in order to quickly end a brutal war. For a guy who isn’t normally PC you’re being remarkably sensitive about this.

You neglected to mention the primary reason the decision was made to do it, which was to reduce casualties. You act as if that wasn’t done and the alternative, a full-scale invasion would have been better.

Conservative estimates are that 5 to 10 million Japanese would have died in an invasion. Far more than two cities would have been left shouldering. A tough decision but one ultimately of mercy.

The 800 lb. gorilla you are ignoring is the Japanese soldier did not like to surrender. They were fanatical in their belief of superiority. We made the right choice. We ended that war quickly.

I notice you were silent about how German civilians were treated thus proving my point. They deserved it, right? Credible estimates are that a total of about 9.5 million Germans were deliberately starved after the war ended. 

https://www.quora.com/What-would-have-happened-if-the-US-had-decided-to-invade-Japan-with-full-military-might-instead-of-dropping-atomic-bombs-on-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. P. J. O'Rourke

Online AvHdB

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11357
  • Country: nl
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouses Country: Ukraine, Kiev
  • Status: Married
  • Trips: 20+
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2018, 04:42:00 AM »
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.

Why, are you really that precious?

No, I am just not an insensitive dolt.

Credible estimates are that a total of about 9.5 million Germans were deliberately starved after the war ended. 


Can you give a link to support this statement?
“If you aren't in over your head, how do you know how tall you are?” T.S. Eliot

Online rosco

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3447
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Married
  • Trips: 10-20
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2018, 05:55:36 AM »
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.

Why, are you really that precious?

No, I am just not an insensitive dolt.

An insensitive dolt?  :ROFL:

Forgive me but this is a discussion forum and a bit like the world series, the rest of the world doesn't celebrate your national day.

If discussions about the war on a forum offend you on your special day, then maybe the real world isn't for you?

Online yankee

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouses Country: Russia
  • Status: Married
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2018, 05:57:38 AM »
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.

Why, are you really that precious?

No, I am just not an insensitive dolt.

Credible estimates are that a total of about 9.5 million Germans were deliberately starved after the war ended. 


Can you give a link to support this statement?



There are many. try searching "Germans deliberately starved after the war ended.  "
What is worse than not being able to get what you don't even want?

Online shakespear

  • Supporting Member
  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8043
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Just Looking
  • Trips: 20+
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2018, 07:46:52 AM »
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians.

If they were working in factories that produced military goods and staples to support the Japanese war effort are they still considered "innocent"?
"If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun" - Katharine Hepburn

Online rosco

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3447
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Married
  • Trips: 10-20
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2018, 07:56:06 AM »
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians.

If they were working in factories that produced military goods and staples to support the Japanese war effort are they still considered "innocent"?

I believe workers are different from front line troops but bombing factories which produce vital supplies during war time is fare game. Yes it's collateral but for me, it's totally different than dropping nukes on heavily populated zones for the shock factor.

Wiping out a city because some of the population worked in the supply line is going too far, it has to be more focused if you want to keep the moral high ground.

At least that's my opinion.

Offline Confederate

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7357
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Dating
  • Trips: 1-5
Re: Stalingrad: Did the Russians use Biological Warfare Agents?
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2018, 08:40:40 AM »
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.

Why, are you really that precious?

No, I am just not an insensitive dolt.

Credible estimates are that a total of about 9.5 million Germans were deliberately starved after the war ended. 


Can you give a link to support this statement?



There are many. try searching "Germans deliberately starved after the war ended.  "

Crimes and Mercies by James Bacque was my source.

https://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Mercies-German-Civilians-Occupation/dp/0889225672

Also for my opinion that Eisenhower deliberately starved German POW’s by the same author is Other Losses.

https://www.amazon.com/Other-Losses-Investigation-Prisoners-Americans/dp/0889226652
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. P. J. O'Rourke