I will use this thread to post some of my research about the Allied occupation of Germany, specifically, the effects of the Allied denazification program upon German culture.

"A major factor in the construction of an image of the United States by the German population in the years 1945-9 was the overwhelming presence of the occupying forces in the American zone. By 1946, most of the combat troops had been replaced by 'untrained, undisciplined and unmotivated soldiery of below-average intelligence'. As a result, numbers of German civilians suffered physically at the hands of belligerent, often drunken GIs, not only in Marburg where conscripts were processed, but also in several Bavarian cities. Even American women in the armed forces carried flags at night to prevent molestation. As Gimbel's exhaustive study of Marburg shows, not only were unprovoked attacks perpetrated, but watches, radios, furniture, and cameras were appropriated, personal property was looted or burned, and requisitioning of accomodation was carried out with little tact or sensitivity. The peace of the German countryside was regularly disturbed by hunting with spotlights and fishing with hand grenades, a modern version of frontier ways, evident also in the wearing of pistols cowboy-fashion. It is small wonder that Marburgers (and other German citizens) became disillusioned and even hostile as the uglier features of the Military Occupation were manifested."

Ralph Willett, The Americanization of Germany, 1945-1949 (New York: Routledge, 1989), pp.1-2

Do you believe in that thesis presented by James Bacque, that Yanks intentionally starved huge numbers of German POWs to death, Fade?


Petr

I once checked out his book but never got around to reading it. I would have to research the matter before taking a position on the issue.

Do you believe in that thesis presented by James Bacque, that Yanks intentionally starved huge numbers of German POWs to death, Fade?


Petr

It's not a "thesis", it's a fact. Anyone who was a child back then could tell you storys about the hunger, how they searched for edible things in the occupants garbage cans, how they stole coal from the railways so they wouldnt freeze to death during the winter. (The winter 45/46 was the most horrible).

Are you old enough to have personal experiences about this, Brandt?


Petr

And the experiences of those occupied by germany , you have yet to voice any consideration for Russians who in the first instacne would have been supportive of German troops only to be reduced to starvation by the occupation policy of the German administration.
The Dutch in 44/45 , the Channel Islanders , the French you ignore many Dr. Brandt.
Life in pst war Germany might have been hard but mass starvation ?
Hardly in the Allied interest ?
Undiciplined soldiers could well have been the case.

Cerberus, what is your mother tongue?

Your English spelling looks awful.


Petr

A warning from history . . .

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3755

One of my grandfather starved in one of these Rhine Camps and he told me about the massive dying of hunger and thirst there. No doubt in my mind about it as a fact. If that was done on purpose or due to some freak accident is another matter I´m not informed enough about.

Petr my keyboard skills are ****e , sorry :o

I hope it's not physical deformity or anything?


Petr

Are you old enough to have personal experiences about this, Brandt?


Petr


No, but my Grandmother was and I believe her word... and that of every other person who had to endure that time.

I hope it's not physical deformity or anything?


Petr

No, it's rather mental one. :D

Which leaves you Dr. Brandt with no excuse at all. :p

And the experiences of those occupied by germany , you have yet to voice any consideration for Russians who in the first instacne would have been supportive of German troops only to be reduced to starvation by the occupation policy of the German administration.
The Dutch in 44/45 , the Channel Islanders , the French you ignore many Dr. Brandt.
Life in pst war Germany might have been hard but mass starvation ?
Hardly in the Allied interest ?
Undiciplined soldiers could well have been the case.
You're mistaken, Cerberus. The caloric content in rations for the Dutch under the Germans was much higher than that of the Germans under the Allied occupation. Furthermore, accusations against the Germans re: food in occupied territories in wartime conveniently forget that a major cause of the shortages was the Allied blockade, which amounted to waging war on the civilian populace.

"Hardly in the Allied interest?" I don't know about that; genocide, as Harry Elmer Barnes learned at some point, was a main objective of the war, though unbeknownst to many who participated in the slaughter.

See Victor Gollancz' book I Darkest Germany for some harrowing pictures.

Literally millions died of hunger, cold, and disease in the first years after the cessation of fighting. Many more died after the war than died during it--a total approaching 10 milion, counting the ethnic Germans who were butchered, starved, or frozen to death on their way back to the Reich.

And the death-camps for postwar Germans were real.

It's something you don't want to read about for very long.

Frankly, 10 million deaths sounds too much - such a number should be clearly seen in population statistics.

Perhaps you could provide some sort of before-and-after German population statistics from years, say, 1938 and 1950?

Gollancz should be able to provide them, if he expects anyone to take such numbers seriously.


Even Michael A. Hoffman, whom you can't exactly accuse of belittling German sufferings, gives much smaller figures:

"When the post-war expulsions and pogroms were over, two million German civilians were dead and fourteen million driven from their ancestral lands in one of the greatest acts of population-transfer in modern history."

http://www.hoffman-info.com/wash.html


Now I don't believe that somehow eight million more Germans (times two the population of Finland back then!) managed to die without anyone noticing it - even if Bacque's thesis would happen to be correct.


Petr

:: Frankly, 10 million deaths sounds too much - such a number should be clearly seen in population statistics.

I am usually sceptical of atrocity stories, as demagogues like to often blow such incidents out of proportion to advance an ideologically motivated political agenda. Ten million sounds a bit rich. That is a ****load of people. If there is evidence of this, then I have yet to see it. There were persecutions after the war, but I doubt they were of that magnitude.

such a number should be clearly seen in population statistics. Yup.

Perhaps you could provide some sort of before-and-after German population statistics from years, say, 1938 and 1950?
Is there anywhere on the web I can get such statistics?

Gollancz should be able to provide them, if he expects anyone to take such numbers seriouslyHis book,written immediately after the war, wasn't concerned with statistics, Germany was total chaos population-wise, what with the influx of 15 million refugees from the East and other disruptions. His has descriptions and photos--it was written for the urgent purpose of keeping even more Germans from starving to death by alerting the world to the silent genocide that was going on under the rubric of "Liberation".

You'd be surprised how easy it is to kill huge numbers by starvation. Think of the Ukrainians in the thirties. Of course in Germany the ironies were thick, with the victors living it up and building new officers' clubs, but forbidden to feed the Germans; meanwhile the occupiers had confiscated a year and a half's worth of food the Germans had carefully put aside, and disposed of it elsewhere.

In things I've read which were written at the time, Americans over there didn't know how bad it was, of course. And what they did know was rationalized, as usual, by how badly the Germans themselves had allegedly behaved. In this case, "We're giving them twice as much as they gave (whatever occupied people--often the Dutch, of course).

First of all they were dead wrong--they were giving the Germans much less than the Germans had allowed the Dutch, with a war on and a blockade in place. Nor did they know that the Germans themselves had suffered similar privations during the war--it wasn't just the occupied territories. Now massive aid was going to the rest of Europe but, as a punitive measure, none to Germany.

If it hadn't been for the activism of Gollancz (who was Jewish, and whom Ezra Pound had previously described as violently anti-German), the heroic work of Herbert Hoover, and the generosity of the American and Canadian people, the death toll would have been much higher still.

Baque's Crimes and Mercies will have figures--I'll get hold of it again.

- "His book,written immediately after the war, wasn't concerned with statistics, ..."

Can you give me ANY figures (more detailed than 10 mil) from that Gollancz book to evaluate?


- "You'd be surprised how easy it is to kill huge numbers by starvation."


I know how easy it can be. BUT, the Ukrainian famine happened behind the Iron Curtain, and even then many rumors went out, requiring the Soviet authorities to call their Western symphatizers in to hush the thing up.

This alleged post-war mass famine took place in the middle of the civilized Europe, and say what you will, under governments that were not as totalitarian as the Soviet government.

Without some clear statistical evidence, I will not believe that there was a famine in the (Western-controlled) Germany that took millions of lives a la Ukraine.


Petr

This alleged post-war mass famine took place in the middle of the civilized Europe, and say what you will, under governments that were not as totalitarian as the Soviet government.

That's a laugh. The Allied occupation government was as totalitarian as you can get. It's really impressive that not even you and some others on this board were aware of the magnitude of the postwar starvation.

Gollancz does give numbers, though they're they're from particular areas, not overall; at some point I may scan in a few pages--I've got a lot to do today.

I've requested Crimes and Mercies from the library, and when I get it I'll post the information and sources Bacques gives.

Though it's hard to believe, given the huge numbers of unacknowledged and unmourned-by-the-larger-public deaths he alleges, he is quite conservative with his figures. I remember I looked at two copies of Other Losses, the more recent of which contained responses to doubts expressed about the figures in the first edition, and unless he's just lying up a storm (and since the alleged victims were not Jewish--i.e. money-makers, I don't see a motive) he demonstrated that he had actually understated the numbers of prisoners starved to death in Allied custody.

Meanwhile if anyone knows a website where I could get simple population statistics for Germany 1938 and 1950, I'll be glad to find and post them. I don't have much time to hunt around, as schoolwork calls.

Here's a review of Crimes and Mercies I noticed while I was looking for statistics on the web (in spite of saying I didn't have time). You'll notice the title says 7-8 million, but if you look in the article, adding up the three categories you get 9.4--9.9 million, depending which figure you choose for the Vertreibung deaths.

As I said, it appeared in Other Losses that Bacques was deliberately taking the low end in his estimates--so I suspect these figures are close enough, if a bit low. When I get the book in, we can look at where he got his figures.

Meanwhile, if anyone knows the German population in 1950 offhand, I know the 1939: about 80 million. So basically take the figure for 1950 and after subtracting 15 million for the increase from the postwar expulsions, then subtract the result from 80 million and you'll have a rough idea.

I must say I'm shocked to see ignorance of such a crucial fact as the unacknowledged genocide-by-starvation of the German population 1945-50.
It's one of the prime signs of the utter hypocrisy and inhumanity of the victors, and it's one reason why anyone who knows about their postwar behavior knows without a doubt that the "bad guys" won the war.

And that's even before you find out about the 2 million German women raped during that period.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rense.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.rense.com/general46/more.html




Mass Slaughter Of 7-8 Million
More Germans, 1945-1950
12-30-3


In 1997 James Bacque published his Crimes and Mercies, which showed that more than nine million Germans (mostly civilians) died as a result of Allied starvation and expulsion policies in the first five years after World War II. These deaths were not accidental, but were the result of deliberately genocidal policies instituted by Dwight Eisenhower and Henry Morgenthau. They began planning for this in 1944, before the extent of the atrocities of the death camps became known. (That more Germans did not starve to death or die of illness in the post-war years was due to the humanity of Herbert Hoover and others.) Awareness of this act of genocide has been suppressed for fifty years not only by the Allied governments but also by the German government.

James Bacque: Did the Allies Starve Millions of Germans?

Here is a review of James Bacque's Crimes and Mercies
By Eric Blair -

Crimes and Mercies: A Hidden Holocaust--Revealed

Chapter VIII of the book: History and Forgetting.

The book is available from Amazon US and also from Amazon UK, where a reviewer writes:

"Bacque's book is an amazing revelation of some of the worst crimes ever committed in this century - the fact that they were covered up for so long only makes it worse. After reading this book you will ask yourself who the 'good guys' really were. The truth is that there were no good guys - only amoral manipulators and criminals - on both sides. [Well, actually, as Bacque makes clear, there were some good guys: Herbert Hoover, Mackenzie King, Norman Robertson and Victor Gollancz among others.] This is the book the establishment does not want you to read - and with good reason! It tells of deliberate allied policy to 'reduce' the German population after the war by mass starvation. Well, they succeeded, by 5.7 million to be precise - this in addition to the 1.1 million starved prisoners of war, 2.5 - 3 million murdered ethnic German refugees from Eastern Europe and tens of thousands of civilian forced labourers killed from maltreatement in France. Bacque's other excellent book - Other Losses - gives more information about this hidden Holocaust. Order this book now and forget the lies your history teacher told you - remember that history is only the version as told by the winners."

The book been translated into German as Der geplante Tod and is available from amazon.de.

http://www.serendipity.li/hr.html#c&m



Disclaimer

Email This Article




MainPage
http://www.rense.com


This Site Served by TheHostPros

- "Meanwhile, if anyone knows the German population in 1950 offhand, I know the 1939: about 80 million."


I have to point out a VERY relevant detail - that this figure includes the German populations of Austria and Sudetenland, annexed in 1938. Together these areas had a population of about 11 million.


Here is a Hitler speech that dealt with the Spanish Civil War, (apparently from the year 1937), where he said that Germany proper had 68 million people back then.

"For here in Germany our 68 million people occupy the same area which in Russia would not support more than 5 million."

http://www.s93720555.onlinehome.us/history/witness_to_history/chapter_02.html


You calculations should notice this factor.



- "..after subtracting 15 million for the increase from the postwar expulsions.."

Most of these refugees were from those German areas that were annexed to Poland after the WW II. So they just moved INSIDE Germany, from the areas east to Oder-Neisse line to Western Germany.

Therefore, they cannot be accounted as an increase to the total.


Petr

I argued this point extensively on gnxp.com. For my trouble, fifty of my posts were erased by a shocked host, and other posters - from Hungary, Britian and all around Europe - simply would not believe what had happened. There was a lot of ridicule, a lot of accusations of me 'being a Nazi', and even some halfhearted argumentation, though I was finally banned before that could go too far.

They could not understand and would not believe what had happened. It seemed impossible to them - for the same reason it does to Petr - that the 'good guys' who are, after all, 'not totalitarian', were capable of such enormities. And of covering up the same.

This alleged post-war mass famine took place in the middle of the civilized Europe, and say what you will, under governments that were not as totalitarian as the Soviet government.

Alleged . . . say what you will . . . believe me when I say these crimes more than exceed 'the Holocaust'. When that frightful fiction finally collapses, and these actions are entered into the public record, the world will be a very different place than it is right now.

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/revcrimes.html

But it is probably on page 131 that we find the epicenter of the book, and its seismic thesis; it is here, in a little, statistical chart, that Bacque's findings may be seen in a single glance.



TOTALS OF DEATHS

Minimum Maximum

Expellees (1945-50) 2,100,000 6,000,000
Prisoners (1941-50) 1,500,000 2,000,000
Residents (1946-50) 5,700,000 5,700,000
_________ __________

Totals 9,300,000 13,700,000


"Expellees" refers to the 16,000,000 ethnic Germans who were driven from their ancestral homelands in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere in Europe, at war's end.

These included mostly women and children and elderly men who, with a few belongings in hand and running the gauntlet of deep, local animosity, set out upon the open road toward the rump state of Germany.

"Prisoners" are, of course, the German POWs, the subject of Bacque's first book.

"Residents" here refers to the German civilian population that survived the Second World War.

According to Bacque, given the extraordinarly harsh conditions imposed upon them by the Allies (i.e., the British, French, Soviets, and Americans), at least 9.3 million and possibly as many as 13.7 million Germans, had, by 1950, needlessly died as a result.

He writes: "This is many more Germans than died in battle, air raids and concentration camps during the war. Millions of these people slowly starved to death in front of the victors' eyes every day for years."


That's between 9 and 14 million postwar deaths. Are either of you (Petr and Fade) familiar with the Morgenthau plan? That will give intent to go along with all the dead bodies.

But it is the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., who is the arch-villain of the piece, the one who hatched the serpent's egg: the vicious, vengeful Morgenthau Plan for the post-war "pastoralization" (read: the de-industrialization and abject subjugation) of the German people.

Devised, "cancelled," then implemented via the punitive directive JCS/1067, the Morgenthau Plan wreaked havoc on the German economy and, by extension, the fragile European economy.

Because of it, post-war reconstruction in Germany was delayed until late 1948; by which time millions of German civilians had already perished.

For your information, Fade, this would be the same Morgenthau from that politically 'naive' tribe who had no influence on American presidents starting with Wilson. Or at least not 'hegemonic' control. You should look into Patton's diaries to see how deep the rot ran.

Bacque's determination to shine a hard light on some long-hidden and neglected truths regarding the Western Allies and their often inglorious actions during and after World War Two will, as sure as night follows day, provoke the animus of the coterie of mythologists who have dined out on simplistic notions of Allied heroism and decency--and exclusively German villainy--for the past half-century.

I'm shocked you haven't heard more about this, Fade. From your endless spouting on other threads, you seem like someone whose mind is glutted with innumerable court historians' take on the era.

Surely they did not overlook the deliberate death of ten million people?

If so, you might consider acquiring a more skeptical stance towards what the court is telling you. Or, you might just wait a few months, until your roving ideology has taken you someplace completely different.

WM

Patton was explicit about what occurred: while the Allies made the same mistake as in WWI (going after Germany in revenge instead of rebuilding) Russia gained strength.

After WWII, the English-French-American alliance was determined to destroy Germany so that the war could not happen again. Patton mentioned :jew: and his career was over. Some years later, the Cold War was on.

I'm shocked you haven't heard more about this, Fade. From your endless spouting on other threads, you seem like someone whose mind is glutted with innumerable court historians' take on the era.WM,

So let me get this straight: it was the goal of the United States Government to exterminate ten million German lives (why?), to pastoralize Germany in accordance with the Morgenthau Plan (which was actually carried out, because the U.S. Government was 'controlled' by the Jews). Interesting. You see, I find this highly curious because by 1963 Germany was again one of the wealthiest and most industrialized nations in the world with a foreign trade volume second only to the United States. Because of an American arms embargo, Israel won its independence with weapons provided by Czechoslovakia, a satellite of America's enemy the Soviet Union. Hmm. And flipping through Steven W. Hook and John Spanier's American Foreign Policy Since World War 2, I don't see anything about this plot to destroy Germany. The Americans actually wanted to revive and rearm a strong Germany within a Western defence alliance. History shows this.

Finally, there has not been the slightest change whatsoever in my ideology. I don't know where you got the impression that I was a National Socialist either. I simply do not defend theories which a.) cannot be defended on rational or empirical grounds or b.) those of which I am sceptical of. And this usually includes atrocity stories. If over ten million Germans were consciously exterminated by the United States Government, then I would like to see a good bit of evidence before drawing any conclusions, just as I would like to be convinced one day that the Nazis exterminated six million Jews, mostly in gas chambers. I still have my doubts. :|

Fade, you have sources and figures. I am sorry that your court historians did not see fit to cover these materials - and since I am unable to 'prove' Jewish hegemonic control over the academy, it is plain that none of them ever feared for their jobs or reputations in a larger society when they wrote their histories of the period.

You do a good job of covering your ignorance with your massive OCR scans from your libraries' latest acquisitions.

Like it or not, you will have to examine Crimes and Mercies, Other Losses and John Sacks' Eye for an Eye, and compare them with your own sources and common sense.

Mockery and other rhetorical manuevers will not assist in the task of making Sack and Bacque's research go away.

Your ignorance of the Morgenthau Plan and those in favor and opposed to it is lamentable. I would also mention that your constant presumtion that all governments are in a unitary state is false, and I think you are employing it simply for purposes of argument, as no student of history can be that stupid.

The United States government is composed of different cliques, lobbies, networks, and parties. That a Jewish/Morgenthau faction might have indeed have implemented large portions of the Morgenthau plan before being stopped by considerations of a Soviet danger seems to have escaped you. That the Jewish faction was also opposed by Hoover, who organized a massive international relief effort, also seems to have escaped you. Ooops, I forgot: you have no mastery of historical fact except for what arrived in last week's library take. Hence, not having read Bacque or Sack or anyone who has dealt with this period honestly, it is impossible for you to take into account any of the cross interests which ultimately determine policy.

Nevertheless, despite your 'skepticism' - which does not extend to making wild claims, as you have on your 'mugwort' thread, that the "holocaust" was documented by the Roosevelt administration - or to even question what belligerent neo-con Conrad Black has to say about Roosevelt (who he calls "a champion of freedom"), it is easily shown that all of these events did indeed happen, and that the Morgenthau plan, Hoover's relief efforts, Patton's growing awareness of Jewish influence in Washington, the ethnic cleansing of Germans, resulting in the death of 2 - 6,000,000 persons, the policy of de-industrialization for Germany, the starvation of German POW's in open air camps (1.5 - 2,000,000 dead), and all the rest - can be confirmed.

Even in the court histories you prefer.

Having provided you and Petr, who seemed curious, with information regarding sources and numbers, I expected something better of you than hollow mocking which you cannot even substantiate. I doubt you even know how Sack and Bacque's work was recieved by the academic establishment, or the publishing industry for that matter. Perhaps you should look into it. For my part, I have discharged my responsibility by providing the figures requested.

So let me get this straight: it was the goal of the United States Government to exterminate ten million German lives (why?), to pastoralize Germany in accordance with the Morgenthau Plan (which was actually carried out, because the U.S. Government was 'controlled' by the Jews). Interesting. You see, I find this highly curious because by 1963 Germany was again one of the wealthiest and most industrialized nations in the world with a foreign trade volume second only to the United States.

The above quote indicates that your education has been a waste, Fade. If you cannot understand how a powerful Jewish faction could enforce draconian treatment on a defeated Germany, only to be later displaced by a Gentile realpolitik approach which desired a counterweight to Soviet power, then you are a moron. Or worse, someone who resorts to empty rhetorical posturing when he does not want to deal fairly with facts. Were you even aware of the Morgenthau plan? You might also want to look into the American bestseller of 1941, Germany must Perish!:

http://www.ihr.org/books/kaufman/perish.html

Kaufman's fervent proposal for the systematic sterilization of the entire German population was given respectful attention in the American press, including reviews in a number of newspapers. A review in the weekly Time magazine, March 24, 1941, called Kaufman's plan a "sensational idea."

Your behavior in the past few days has been wildly erratic. I have been extremely uncomfortable here since you made the claim that there was a powerful mass movement in the United States to expel the Jews in the early twentieth century, when all of the major anti-Jewish agitators - Ford, Lindbergh, Coughlin - were completely neutralized. Your basis for such a claim? A poll! A poll where 20% of respondents indicated that they didn't like Jews.

Your further argument - openly mendacious - that early twentieth century Jews in the United States were politically 'naive' and practically powerless - even though they neutralized Coughlin, Lindbergh, and Ford, and had besides established virtual control of banking (hello? Does the Federal Reserve ring a bell?), film, radio, newspapers, the Wilson administration, et. al. indicated to me that you are a person with no interest in historical truth, but a somewhat unhealthy interest in online debate.

The above response to Sack and Bacque's research proves it.

Other people here claim that the 'new you' is like Sulla reborn, but to me, you seem more like kikel with a libary card.

At any rate, you and readers here now have some sources and numbers to play with. You are free to wave your hands in the air and say, "I don't believe it!", but you cannot then fault others for regarding you as irrational in the extreme.

I apologize for being the source of such inconvenient documentation.

WM

.... but to me, you seem more like kikel with a libary card.
WM

ROFL! :D hilarious!

:: Fade, you have sources and figures.

You could always provide the gallery with sources and figures provided by reputable professional historians to support your claims, as opposed to the work of two journalists with no historiographical training whatsoever.

:: I am sorry that your court historians did not see fit to cover these materials - and since I am unable to 'prove' Jewish hegemonic control over the academy, it is plain that none of them ever feared for their jobs or reputations in a larger society when they wrote their histories of the period.

'Court historians'. I suppose that is the slang wintermute is now using to describe historians and opinions he disagrees with, for it is quite interesting how wintermute has no problem whatsoever citing the work of Jews and mainstream historians when it suits him. Great methodology there.

:: You do a good job of covering your ignorance with your massive OCR scans from your libraries' latest acquisitions.

Please feel free to respond to my 'ignorance' in the mugwort thread if you are that well-informed about the subject. By all means, demonstrate to us that Adolf Hitler did not say the things I cited him as saying, much to your discomfort.

:: Like it or not, you will have to examine Crimes and Mercies, Other Losses and John Sacks' Eye for an Eye, and compare them with your own sources and common sense.

Perhaps I have already read and examined both James Bacque's Other Loses as well as John Sack's Eye for an Eye years ago. And maybe I came to the conclusion that neither of these sources were all that reliable since neither James Bacque or John Sack have any training in the discipline of history. Actually, we have already been through this issue on this forum several times in the past, as I am sure some will recall.

:: Mockery and other rhetorical manuevers will not assist in the task of making Sack and Bacque's research go away

Yet no one takes their research seriously anyway (especially German historians), because not only are John Sack and James Bacque not historians (with no training or professional experience whatsoever in the field), real historians have long since debunked their arguments.

1. S. Ambrose and G. Bischof, eds., Eisenhower and the German POWs: Facts against Falsehood (Baton Rouge, La., 1992)
2. S.P. MacKenzie, 'The Treatment of Prisoners of War in World War II', The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 66, No.3 (Sept., 1994), pp.487-520

:: Your ignorance of the Morgenthau Plan and those in favor and opposed to it is lamentable.

I am actually quite familar with the Morgenthau Plan, which called for the de-industrialization and reduction of Germany into a powerless agricultural country. But history shows that the Morgenthau Plan was never implemented.

1. Wolfgang Schlauch, 'American Policy Towards Germany, 1945' Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 5, No. 4. (1970), pp. 113-128

:: I would also mention that your constant presumtion that all governments are in a unitary state is false, and I think you are employing it simply for purposes of argument, as no student of history can be that stupid.

wintermute sets up and knocks over a strawman here. In fact, I pointed out to him just the other day in the other thread that political power is far too fluid to be 'controlled' by any one group, the Jews included, although wintermute himself sincerely believes that the Jews 'control' the USA.

:: The United States government is composed of different cliques, lobbies, networks, and parties.

I would agree that American foreign policy is the result of a dialectic of many competiting interests interacting in a power struggle. But it does not follow, wintermute, that there is not an American foreign policy.

:: That a Jewish/Morgenthau faction might have indeed have implemented large portions of the Morgenthau plan before being stopped by considerations of a Soviet danger seems to have escaped you.

Is that right?

"The attitude of these Senators and of advisors like Morgenthau and Baruch ran counter to the policy of the American Military Government in Germany (AMG). (Fade: My Emphasis) Throughout the summer and fall of 1945 it had interpreted the provisions of the JCS 1067 occupation document in liberal sense. The Economics Division of the Group Control Council for Germany, later renamed Office of Military Government of the United States for Germany and headed by General William H. Draper, tried, in July 1945, to modify the original American occupation policy by pointing out that raw materials were as necessary for light as for heavy industry, and discussed whether permission should be given for enough raw materials to be imported to enable light industry to operate."

Wolfgang Schlauch, 'American Policy Towards Germany, 1945' Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 5, No. 4. (1970), pp. 130

:: That the Jewish faction was also opposed by Hoover, who organized a massive international relief effort, also seems to have escaped you.

It seems to escaped wintermute that not only did the policies of AMG not reflect the views of Morgenthau (FYI he bitterly attacked the AMG), but the harsher aspects of the Potsdam Agreement were already discarded by the fall of '45.

"The Hoover Report was not released for publication at the time it was delivered to the Level of Industry Committee. In October, however, newspapermen obtained copies and publicized parts of the report, pointing out the discrepency between the Potsdam Agreement and the recommendation of the Standards of Living Board. Raymond Daniell of the New York Times, for instance, emphasized (8 October 1945) that the American economic advisors of the Military Government had made 'the surprising discovery that the Potsdam formula for the collection of reparations and the industrial disarmament of Germany' would 'would be difficult if not impossible of achievement'. The report, or rather the fragments that had been made public, caused a sensation because it stressed the unworkability of the Potsdam formula. It reversed the idea of de-industrialisation by permitting Germany to produce machinery and chemicals not only for her own use, but also for export, and by suggesting that import of such items as aluminum, tin, petroleum, and rubber, it looked to the extensive re-industrialization of Germany, in contrast to the general spirit of the Potsdam Agreement."

Ibid., p.122

:: Ooops, I forgot: you have no mastery of historical fact except for what arrived in last week's library take.

wintermute has a rather interesting take on historiography: accept the discredited work of non-historians like John Sack as gospel, who just so happens to be a Jew, yet criticise the work of real gentile historians for pointing out their errors. :|

:: have no mastery of historical fact except for what arrived in last week's library take. Hence, not having read Bacque or Sack or anyone who has dealt with this period honestly, it is impossible for you to take into account any of the cross interests which ultimately determine policy.

It seems to have eluded wintermute that James Bacque and Jack Sack are journalists, not historians or political scientists, and they do not have the either the expertise or training to justify their interpretations. On the other hand, wintermute rejects outright the scholarly consensus on the subject by once again invoking the familar boogeyman of Jewish conspiracies without the evidence to establish them.

:: Nevertheless, despite your 'skepticism' - which does not extend to making wild claims, as you have on your 'mugwort' thread, that the "holocaust" was documented by the Roosevelt administration

wintermute sets up and attacks a strawman argument, yet again. I have already dealt with this one in the other thread.

:: or to even question what belligerent neo-con Conrad Black has to say about Roosevelt (who he calls "a champion of freedom")

wintermute makes an invalid ad hominem argument. So I will dismiss it.

:: it is easily shown that all of these events did indeed happen, and that the Morgenthau plan, Hoover's relief efforts, Patton's growing awareness of Jewish influence in Washington, the ethnic cleansing of Germans, resulting in the death of 2 - 6,000,000 persons, the policy of de-industrialization for Germany, the starvation of German POW's in open air camps (1.5 - 2,000,000 dead), and all the rest - can be confirmed.

wintermute is mistaken.

1. S. Ambrose and G. Bischof, eds., Eisenhower and the German POWs: Facts against Falsehood (Baton Rouge, La., 1992)
2. S.P. MacKenzie, 'The Treatment of Prisoners of War in World War II', The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 66, No.3 (Sept., 1994), pp.487-520
3. Wolfgang Schlauch, 'American Policy Towards Germany, 1945' Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 5, No. 4. (1970), pp. 113-128

:: Even in the court histories you prefer.

Please cite them. No pseudo-scholars or conspiracy theorists please.

:: Having provided you and Petr, who seemed curious, with information regarding sources and numbers, I expected something better of you than hollow mocking which you cannot even substantiate

See above.

:: The above quote indicates that your education has been a waste, Fade.

How come? I will graduate in December with a B.A. in Political Science (International Relations). I have spent several years studying twentieth century American foreign policy, so I would say that I am qualified to know what I am talking about.

:: If you cannot understand how a powerful Jewish faction could enforce draconian treatment on a defeated Germany, only to be later displaced by a Gentile realpolitik approach which desired a counterweight to Soviet power, then you are a moron.

I am not going to start name-calling. That is childish.

"Criticism of the AMG came promptly from Morgenthau, who questioned the appointment to responsible posts of men who had personal financial interests in the successful recovery of German industry. He accused the Army of having made a great mistake 'when it appointed an economic advisory committee for Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower staffed with men whose companies have German plants'. . . . He accused high AMG officials of devoting their efforts to a revival of the I.G. Farben export trade, instead of concentrating on dismantling its facilities."

3. Wolfgang Schlauch, 'American Policy Towards Germany, 1945' Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 5, No. 4. (1970), pp. 123

The actual policies on the ground of the AMG actually infuriated Morgenthau because his ideas were never implemented. :cool:

:: Or worse, someone who resorts to empty rhetorical posturing when he does not want to deal fairly with facts.

The fact of the matter is that you are simply wrong. And not only that, but you are relying on the discredited work of journalists to support a specious argument.

:: Were you even aware of the Morgenthau plan?

I suppose this is a rhetorical question, as I mentioned the Morgenthau plan in my previous response.

:: You might also want to look into the American bestseller of 1941, Germany must Perish!:

You should browse the Journal of Contemporary History more often.

"Moscow's unbending attitude at Allied conferences, its determination to prevent Germany from being treated as a genuine economic unit, and to bring the Soviet zone within its satellite system, above all, the realisation by the United States that a restored Germany was essential not only for the economic restoration of Western Europe but also for inhibiting the spread of communism, necessitated a policy revision. A revision, in which the Hoover, Colmer, and Prince reports had a large share, as did recommendations and warnings from officials of the State and War Departments and members of Congress, became apparent in the 12 December statement of the State Department. In contrast to the Potsdam Agreement, it looked to a stronger German economy, and must be regarded as inaugurating further policy adjustments as reflected in the Stuttgart speech by Byrnes in September 1946, the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan of 1947, and in the evolution of the containment policy which dominated American foreign policy for twenty years to come."

Ibid., p.128

:: Your behavior in the past few days has been wildly erratic.

How so?

1.) I am pro-European.
2.) I am not a National Socialist.
3.) I have never had a problem citing Jewish scholars (apparently you don't either).

:: I have been extremely uncomfortable here since you made the claim that there was a powerful mass movement in the United States to expel the Jews in the early twentieth century, when all of the major anti-Jewish agitators - Ford, Lindbergh, Coughlin - were completely neutralized.

1.) Ford was sued.
2.) Lindbergh and Coughlin were only shutup by Hitler's declaration of war.
3.) There was a powerful antisemitic movement in the U.S.

"Anti-Semitism was no stranger on Capitol Hill either. It was, in fact, an important ingredient in the sharp hostility to refugee immigration that existed in Congress. In early 1943, government officials and friendly members of Congress cautioned refugee-aid organisations about pushed too hard on immigration-related issues because of "the prevelance of anti-Semitic feeling in Congress." A leader of one of the aid organisations described this attitude as an "unprecedented and distrubing element throughout Congress." Several members of Congress -- for example, Senators Claude Pepper (Dem., Fla) and James Murray (Dem., Mont.) -- sought to turn back these currents of popular prejudice, but without much success.

For the most part, congressional anti-Semitism was not expressed openly, though a few legislators had no compunction about putting their anti-Jewish views on record. The most shameless anti-Semite in Congress was Representative John Rankin (Dem., Miss), who regularly used his considerable oratorical talent to lash out at Jews. In June 1941, one of his verbal assaults contributed to the death of Congressman M. Michael Edelstein of New York. Edelstein collapsed and died of a heart attack in the House lobby shortly after rising to point out the unfairness of Rankin's comments. Undeterred, Rankin kept on with his diatribes. Speaking in the House in 1944, he referred to a Jewish news columnist as "that little kike." He was even petty enough to block special legislation, unanimously approved by the normally restrictionist House Immigration Committee, to allow a Jewish refugee couple and their daughter to come to the United States. The family's two sons, aged twenty-one and nineteen, were already in the United States, had joined the Army, and were about to be sent oversea.

The pervasiveness of anti-Semitism in the United States during the late 1930s and the war years was confirmed by national public opinion polls. A series of polls from 1938 to 1946 dealt with the images Americans had of Jews. The results indicated taht over half the American population perceived Jews as greedy and dishonest and that about one-third considered them openly aggressive.

A set of surveys extending from 1938 through 1941 showed that between one-third and one-half the public believed that Jews had "too much power in the United States." During the war years, a continuation of the survey saw the proportion rise to 56 percent. According to these and other polls, this supposed Jewish power was located mainly in "business and commerce" and in "finance." From late 1942 into the spring of 1945, significant Jewish power was also thought to exist in "politics and government."

Other surveys from August 1940 on through the war found that from 15 to 24 percent of the respondents looked on Jews as a "menace to America." Jews were consistently seen as more of a threat than such other groups in the United States as Negroes, Catholics, Germans, or Japanese( except during 1942, when Japanese and Germans were rated more dangerous).

If a threat actually existed, however, it was not from the Jews, but to them. An alarming set of polls taken between 1938 and 1945 revealed that roughly 15 percent of those surveyed would have supported an anti-Jewish campaign. Another 20 to 25 percent would have sympathized with such a movement. Approximately 30 percent indicated that they would have been actively opposed to it. In sum, then, as much as 35 to 40 percent of the population was prepared to approve an anti-Jewish campaign, some 30 percent would have stood up against it, and the rest would have remained indifferent. The threat never crystallized into organized action. But even allowing ample room for inadequecies in the survey data, the seriousness of American anti-Semitism in those years is evident."

Wyman, pp.14-15

:: Your further argument - openly mendacious - that early twentieth century Jews in the United States were politically 'naive' and practically powerless - even though they neutralized Coughlin, Lindbergh, and Ford

I dealt with this above.

:: and had besides established virtual control of banking (hello? Does the Federal Reserve ring a bell?), film, radio, newspapers, the Wilson administration, et. al. indicated to me that you are a person with no interest in historical truth, but a somewhat unhealthy interest in online debate.

Lets see some evidence to substantiate these claims.

:: The above response to Sack and Bacque's research proves it.

Its not my fault that their claims are not taken seriously and have been harshly critiqued.

:: Other people here claim that the 'new you' is like Sulla reborn, but to me, you seem more like kikel with a libary card.

(squints eyes)

I think I will avoid personal attacks myself. There is no 'new me'.

:: At any rate, you and readers here now have some sources and numbers to play with. You are free to wave your hands in the air and say, "I don't believe it!", but you cannot then fault others for regarding you as irrational in the extreme.

We shall let the gallery be the judge of that.

:: I apologize for being the source of such inconvenient documentation.

Try again. :)

Yet no one takes their research seriously anyway (especially German historians), because not only are John Sack and James Bacque not historians (with no training or professional experience whatsoever in the field), real historians have long since debunked their arguments.

LOL! "German Historians". You mean those fellows David Irving calls "Cowards and Liars"? You mean those Buttgoym that need the political police to shut up anyone who dares question their horror storys? Those spineless, filthy creatures that now even claim that the german "war-crimes" in Belgium during WW1 were actually true? Those disgusting scumbags that take pride in receiving honours and doctorates from "israeli" universetys for their "life achievement" in slandering Germany?

Tell ya what: Irving isn't a proffesional Historian either.

There is no 'new me'.

Correct! It's the same old backstabbing, turncoat, doubletalking "you". Poor Fade. He's in his Je[r]kyl/Hyde mood.
Let me know in time when you start transforming into a Randian "individualist" and start bemoaning the fate of 9year old lil jew Girls in the Warsaw Ghetto (Oye Vey!). Maybe we will also see a brief rebirth of Nationalbolshevism.

:: LOL! "German Historians".

Oh, I must have forgotten. Only those who agree with Wehrmacht are Germans, since Wehrmacht has anointed himself to make all decisions on such matters.

:: You mean those fellows David Irving calls "Cowards and Liars"?

David Irving has never argued that Lord Halifax was part of any Jewish conspiracy to destroy Germany, nor does he deny the authenticity of the Table Talks as you do, much less does he try to pretend Hitler did not have any plan to expand East.

:: You mean those Buttgoym that need the political police to shut up anyone who dares question their horror storys? Those spineless, filthy creatures that now even claim that the german "war-crimes" in Belgium during WW1 were actually true? Those disgusting scumbags that take pride in receiving honours and doctorates from "israeli" universetys for their "life achievement" in slandering Germany?

You are speaking in hyperbole and generalisations, as usual, consumed by irrationality.

:: Tell ya what: Irving isn't a proffesional Historian either.

Irving is a decent historian. He does not endorse the ludicrous claims made by mugwort.

:: Correct! It's the same old backstabbing, turncoat, doubletalking "you".

I haven't stabbed anyone in the back. My sentiments are precisely the same they were six months ago: pro-European.

:: He's in his Je[r]kyl/Hyde mood.

I don't think that people like AntiYuppie should be enslaved and/or exterminated because they are Slavic.

- " 'Court historians'. I suppose that is the slang wintermute is now using to describe historians and opinions he disagrees with, for it is quite interesting how wintermute has no problem whatsoever citing the work of Jews and mainstream historians when it suits him. Great methodology there."


Yeah, you're telling me. All scholars who come to conclusions that displease Winnie are "dishonest."

If Bacque has really started to peddle multi-million post-war casualty figures, he has discredited himself.



TOTALS OF DEATHS

Minimum Maximum

Expellees (1945-50) 2,100,000 6,000,000
Prisoners (1941-50) 1,500,000 2,000,000
Residents (1946-50) 5,700,000 5,700,000
_________ __________

Totals 9,300,000 13,700,000



Where are Bacque's sources for these figures (ESPECIALLY that "residents" part)?


Answer this simple question: WHAT WAS THE POPULATION OF GERMANY AROUND 1950 (when the large-scale killing MUST have stopped)?

Can Bacque tell us this? REALLY SIMPLE MATH.


I remember counting from some old 1960s encyclopedia that Western and Eastern Germany together had a population of about 74 million at the beginning of 1960s.

(that is, just before Gastarbeiters began rolling in, and back then, they were even not counted yet as German inhabitants)

We have a Hitler himself telling us in 1937 that Germany proper (before it annexed Austria and Sudetenland) had a population of 68 million.

German birthrates weren't THAT high even back then (this often vexed Nazi authorities, who actively sought to raise them).

Can you see where I'm getting at?


Petr

I don't think that people like AntiYuppie should be enslaved and/or exterminated because they are Slavic.

Thats a very nice Straw man Sulla! I don't recall ever having demanded such, but maybe you would be so nice to post a link to such statement of mine.

:: Thats a very nice Straw man Sulla!

You know very well that my criticism of National Socialist foreign policy is not motivated by the same sentiments that motivate Sulla.

:: I don't recall ever having demanded such, but maybe you would be so nice to post a link to such statement of mine.

And I never suggested that you were of that point of view. In fact, I will point out that when I asked you about it on Yahoo that you said you didn't endorse stuff like that. And that's good. But that is not the point we are discussing here. The debate is whether or not Hitler endorsed such sentiments. The Table Talk conversations make it absolutely crystal clear that he did. Yet there are still people who try to deny it. So why bother? Why not simply admit it and point out that you disagree with ideas like that?

Can you see where I'm getting at?


Petr

Not that I put much hope in your mathematicall skills, but never the less:

As soon as the Second World War ended in 1945, Canada and the United States began shipping food to the hundreds of millions of people who were facing starvation as a result of the war. Unprecedented in world history, this massive program fulfilled the highest ideals for which the Western Allies had fought. Their generosity seemed to have no limit. They fed former enemies — Italy and Japan — as well as a new enemy, the Soviet Union.

Only Germany was left out.

It is well-known in the West that the Allies hanged Nazis for crimes — the murder of Jews, the brutal mass expulsions, the deadly forced-labour camps, the starvation of entire nations. What is not generally known is that these occupying Allied armies carved off 25 per cent of Germany's most fertile land and placed it under Russian and Polish control, forcibly expelling about 16 millions people into what remained. It has also been forgotten — or hidden — that the Allies forbade emigration and kept millions of prisoners in forced-labour camps. International charitable aid to Germany was banned for another year, then restricted for more than a year. When it was permitted, it came too late for millions of people.

In a plan devised by U.S. secretary of the treasury Henry C. Morgenthau Jr., the Allies "pastoralized" Germany. They slashed production of oil, tractors, steel and other products that had been essential to the war effort. They cut fertilizer production by 82 per cent. They undervalued German exports (which they controlled), depriving Germans of cash needed to buy food. And a large percentage of young male workers were kept in forced-labour camps for years. During the six months following the end of the war, Germany's industrial production fell by 75 per cent.

The loss of so much fertile land and the drop in fertilizer supplies caused agricultural production to fall by 65 per cent. Sixty million people began to starve in their huge prison.

The mass explusions from one part of Germany to another, approved at the Allied victory conference in Potsdam in July and August, 1945, were enforced "with the very maximum of brutality," wrote British writer and philantropist Victor Gollancz in his book, Our Threatened Values (1946). Canadian writer and TV producer Robert Allen, in an article titled "Letter From Berlin", in Reading magazine (February, 1946), described the scene in a Berlin railway station as refugees arrived in late 1945: "They were all exhausted and starved and miserable.... A child only half alive... A woman in the most terrible picture of despair I've seen... Even when you see it, it's impossible to believe....God, it was terrible."

In the West, the plan to dismantle German industrial capacity began at the British headquarters of General Dwight Eisenhower in August, 1944. Meeting with Mr. Morgenthau, Gen. Eisenhower prescribed a treatment for Germany that would be "good and hard," giving as his reason that "the whole German population is a synthetic paranoid."

Mr. Morgenthau took a written version of their discussion to U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt and British prime minister Winston Churchill when the two met in Quebec City in September, 1944. British foreign secretary Anthony Eden, U.S. secretary of Cordell Hull and the U.S. secretary for war Henry L. Stimson all protested vigorously against the Morgenthau Plan because a pastoralized Germany could not feed itself. Mr. Hull and Mr. Stimson told Roosevelt that about 20 million Germans would die if the plan were implemented.

Most historians say the Morgenthau Plan was abandoned after the protests, but Mr. Morgenthau himself said it was implemented.

In the New York Post for Nov. 24, 1947, he wrote, "The Morgenthau Plan for Germany [...] became part of the Potsdam Agreement, a solemn declaration of policy and undertaking for action... signed by the United States of America, Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

I first happened on the outlines of this story while researching my 1989 book Other Losses, about the mass deaths of German prisoners of war in Allied camps. For 45 years, historians have never disputed a massive survey conducted over four years by the government of chancellor Konrad Adenauer, which stated that some 1.4 million German prisoners had died in captivity. What is still disputed by the two sides is how many died in each side's camps. Each has blamed the other for nearly all the deaths.

The fall of the Soviet empire in 1989 provided a spectacular test of the truth: If the KGB archives recorded how many Germans died in Soviet camps, the world would know how many died in the West.

In 1992, I went to the KGB archives in Moscow, where I was permitted to troll the long, gloomy aisles, free to read and photocopy anything I wanted. And there I found the reports from KGB Colonel I. Bulanov and others showing that 450,600 Germans had died in Soviet camps. Given the figure of 1.4 million deaths, this meant that close to one million had died in Western camps.

In addition, the KGB records show that the Soviets had also imprisoned hundreds of thousands of civilians, of whom many thousands died.

This was the shadow of a greater tragedy, the fate of German civilians.

The recent declassification of the Robert Murphy Papers at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California, and the Robert Patterson manuscript papers in Washington focused the picture. Mr. Murphy had been chief U.S. diplomatic adviser in Germany, and Mr. Patterson the secretary for war after 1945.

Some of Mr. Murphy's papers show a catastrophic death rate in Germany, highlighted by a surprising comment by Mr. Murphy in discussing German demographics. He said in a State Department position paper in 1947 that the U.S. statistical projection of births, immigration and officially reported deaths showed that over the next three years the German population should be 71 million, but that "to be conservative and in view of the present high death rate in Germany, a figure of 69 million will be used." In other words, Mr. Murphy was basing high-level U.S. policy on the knowledge that the actual German death rate was approximately double the rate officially reported to Washington by the U.S. military governor.

In the National Archives in Ottawa, I found a document seized by Canadians in 1946, showing a death rate in the city of Brilon in north-central Germany almost triple the total reported by the Allies for their zones of Germany in 1945-46. The U.S. Army medical officer in Germany secretly reported that the actual death rate in the U.S. zone in May, 1946, was 21.4 per 1,000 per year, or 83 per cent higher than the military governor was reporting to Washington.


These documents in Ottawa, Moscow, Washington and Stanford, recently revealed or long neglected, show that the Allies not only destroyed most major German industry, they also reduced German food production to the point that Germans received less food for long periods during several years than the starving Dutch had received under German occupation.

"From 1945 to the middle of 1948, one saw the probable collapse, disintegration and destruction of a whole nation," These are not the words of a revisionist historian of the 1990s, but the sober judgment of a U.S. Navy medical officer on the scene. Captain Albert Behnke compared German and Dutch starvation: For months in parts of Germany, the ration set by the occupying Allies was 400 calories per day; in much of Germany it was often around 1,000, and officially for more than two years it was never more than 1,550. The Dutch always got more than 1,394.

And for his part in starving people in the Netherlands, Nazi commander Arthur Seyss-Inquart was hanged by the Allies.

A comparison of the German censuses of 1946 and 1950 show the effect of the food shortages. The 1950 census showed 5.7 million people fewer than there should have been according to the number of people recorded in the 1946 census, minus officially reported deaths, plus births and "immigrants" (people expelled from the east and returning prisoners) in the period from 1946 to 1950.

Mr. Murphy had, indeed, been conservative, partly because he underestimated the number of prisoners due to return to Germany from Russia. The total tally of unacknowledged deaths among the prisoners, refugees and non-expelled civilians comes to around nine million people between 1945 and 1950, far more than the number who died during the war itself. All of these deaths were surplus to those actually reported.

While Germans starved, the Canadian-U.S. relief program swung into action in other parts of the world. Former U.S. president Herbert Hoover, then chief food adviser to president Harry Truman, flew around the world assessing need and supply. He found big regions of food poverty, as there has always been and still are, but not insurmountable world food shortage. In fact, world food production in 1945, according to the U.S. government statistics, was 90 per cent of the average of the years from 1936 to 1938. By the end of 1946, it was virtually normal.

Mr. Hoover begged, borrowed and bought enough food from the few other surplus countries — Australia and Argentina — to feed nearly all the world's starving. He congratulated Canadians warmly for their co-operation in a CBC speech in Ottawa in 1946: "To Canada flows the gratitude of hundreds of millions of human beings who have been saved from starvation through the efforts of this great Commonwealth."

As Mr. Hoover pronounced victory over the greatest famine threat in world history, Germans were entering their worst year ever. In early 1946, reports of conditions in Germany led U.S. senators, among them Kenneth Wherry and William Langer, to protest against "this addlepated... brutal and vicious Morgenthau Plan."

Belatedly, Mr. Truman asked Mr. Hoover to intervene. Mr. Hoover spoke to all North Americans: "Millions of mothers are today watching their children wilt before their eyes." Infant mortality rates in some German cities were 20 per cent per year, catastrophically higher than the average in Germany before the war or in contemporary Europe.

Cases of tuberculosis among children in Kiel, in the British zone, increased by 70 per cent over the prewar period.

Mr. Hoover called for mercy to Germany.

"I can only appeal to your pity and your mercy...Will you not take to your table an invisible guest?"

Canadians and Americans set the table for the invisible guest.

According to prime minister Mackenzie King's chief foreign-affairs adviser, Norman Robertson, Canada was the only country that had kept its food commitments to help the starving. Only in Canada did rationing and price controls continue long after the war so that others could be fed.

POST YOUR SOURCES. Where are this excerpt and its sources from? (pages, footnotes et cetera)

AND CAN YOU FINALLY SHOW US WHAT THESE 1946 AND 1950 CENSUSES ACTUALLY SAY, and let us do our own conclusions?

You know well how easily your can churn out a veritable holocaust story by merely telling heartbreaking anecdotes.


Petr

"...the discredited work of non-historians like John Sack as gospel, ..."


I don't know whether Sack has been discredited, but as far as I know, he just argued for the murderous mistreatment of Germans in the areas transferred to Poland. He doesn't talk about any Ukraine-level famine in the post-war Germany, so he can't be used to support Bacque on that specific issue.


Petr

POST YOUR SOURCES. Where are this excerpt and its sources from? (pages, footnotes et cetera)

AND CAN YOU FINALLY SHOW US WHAT THESE 1946 AND 1950 CENSUSES ACTUALLY SAY, and let us do our own conclusions?

You know well how easily your can churn out a veritable holocaust story by merely telling heartbreaking anecdotes.


Petr


Listen, you lil antigerman bolshevik symphathizer: Go buy the book! I dont feel like translating it from my german edition and I wasted enough time browsing the internet to find something on it.
I don't give a flying fu** if you believe it or not! :mad:

Is translating NUMBERS, HARD STATISTICS such a big job? (You should be able to do that even with a German version!)


Does Bacque mention those 1946 and 1950 German census results in his book, instead of just asking us to believe in his interpretation of them?

If he doesn't, HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY CASE.

You would laugh at any Shoah-promoter if he would tell you "just buy (say, Raul Hilberg's) book!"


And me? A Bolshevik symphatizer? What a pathetic slur. That kind of slur that people losing debates resort to.


(And by the way: Finland never received any Marshall Aid, and had to receive (relatively) huge numbers of Karelian refugees fleeing from areas annexed to USSR, but there weren't any kind of famine in here)


Petr

Ah, here we have at least detailed numbers for the population of "Greater Germany" in 1939, and somewhat less detailed figures for post-war populations:



" In the 1930s, during the regime of Adolf Hitler, a period of expansion added both territory and population to the Third Reich. Following the annexation of Austria in 1938 and the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) in 1939, German territory and population encompassed 586,126 square kilometers and 79.7 million people, according to the 1939 census.

(Petr: I don't know whether hundreds of thousands of Jews still living in that area were included in this figure)

"The census found that women still outnumbered men (40.4 million to 38.7 million), despite a leveling trend in the interwar period."

"The carnage of World War II surpassed that of World War I. German war losses alone were estimated at 7 million, about half of whom died in battle. Ruined, defeated, and divided into zones of occupation, a much smaller Germany emerged in 1945 with a population about the same as in 1910.

"In the immediate postwar period, however, more than 12 million persons--expelled Germans and displaced persons--immigrated to Germany or used the country as a transit point en route to other destinations, adding to the population.

"By 1950 the newly established Federal Republic of Germany had a population of about 50 million, more than 9 million of whom were "expellees." The German Democratic Republic had about 4 million newcomers and 14 million natives."

http://countrystudies.us/germany/84.htm



And here we have a little more detailed numbers:

Year1 West Germany East Germany Germany

1950 50.0 18.4 68.4 (millions)

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rs/more.php?id=69_0_3_0


Now we should only get our hands on that 1946 German census...

(and post-war Austrian censuses)


Petr

Petr said;

"For here in Germany our 68 million people occupy the same area which in Russia would not support more than 5 million."

You calculations should notice this factor.

1937 you say? Well that would be minus the numbers reintegrated into the Reich from the Sudetenland and Poland. So when you add those on . . .

Sudetenland AND AUSTRIA.


Petr

Anschluss - 1938
Sudetenland - 1938
Poland - 1939

So if Hitler was speaking in 1937, the population he cites does not include those. Or do you take him to mean all ethnic Germans? If so, does he make that clear?

You have to add those to the figure and compare that figure to the post war minus casualties etc.

Reinhold, don't you read anything that I post on this thread?

Here we have the whole combined population of Germany proper, Austria and Sudetenland from the census of 1939:


" In the 1930s, during the regime of Adolf Hitler, a period of expansion added both territory and population to the Third Reich. Following the annexation of Austria in 1938 and the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) in 1939, German territory and population encompassed 586,126 square kilometers and 79.7 million people, according to the 1939 census. "

http://countrystudies.us/germany/84.htm


And the combined populations of West Germany, East Germany and Austria were apparently about 75 million in 1950.


Petr

Reinhold, don't you read anything that I post on this thread

LOL! Don't you remember anything that you have posted on this thread?

I remember counting from some old 1960s encyclopedia that Western and Eastern Germany together had a population of about 74 million at the beginning of 1960s.

(that is, just before Gastarbeiters began rolling in, and back then, they were even not counted yet as German inhabitants)

We have a Hitler himself telling us in 1937 that Germany proper (before it annexed Austria and Sudetenland) had a population of 68 million.

So you are setting up a contrast between a pre-expansion population and a two-Germanies figure. This is what raised my eyebrows.

but then you come out with this;

And the combined populations of West Germany, East Germany and Austria were apparently about 75 million in 1950.

I love the "apparently". This last you have plucked from thin air, no?

Notice how your figures fluctuate -

1937 - Germany = 68 million
1939 - Germany + Austria + Sudetenland = 79 million
1950 - W Germany + E Germany + Austria = 75 million
1960 - W Germany + E Germany = 74 million

You are leaving out East Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania.

We are told that 13 million dp's came into the two Germanies due to ethnic cleansing - so add that to the 1937 figure - 68 million and you get 81 million. Substract 3 million from the Dp figure that's for the Sudetenland and you get 10 million

so
1937 = 68
1939 = 68 + 7 (Austria) + 3 (Sudeten) = 78
1940 = 78 + 10 (eastern provnces) = 88 million

This last must be very approximate due to various factors.

So take away 7 million war time deaths we are left with 81 million - we cannot account for 6 million on the 1950 figure of 75 million becasue that includes the ethnically cleansed Germans of the east. Even with a broad margin of error - say 25% we are still looking for 4.5 million Germans!

I love the "apparently". This last you have plucked from thin air, no?

Notice how your figures fluctuate -

1937 - Germany = 68 million
1939 - Germany + Austria + Sudetenland = 79 million
1950 - W Germany + E Germany + Austria = 75 million
1960 - W Germany + E Germany = 74 million

You are leaving out East Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania.

We are told that 13 million dp's came into the two Germanies due to ethnic cleansing - so add that to the 1937 figure - 68 million and you get 81 million. Substract 3 million from the Dp figure that's for the Sudetenland and you get 10 million

so
1937 = 68
1939 = 68 + 7 (Austria) + 3 (Sudeten) = 78
1940 = 78 + 10 (eastern provnces) = 88 million




a) In 1938 Austria only had 6 Million inhabitants. Sudeten was 3,5 Million.
b) I don't know where you get those 10 Million of the "Eastern Provinces"? the Eastern Provinces (East Prussia ect.) were already part of Germany in 1937, thus are included in the 68 Million.

I would just like point our following fact: In 1919 Germany had 800.000 dead through the anglo hungerblokade. And this without its most fertile agricultural farmingland annexed, it's fishingfleet still intact and it's homeland unoccupied.

In 1945 this was not the case. Aditionaly the rations system colapsed, because the administration was liquidated and the food-storages were either confiscated by the occupants for their own army or they were left free to pillage for all those poor poor liberated camp inmates.
I know from my Grandmother, that on the day the armistice was signed, that her ration cards were worth less than toilettpaper. She couldn't get anything for them anymore.

- “I love the "apparently". This last you have plucked from thin air, no?”

It is not my habit to pull figures out of thin air. I knew that West and East Germany together had more than 68 million people in 1950, and Austria 6-7 million. I just added them up.


- “b) I don't know where you get those 10 Million of the "Eastern Provinces"? the Eastern Provinces (East Prussia ect.) were already part of Germany in 1937, thus are included in the 68 Million.”

Yes. These 10 million were also included in this 1939 census:

“" In the 1930s, during the regime of Adolf Hitler, a period of expansion added both territory and population to the Third Reich. Following the annexation of Austria in 1938 and the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) in 1939, German territory and population encompassed 586,126 square kilometers and 79.7 million people, according to the 1939 census. "

http://countrystudies.us/germany/84.htm


Reinhold, (I presume you’re a German) did you know so little about the history and geography of country as not to realize this?


Petr

Reinhold, (I presume you’re a German) did you know so little about the history and geography of country as not to realize this?


Petr

Hey, don't patronize him! :mad:

You can twist and turn the numbers like a cabbalistic Jew as much as you wan't, you won't get around the Facts that Baceque published in his book.

And you are not even counting the millions of Germans which were deported from the rest of Europe (Balkans, Hungaria, Slovakia, Roumania).

You obviously have an ANTI GERMAN AGENDA, seeing how you love to use those jewish sources.

- "Hey, don't patronize him!"

By pointing out the obvious?


- "You obviously have an ANTI GERMAN AGENDA, seeing how you love to use those jewish sources."


Was Dewey A. Browder, who accused Bacque of manipulating the statistics of that 1946 census, Jewish?

Anyways, have you ever heard of the term, "devil's advocate?"

(Comes originally from Vatican; every time they intended to beatify someone, his/her miracles had to be certified. There was this one official whose mission was to try to disprove, as thoroughly as possible, the alleged miracles of that saint-candidate. If "devil's advocate" failed, they could beatify the saint.)

I intend to test and try this Bacque thesis as hardly as I can before I will accept it. Sort of initiation.


If you are of the type that likes to hear only happy-happy, positive things (Yup, Bacque is correct. No doubt about it.), then I'm not your yes-man.


Petr

Dr Brandt;

the Eastern Provinces (East Prussia ect.) were already part of Germany in 1937, thus are included in the 68 Million.

I'm looking for the ethnic Germans that came into the Reich after the re-integration of the eastern territories - as a result iof the invasion of Poland - which were under Poland after 1919. Do you have any figures for this?

Petr said;

Reinhold, (I presume you’re a German) did you know so little about the history and geography of country as not to realize this?

You presume a lot of things, most of them wrong.

You must still work out how many Germans were added to the Reich as a result of the invasion of Poland. This is what you have so far left out.


Also, all these speculations presuppose that the sources you have offered are reliable. Until such time as we have reliable data, all of this is provisional anyway.

---

Anyways, have you ever heard of the term, "devil's advocate?"

(Comes originally from Vatican; every time they intended to beatify someone, his/her miracles had to be certified. There was this one official whose mission was to try to disprove, as thoroughly as possible, the alleged miracles of that saint-candidate. If "devil's advocate" failed, they could beatify the saint.)

Why is it that you have to insult your interlocutors as a matter of course, as if they need to be given this pedantic piece of education?

Dr Brandt;



I'm looking for the ethnic Germans that came into the Reich after the re-integration of the eastern territories - as a result iof the invasion of Poland - which were under Poland after 1919. Do you have any figures for this?

In 1919 there were 2,5 Million Germans in those anexed provinces. 1,1 Million were driven out or killed untill 1930. In 1939 around 1,5 Million were in "Poland".
I don't have numbers of the resettled Germans who came from Bessarabia/Moldavia though. But the 10 Million number is way to high.

Why don't you just get Baceques book "crimes and Merceneries". The data in there is from allied sources, public records ect. There is no doubt that 5,7 Million died in those 4 Years.

Dr Brandt said;

Why don't you just get Baceques book "crimes and Merceneries". The data in there is from allied sources, public records ect. There is no doubt that 5,7 Million died in those 4 Years.

Yes I have it on my wish list in my amazon account for sometime now. But isnt it remarakable that from my own calculations based on the sources posted by our friend I have been able to discover 6 million Germans missing?

- "There is no doubt that 5,7 Million died in those 4 Years."

Do you mean by that ALL post-war casulties - POWs, expellees, famine and other causes put together?


Petr

If Bacque has really started to peddle multi-million post-war casualty figures, he has discredited himself.Au contraire, mon cher. He has discredited the murderous and deceitful occupation authorities who killed helpless people for whose welfare they had full legal responsibility, and then succeeded in covering up their crimes for more than 50 years.

On p. 222-224 of his book, Crimes and Mercies Bacque refers to and demolishes assertions by others, including Dr. Browder, that the figures he has published are too high. His informatiion and sources include documentation from the KGB Archives and the US State Department, and specifically refute the charge that a number of the alleged victims were counted twice. The papers of Robert Murphy, former US Ambassador to London as well as former political advisor to the US Military Governor of Germany at the Hoover Institute Archive, state clearly that the prisoners which Browder claims were counted twice are not, as alleged, included in the census figures, but are apart from them.

Anyone wishng to refute Bacque's figures, then, should get the book him/or/herself, and demonstrate wherein he errs--since so far his information appears to be more complete and reliable than that of his detractors.

"There is no doubt that 5,7 Million died in those 4 Years."

Do you mean by that ALL post-war casulties - POWs, expellees, famine and other causes put together? No, that is just the civilians already living inside the borders of the postwar Reich at the time the war ended. Deaths of POWs and expellees would be separate. The deaths of POWs is figured by Bacque as at least 1.5 million. It's a conservative estimate which assumes that no one died who was not reported; whereas with whole families wiped out by the wholesale bombing of civilians,many deaths of servicemen must have gone unnoticed. At least 2.1 million expellees perished. Bacque's miminimum and maximum figures are as follows:

Minimum:1.5 M prisoners + 2.1M expellees + 5.7 M residents = Total 9.3 M

Maximum: 2 M prisoners + 6 M expellees + 5.7 M residents = Total 13.7 M.

As you can see, the figure for residents is the most stable, the one for the expellees the least, owing to the totally chaotic nature of the expulsion process.

It's wise to remember when dealing with this subject that those with an incentive to lie and mimimize casualties are obviously the Allies and their lackeys. Therefore Bacque is more likely to be telling the truth than his detractors.

Moreover, if you are one who is vociferous in refusing to believe these carefully-gathered figures, you might want to ask yourself why.

Exactly! I always ask myself WHY certain people so desperately want to minimize our casualtys, while at the same time bemoan the alledged barbarety of nationalsocialist/german behavior DURING THE WAR.
As far as I am concerned, this is a certain indicator that such people are hostile towards Germans. Because it realy doesn't matter if abe Foxmann, Elie Wiesel, Simon Wiesenthal and their buttgoy besmirch our people and LIE about their crimes or....... if Petr and Cerberus do the same. The results are the sameThere must be some reason for them to do this. Why would anyone associate themselves with the bloody allies? With Bolsheviks? What is their true agenda?

Dr Brandt;

The results are the sameThere must be some reason for them to do this. Why would anyone associate themselves with the bloody allies? With Bolsheviks? What is their true agenda?

I can think of at least a few reasons.

1. They are Jews

2. they are "buttgoys" as you so elegantly put it

3. They are citizens of the victorious powers and cannot face up to the implications of all this.

4. Perhaps they had relatives who dropped bombs on German cities and just refuse to believe that their granddaddies were participants in war crimes.

4 is understandable, 3 recalls the saying "my country right or wrong" (moral cowardice), 2 is despicable and should be hanged, and 1 is the enemy.

Oy Vey, Remember Zee Ten Million!