National Socialism vs. Communism.

As military reports from 1942 indicate, the German insistence on the �annihilation of superfluous eaters� helped to foster famine conditions which afflicted large numbers of the Soviet population. �A rear army group reported in May 1942: �the population is afflicted by hunger and is therefore under pressure to wander around the countryside to barter for foodstuffs. The fact that the German Wehrmacht has done nothing to guarantee the nourishment of the civilian population has influenced opinion and made the population distrustful towards the victorious German forces.�

The 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war who fell into the hands of the Wehrmacht during 1941 were even more disastrously affected than civilians by the deliberate hunger strategy of the Germans. Christian Streit has estimated that approximately two million of these Soviet POWs died or were executed. �Streit�s pioneering research into the treatment of Soviet POWs by the German forces demonstrated that in the run-up to the invasion of the Soviet Union the German military leadership made virtually no preparations for dealing with the massive number of prisoners of war expected to come under German control during Operation Barbarossa. �In full knowledge of the consequences, the provision of food for the prisoners was totally subordinated to the goal of exploiting the food resources of the East in order to raise the rations of the German population.� �Predictably, the results were catastrophic. Major General Wagner, the army�s Quartermaster General in charge of the POWs, declared at a conference on 13 November 1941, �Those non-working prisoners of war in the prison camps are to starve. Working prisoners of war can in individual cases be fed from army provisions. But unfortunately this cannot be ordered on a general basis, given the overall food situation.� �This policy guaranteed that the death toll among the prisoners would be extraordinarily high. Major General Leykauf, in his notorious December 1941 report on the fate of �superfluous eaters� cited above, commented directly on the plight of the Soviet POWs: �Billeting, food, clothing and health of the prisoners of war is bad, mortality very high. The loss of tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands during this winter is to be expected.� �Only in the aftermath of the failure of Operation Barbarossa and in the knowledge that a lengthy conflict with the Soviet Union would require the utilization of all possible productive forces did the German military authorities alter their hunger policy toward the Soviet POWs with the intention of preserving and exploiting their labor power.

Rolf-Dieter M�ller has delivered an appropriate overall verdict on the hunger strategy adopted by the Nazi regime in 1941-42:

The victims of this plan were not unavoidable casualties of war but martyrs of a deliberate policy on the part of the occupational authorities, who set about implementing the first phase of their plan to colonize and germanize the lands of the Soviet Union. It was the beginning of a premeditated genocide on a colossal scale. The population was divided into racial categories, with �undesirable� elements or �superfluous mouths� being left to starve or simply murdered.

III. Famine in the Jewish Ghettos 1940-42

The final example of Nazi use of famine is provided by the ghettoization policies adopted in the period 1940-42. As Christopher Browning has pointed out, ghettoization policy emerged from the initiatives of local authorities and within the context of debates between two groups of officials whom he labels as �productionists� (those who favored allowing Jews to work in order to feed themselves) and �attritionists� (those who endorsed a harsh policy of allowing Jews to starve to death as a means of extracting all the assets which the ghettoized Jews allegedly were hoarding). �In late 1940 and early 1941 the attritionists held the upper hand among the German authorities in Warsaw and as a result they succeeded in deliberately imposing a starvation policy on the ghetto there with disastrous consequences for the Jewish inhabitants. As the commissar of the Warsaw ghetto, Heinz Auerswald, noted, �A quantum leap in deaths for May of this year [1941] showed that the food shortage had already grown into a famine.�

In spring 1941�at the same time that the hunger strategy toward the Soviet Union was being formulated�German authorities in the General Government adopted a fundamental change in German policy toward the Jews in the Lodz and Warsaw ghettos, endorsing the position of the �productionists� who insisted that the ghetto inhabitants were not to be allowed to starve to death but should be provided with enough food to transform the ghetto into a productive entity. �This change in German policy slowed down but did not halt the hunger and attrition in the ghettos. �In 1941 and 1942,� Israel Gutman has written, �112,463 persons died in the two ghettos [Lodz and Warsaw] of starvation and disease, which means that 20 percent of the population perished in the space of two years.� �Despite the temporary ascendancy of the productionists, starvation still remained one of the chief weapons in the Nazis� anti-Jewish armoury. In August 1942, Hans Frank, Governor-General of Poland, declared: �Clearly we are sentencing 1.2 million Jews [i.e., the Jewish population of the General Government] to death by starvation; and if they do not die from hunger, we will have to adopt other anti-Jewish measures.�

At the same time in 1941 that local German authorities were debating how to deal with the Jews confined to ghettos, Reinhard Heydrich, Head of the Reich Main Security Office, was busy formulating more far-reaching and deadly plans concerning European Jewry, plans which also incorporated famine as a deliberate tool of extermination. G�tz Aly has argued that in March 1941 Heydrich developed a plan which called for Jews to be deported first to the eastern periphery of the General Government and then, following the anticipated quick military victory over the Soviet Union, to the swamp areas of the Pripyat region. �Those Jews who survived these ordeals would then be deported further into Siberia. In Aly�s words, �the [Jewish] deportees would die a �natural� death, in part starving and freezing to death in ghettos and camps, in part working themselves to death under a barbaric police regimen.� �Famine thus played an integral part in the initial plans which eventually culminated in the �Final Solution�.

IV. Conclusion
The three examples which have been briefly outlined above provide clear evidence that famine was a central component of Nazi plans for occupied Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Although the ambitious and lethal demographic reorganization envisaged in the General Plan for the East never advanced far beyond the initial planning stages, the actual hunger strategy implemented in conjunction with Operation Barbarossa, as well as the inhumane conditions created in the ghettos of Eastern Europe, had catastrophic consequences for the Slavic and Jewish populations of the region. Raul Hilberg has estimated that over half a million Polish Jews died in the ghettos. �Approximately 7.5 million non-Jewish Ukrainian, White Russian and Polish civilians died as result of German occupation. �In addition, some 3.3 million Soviet POWs perished through hunger, disease or shooting at the hands of the Germans on the Eastern front over the course of the war. �These horrific figures underscore the magnitude of the death and suffering produced by the calculated starvation strategies applied by the Nazi regime. Along with numerous other methods of death and destruction, the deliberate use of famine must be rated as one of the favored Nazi means of exterminating the regime�s racial and ideological enemies.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/stalin-hitler-mass-murder-starvation/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/21/secondworldwar-russia

The Annihilation of Superfluous Eaters: Nazi Plans for and Uses of Famine in Eastern Europe

by Steven R. Welch

The deliberate use of famine was an integral part of Nazi plans and policies regarding Eastern Europe during World War II. The following essay will examine three key examples: first, the so-called General Plan for the East (Generalplan Ost; hereafter GPO); second, the hunger strategy carried out by the Germans in the occupied regions of the Soviet Union following the invasion of June 1941, which included the starvation of Soviet POWs and Soviet civilians; and third, the Nazi ghettoization policies from 1940 to 1942 which created famine conditions in which hundreds of thousands of Jews died of hunger and hunger-related diseases.

I. The General Plan for the East

The General Plan for the East, the first draft of which was presented to Heinrich Himmler in July 1941, embodied the Nazi vision for a complete and ruthless demographic revolution in Eastern Europe. The GPO was premised on the belief that the Wehrmacht would quickly and decisively vanquish the Soviet Union and thus bring a vast new territorial empire under Nazi control. Hitler and other leading Nazis conceived of the newly conquered areas as a German �India� over which they would wield absolute power and within whose boundaries they could realize their plans for a sweeping racially-based reorganization of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. �The GPO was to provide the blueprint for this new colonial empire. �It called for all of Poland, Czechoslovakia and large parts of the Soviet Union to be transformed into gigantic German settlement areas. �This would entail �resettling� or killing between 30 to 50 million of the present inhabitants of those areas: 80-85 per cent of the Polish, 75 per cent of the Belorussian and 65 per cent of the Ukrainian populations would be affected. The GPO implicitly factored into its grisly calculations that many millions of the victims would die as a result of famine and disease brought on by malnutrition and overwork. After the massive liquidation of much of the Slavic population of Eastern Europe the remaining fourteen million people were to be reduced to the status of slave laborers for the ruling Germans who would control all property and monopolize positions of skilled labor. The territory vacated by the millions of deported or liquidated Slavs was to be settled by some 4.5 million Germans drawn from the Reich, from overseas Germans and other Germanic groups (such as Norwegians and Danes) in Europe. The entire process was originally scheduled to be completed within thirty years. Himmler later insisted that the pace be accelerated so that the program of Germanization would be accomplished within no more than twenty years.

The first draft of the GPO included a provision for the forced resettlement of five to six million Jews as part of the Germanization project. By the time a revised version was prepared the following year this provision had disappeared. By then the mass murder of European Jewry in specially designed extermination camps was already well underway. As an official from Alfred Rosenberg�s Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories noted in April 1942, the Eastern Jews did not need to be included in the revised version of the GPO since they �would already be eliminated before evacuation [to the East].�

Thanks to the defeat of the German army by Soviet forces the provisions of the GPO remained for the most part unfulfilled. Himmler did attempt one large-scale resettlement project in November 1942 in the area of Zamosc in the General Government. Thousands of Polish farmers were forced out of their homes to make room for 27,000 ethnic Germans. From the German perspective the action ended as a dismal failure: throughout the region security worsened, produce deliveries declined and Polish resistance escalated. The deteriorating war situation from 1943 on prevented any further experiments in mass resettlement. After the disastrous defeat at Stalingrad Hitler ordered that further work on the GPO be suspended. Had Hitler�s forces been successful in the East, however, there can be no doubt that under the auspices of the GPO tens of millions of Slavs would have been subjected to a program of mass killing in which deliberately imposed famine would have been a major component.

II. The �Hunger Strategy� of 1941-42

In spring 1941 the Reich Food Ministry and the Armed Forces High Command (OKW) developed what Rolf-Dieter M�ller has termed a �hunger strategy� devised to deprive millions of Soviet citizens of food in order to provide surpluses which would feed the German army in Russia as well as allow foodstuffs to be sent back to the Reich from the occupied territories in the East. � This hunger strategy, as M�ller has convincingly demonstrated, was not an unintended or unavoidable outcome of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union but was deliberately planned in advance and must be regarded as a �consciously implemented policy of extermination.�

Plans for the economic exploitation of the occupied territories had been considered in some detail by German civilian and military experts in advance of the invasion. A statement of goals for the upcoming campaign from early May 1941 succinctly noted: �1. The war can only be continued if all armed forces are fed by Russia in the third year of war. 2. There is no doubt that as a result many millions of people will be starved to death if we take out of the country the things necessary for us.� �A much more detailed document prepared by the �Economic Staff East, Agricultural Group� on 23 May 1941, painted an even grimmer picture of the mass starvation and deindustrialization planned for some Soviet regions. The planners commented dispassionately that �the population of these areas, in particular the urban population, will have to face most serious distress from famine.� �The document went on to state with brutal frankness that the policy being enunciated would result in mass death for the population of the occupied regions:

It follows from all that has been said that the German administration in these territories may well attempt to mitigate the consequences of the famine which undoubtedly will take place, and to accelerate the return to primitive agricultural conditions. An attempt might be made to intensify cultivation in these areas by expanding the acreage under potatoes or other important food crops giving a high yield. However, these measures will not avert famine. Many tens of millions of people in this area will become redundant and will either die or have to emigrate to Siberia. Any attempt to save the population there from death by starvation by importing surpluses from the black soil zone would be at the expense of supplies to Europe. It would reduce Germany�s and Europe�s power to resist the blockade. This must be clearly and absolutely understood.

Within the context of the racial ideology of Nazism, which posited the supremacy of the Ayran master race over the inferior Slavs and Jews, the murder of �many tens of millions of people� by means of deliberate starvation was accepted as perfectly legitimate and indeed desirable. The utter disregard of humane values by the German planners provides very striking evidence of what Hans Mommsen has referred to as the �deformation of public and private morality� during the Third Reich. �The hunger strategy which the economic experts in the Wehrmacht and the state ministries formulated was a clear violation of international law which required that occupying forces insure an adequate food supply for the indigenous population. The economic planners cynically choose to ignore their obligations under international law and endorsed a policy guaranteed to condemn millions to starvation. In comments made on the eve of the invasion of the Soviet Union, Alfred Rosenberg explicitly rejected the notion that Germany had any obligation toward the peoples it was about to subjugate; German interests alone were paramount: �the job of feeding the German people stands, this year, without a doubt, at the top of the list of Germany�s claims on the East�We see absolutely no reason for any obligation on our part to feed also the Russian people with the products of that surplus-territory. We know that this is a harsh necessity, bare of any feelings.�

Rosenberg was articulating a view which was shared by all members of the top Nazi leadership. Three weeks into Operation Barbarossa Hermann Goering spelled out German priorities when it came to the distribution of food supplies: �It is clear that a graduated scale of food allocations is needed. First in line are the combat troops, then the remainder of the troops in enemy territory, and then those troops stationed at home. The rates are adjusted accordingly. The supply of the German non-military population follows and only then comes the population of the occupied territories.� �He went on to note, �In the occupied territories on principle only those people are to be supplied with an adequate amount of food who work for us. Even if one wanted to feed all the other inhabitants, one could not do it in the newly-occupied Eastern areas. It is, therefore, wrong to funnel off food supplies for this purpose, if it is done at the expense of the army and necessitates increased supplies from home.The economic welfare and indeed the survival of the subject populations was to be callously and criminally disregarded; all that mattered was what benefit Germany could derive from the occupied territories. Hitler of course was in full agreement with a policy of maximum exploitation and minimum concern for the population of the occupied territories: �Our guiding principle must be that these people have but one justification for existence�to be of use to us economically. We must concentrate on extracting from these territories everything that it is possible to extract.� �It can come as no surprise that the hunger strategy could count on Hitler�s complete support. On 8 July 1941 General Franz Halder, Chief of the Army General Staff, noted that the F�hrer had indicated that it was his �firm decision to level Moscow and Leningrad, and make them uninhabitable, so as to relieve us of the necessity of having to feed the populations through the winter.� �All the evidence amply justifies Theo J. Schulte�s judgement that �the economic and military leadership of the Third Reich�advocated a radical policy of exploitation that did not merely allow for but, rather, was based on the need for the extermination of millions of people.�

The hunger strategy had a devastating impact on the Soviet population in the occupied regions. One of the most remarkable and brutally frank assessments of the consequences of the strategy was provided in a report from the Armaments Inspector for the Ukraine, Major General Hans Leykauf, dated 2 December 1941. Leykauf�s report is noteworthy for its matter-of-fact acknowledgment of the scale and scope of mass killing being carried out by German forces in the East:

When we shoot the Jews to death, allow the POWs to die, expose considerable portions of the urban population to starvation and in the upcoming year also lose a part of the rural population to hunger, the question remains to be answered: who is actually supposed to produce economic values?

Leykaufs attention, of course, was focused not on the lethal human consequences of the hunger strategy and the other atrocities committed against the Soviet population but solely on the effects such a strategy might have on the productivity of the occupied regions. As he made clear, his own views were based not on humane �sentiment� but on �sober economic calculations.� �These calculations undoubtedly informed his suggestions for a continuation of the hunger strategy:

Scooping off the agricultural surplus in the Ukraine for the purpose of feeding the Reich is therefore only feasible if traffic in the interior of the Ukraine is diminished to a minimum. The attempt will be made to achieve this

1. by annihilation of superfluous eaters (Jews, population of the Ukrainian big cities, which like Kiev do not receive any supplies at all);

2. by extreme reduction of the rations allocated to the Ukrainians in the remaining cities;

3. by decrease of the food of the farming population.

I recently came across an article which states the following:

Opposition to racism used to be a political stance. Now it has every marking of a religion, with both good and deleterious effects on American society. . . .

The call for people to soberly “acknowledge” their White Privilege as a self-standing, totemic act is based on the same justification as acknowledging one’s fundamental sinfulness is as a Christian. One is born marked by original sin; to be white is to be born with the stain of unearned privilege. . . .

Real people are having real problems, and educated white America has been taught that what we need from them is willfully incurious, self-flagellating piety, of a kind that has helped no group in human history.

I also learned of a Princeton study; which examined over 20 years of data. That study showed no correlation between what the economic bottom 90% want, and what the U.S. government actually does. If every member of that bottom 90% opposes a bill, it has about a 30% chance of becoming law. If every member of that bottom 90% supports a bill, it also has a 30% chance of becoming law.

More bluntly: America is a plutocracy, and power flows from the top down. If the religion of Antiracism is supported by a large mass of the populace today, that is strong evidence that the religion had been promulgated by America’s economic and social elites for a number of decades prior. If the beliefs of FDR and many of his chief advisers are examined, that strong suspicion becomes absolute certainty.

Like most major religions, Antiracism has a central founding myth. That myth is rooted in WWII. WWII is presented as a good-versus-evil story between those who opposed Antiracism (the evil Nazis) and those who supported Antiracism (the good Allies).

In order to convert people to the Antiracist religion, it is useful to link the tenets of that religion to things people already believe. Those coming from a traditional moral background–i.e., those who had accepted neither the Nazi nor the Antiracist religion–often believe that compassion and kindness are good, and murder is wrong. In order to link those existing moral beliefs to the tenets of Antiracism, it was necessary to downplay or conceal Soviet mass murder, to conceal the Western democratic economic elites’ utter contempt for the victims of that mass murder, those same economic elites’ willingness to use a food blockade to starve the people of German-occupied Europe, and the Allies’ mass murder which occurred after the war. It was also necessary to highlight the Holocaust, without mentioning the little fact that the Germans simply could not feed everyone within their own borders. In this way, the Antiracist economic and social elite created the illusion that they cared about compassion and kindness; when in fact the only thing they cared about was the fanatical promulgation of their Antiracist religion and the physical destruction of those who had rejected it. During the Middle Ages, those seen as religious heretics were burned at the stake. The Dresden and Hamburg firestorms were the same thing–except with a new religion, and on a much larger scale.

Well i guess you can no longer argue against basic facts and now need to come up with god knows what.

Germany directed the starvation of millions and well could have feed everyone by rationing food like everybody else did in the war.

I’m currently reading a book written by Herbert Hoover, entitled Freedom Betrayed. I hadn’t realized this earlier, but apparently Hoover was a prolific author. He’s made a number of very good points, including the following:

• He was involved in famine relief efforts for Poland, until Churchill blockaded food imports into Germany. Apparently, while Chamberlain and Daladier were the ones who created the blockade itself, it was Churchill who decided to treat food as a contraband item. No different than ammunition or bombs or tanks.

• He stated that in 1939, the Western democracies sought an alliance with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. Stalin said that his price for such an alliance would be the annexation of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, part of Romania, and some other territory. Chamberlain refused. But in a speech in the House of Commons, Churchill said that Stalin’s demands should be met.

• He noted that very shortly after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the United States placed an embargo on Japan. Other anti-Japanese measures were also taken. During the summer of 1941, Japan had a moderate prime minister. That prime minister waged his entire political career on his ability to resolve Japan’s diplomatic differences with the United States. He indicated that he was willing to make very considerable concessions to get the embargo lifted–as long as the American president agreed to a meeting. But instead of the agreed-upon meeting, he was given excuses, delays, or in some cases the thought that Japan had to agree to very considerable concessions before a meeting could even take place. (With nothing in return except the hope that maybe the American president would agree to meet.) Due to the failure of this prime minister’s efforts, he was removed from office and replaced with hard line militarists. The militarists also attempted to resolve Japan’s diplomatic differences with the United States, and didn’t make any more progress than the prime minister had made. At that point they decided to attack Pearl Harbor.

• In April of 1945, Japan’s government had once again become moderate and peace-seeking. Their main precondition for peace was that the emperor be allowed to remain in office, even if only in a ceremonial or religious role. Japan’s peace feelers were ignored, and the United States was unwilling to grant any reassurances about the future role of the emperor. As a result, the war lasted several more months, culminating in incalculable destruction of Japanese cities through the use of conventional and nuclear weapons.

• In 1939, Chamberlain and Daladier took a hard line against Germany in large part because of FDR’s promise to enter the war eventually. They were told that while the United States would not start the war, it would finish it. Similar reassurances were given to the government of Poland. This was a relatively rare case in which FDR actually intended to keep a promise he had made.

• In 1941, on the eve of Germany’s Operation Barbarossa, a pro-Soviet faction within Yugoslavia was contemplating overthrowing the government. FDR promised them that if they did so, the United States would provide immediate and significant aid. That promise was of course broken. After the pro-Soviet putsch, neither the United States nor any other major nation helped the new, pro-Soviet government of Yugoslavia resist the resultant German onslaught.

• After the war, the Truman administration exerted enormous diplomatic pressure on Chiang Kai-shek to make peace with Mao and the Chinese communists. This was consistent with deals made between the Big Three during the war–deals in which Chiang Kai-shek was basically thrown under the bus.

Kurt, can you please start a new thread with this?

Putting aside for a moment the annoyance-factor of resurrecting this thread yet again … creating a new thread would have the added benefit of your post matching the thread topic.

Well at least Hoover didn’t argue that the starvation of millions was not a directed NAZI program of genocide, or that Churchill was complicit in evil doings that required genocide by Germany.

Hes not that stupid. Finally we all know Germany directed the starvation of 10’s of millions as part of her “Hunger Program”.

@KurtGodel7:

• He noted that very shortly after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the United States placed an embargo on Japan. Other anti-Japanese measures were also taken. During the summer of 1941, Japan had a moderate prime minister. That prime minister waged his entire political career on his ability to resolve Japan’s diplomatic differences with the United States. He indicated that he was willing to make very considerable concessions to get the embargo lifted–as long as the American president agreed to a meeting. But instead of the agreed-upon meeting, he was given excuses, delays, or in some cases the thought that Japan had to agree to very considerable concessions before a meeting could even take place. (With nothing in return except the hope that maybe the American president would agree to meet.) Due to the failure of this prime minister’s efforts, he was removed from office and replaced with hard line militarists. The militarists also attempted to resolve Japan’s diplomatic differences with the United States, and didn’t make any more progress than the prime minister had made. At that point they decided to attack Pearl Harbor.

  • In April of 1945, Japan’s government had once again become moderate and peace-seeking. Their main precondition for peace was that the emperor be allowed to remain in office, even if only in a ceremonial or religious role. Japan’s peace feelers were ignored, and the United States was unwilling to grant any reassurances about the future role of the emperor. As a result, the war lasted several more months, culminating in incalculable destruction of Japanese cities through the use of conventional and nuclear weapons.

At the time a main goal of communists everywhere was to spread communism all over the world. Hitler wanted a chunk of the world. There was going to be problems.

I apologize in advance for bumping an old thread. I’m new and don’t know just how taboo that is. No disrespect is intended in any of my following statements. Contrary to what many will think, I am not racist. I am not anti-Jewish.

I agree with very many of Kurt’s statements except those regarding the “Holocaust”. I will try to refute a couple of IL’s and, to a lesser degree, Narvik’s statements. If anyone demands it, I will try to find sources for disputed points, but I will rely on memory otherwise. i will also give my interpretation of the topic discussion.

National Socialism- Came to power through democratic election, despite Hitler’s generally unfavorable view of Democracy. Germany happened to use a dictatorship but that isn’t necessary to the ideology. Belief that the Individual should contribute to the country because he wants and because it is beneficial for all. Believed that all races should take pride and retain their unique cultures and traits. Believed people should not mix as their evolutionary differences provide advantages and disadvantages in different climates(example, 97% of United States African-Americans are Vitamin D deficient because their ancestors adapted to extreme sunlight and can no longer absorb as much from the less intense North American sunshine). Hitler loved the German race and wanted to see it thrive and once again be a proud people. It promoted traditional family values. It opposed homosexuality that was so rampant in Berlin. In fact, the heavily Jewish-owned film industry produced some of the first homosexual scenes. Germany was in a massive depression. Under National Socialism, in 12 years, Germany became the NUMBER ONE leader in medicine, technology, and science. Hitler’s innovative policies revived Germany, in spite of the extremely influential international Jews “declaring war” on Germany via boycott(in 1934 i believe), even the New York Times reported this. Interestingly, despite being bombed to oblivion and losing on all fronts, the Germans never even got close to attempting a revolt against the government in power, such was their love and faith in Hitler and National Socialism.

Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia. Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish(I bring up Jewish info because this is pertinent to Hitler’s distrust of them and eventual internment of them). Atheistic. Believes in an enormously powerful federal government with a dictator. Total control of industry, harvests, etc. Murders own citizens en masse(Stalin’s gulags, Ukrainian genocide, and Mao’s killing of some 84 million of his Chinese). Don’t know much else about it, honestly, which is in large part because I hate stuff I do know about it. Generally, Stalin was hated by his citizens.

Onto IL’s and Kurt’s debate/argument

Poland
Germany was not some rabid dog wanting to gobble up territory. It was re-claiming German territory pre-WWI where in many cases the ethnic Germans were being mistreated(Czechoslovakia) or murdered(Poland). The stripping of German lands to Poland resulted in many Germans being vulnerable to the Polish government’s and citizens mistreatment. Furthermore, Danzig was now cut off from Germany via land. The blockade prevented adequate commute and supply routes via the Baltic. Thousands and thousands were killed before and during the onset of the German invasion. I don’t know how valid this is but I have read that Poland was planning offensives against Germany, having been promised aid from UK. Poland refused to seriously consider Germany’s proposal to allow a land route to Danzig. It also ignored the demands that they stop incurring on ethnic Germans’ lands and subsequently shooting them. Hitler invaded to save those Germans. UK and France then declare war on GE while refusing to do so when Soviet Union invades Poland, which is… odd, to say the least, no?

Bombing
Yes, IL, Germany sent bombers. They did not carpet bomb. They did not fire bomb which resulted in countless number of humans being incinerated while huddled up in Dresden, of which there was no military significance.

As with nearly every war in history, all sides committed atrocities. I contend that Germany committed far fewer than each major Allied power minus probably France.

I’ll pause here and see if anyone is interested in continuing discussion. I wouldnt mind starting a seperate thread although I fear that thread would approach forum rule-breaking. All input is very welcome. Thanks for the read.

Kurt has a new account?

@Colt45:

Contrary to what many will think, I am not racist. I am not anti-Jewish.

Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia. Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish.

[Starts to raise hand, then slowly lowers it back down]… awww… nevermind… it ain’t worth it.

@Wolfshanze:

@Colt45:

Contrary to what many will think, I am not racist. I am not anti-Jewish.

Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia. Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish.

[Starts to raise hand, then slowly lowers it back down]… awww… nevermind… it ain’t worth it.

:lol: :lol:

Lolol IL dont tell anyone

Wolf, I’d be happy to discuss that aspect. I will start with a link which delves right into it. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html

As someone who bears scars from earlier in this thread, trying very hard indeed to change minds via a forum debate - Wolf has it right. Very sensible indeed of you Wolf. I marked your post up in appreciation.

yea, the colt guy seems like a trump voter, in other words not consistent -contradicting thinking.

Contrary to what many will think, I am not racist. I am not anti-Jewish.

Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia. Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish.

@Imperious:

yea, the colt guy seems like a trump voter, in other words not consistent -contradicting thinking.

Don’t think so, Colts profile says his from North Dakota, a state adjacent to Canada and established by German, Norwegian and Swedish immigrants. I figure Trump get zero votes from up there.

@Colt45:

Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia.
Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish(I bring up Jewish info because this is pertinent to Hitler’s distrust of them and eventual internment of them).
Atheistic.

This is where I get off your bus. How can a man be both a Jew and an Atheist at the same time ? If commies are atheists that are against religion, why would them label themselves as Jews, Christians or Islamists ? And if #international Jewry# (is this even a word ?) did in fact back Communism, as you claim, then why did Sovjet union not back Israel ? How come it was the Christian President Truman that backed the establishment of Israel in 1948, and not the, according to you, the Jew loving commies ? Just curious

@Narvik:

@Colt45:

Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia.
Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish(I bring up Jewish info because this is pertinent to Hitler’s distrust of them and eventual internment of them).
Atheistic.

This is where I get off your bus. How can a man be both a Jew and an Atheist at the same time ? If commies are atheists that are against religion, why would them label themselves as Jews, Christians or Islamists ? And if #international Jewry# (is this even a word ?) did in fact back Communism, as you claim, then why did Sovjet union not back Israel ? How come it was the Christian President Truman that backed the establishment of Israel in 1948, and not the, according to you, the Jew loving commies ? Just curious

I am referring to racial Jews(Khazars). Trotsky was one of the racially Jewish leaders. He clearly did not promote the peaceful aspects of the Jewish faith. The Soviet Union did tangibly supply the military entity that seized Arab citrus and olive groves in the northwestern coast of Palestine in 1948.

Truman’s presidential campaign had nearly ran out of funds until Zionists provided two million dollars to continue his campaign. Regarding him being “Christian”, would a Christian support the Palestinian Genocide of 1948 to set up a new “homeland” for the Jews? No, no real Christian would(I am NOT claiming he’s Jewish, only that that act is a gross subversion of God’s laws). But, he had obligations because of the financial support he had received, similar to today’s lobbying in Congress, to support Zionist ambitions. And why would a Jewish state even be necessary after the Germans had been crushed?

It’s not a matter of Commies and capitalists, it’s a good old-fashioned case of money talks. Whether people recognize it or not, the richest men in the world happen to be racial Jews(Rockefeller, Rothschild).
To people claiming I’m racist: All peoples have evil among their ranks whether it be Western Europeans, Africans, Asians, or Jews. I’m not claiming any one of those is inherently evil as THAT is racist and false.

Six corporations own 90% of United States media(Warner, etc.) and plays a massive role in what “history” is. Let’s be respectful and not brand someone racist or having an unsound mind when he/she disagrees with that 90%.

Thank you for being respectful with your question, Narvik

@Narvik:

This is where I get off your bus. How can a man be both a Jew and an Atheist at the same time ? If commies are atheists that are against religion, why would them label themselves as Jews, Christians or Islamists ? And if #international Jewry# (is this even a word ?) did in fact back Communism, as you claim, then why did Sovjet union not back Israel ? How come it was the Christian President Truman that backed the establishment of Israel in 1948, and not the, according to you, the Jew loving commies ? Just curious

If commies are atheists that are against religion, why would them label themselves as Jews, Christians or Islamists ?
And if #international Jewry# (is this even a word ?) did in fact back Communism, as you claim, then why did Sovjet union not back Israel ?

You’ve asked two very good questions. The answer to both can be found by looking at history. Czarist Russia had a long history of Anti-Semitism. That history was so strong that, at least until 1917, the international Jewish community generally favored the Axis. The general feeling, at least among Jews, was that while all major participants in WWI had an unfortunate history of anti-Semitism, czarist Russia’s anti-Semitism was significantly stronger than that of any other major participant.

Any time you’re trying to overthrow a government, it generally makes sense to ally with those the government has alienated. The Bolsheviks understood this. After coming to power, they declared anti-Semitism to be a crime, with the punishment for that crime being execution. The Jewish community saw czarist anti-Semitism as a disease; and many Jews also saw Bolshevism as the cure.

Some Jews recognized that Jewish participation in the Bolshevik revolution and Bolshevik government had served to fuel Russian anti-Semitism. Many Russians blamed the Jews for the communist government’s massive crimes against humanity. There was a feeling among many Jews that if the Bolshevik government was to fall, the replacement government would be at least as anti-Semitic as the czarists had been. A number of Jews felt it was in the Jewish community’s best interests for the Bolshevik government to survive.

It is that feeling which may help explain the (Jewish-owned) New York Times’ decision to lie about the Ukrainian famine. That famine represented the mass murder of 7 million innocent people, including 3 million children. (Seventy year later the New York Times apologized for this coverup.) In choosing to lie about the famine, a deliberate decision was made to shield the Soviet government from the negative diplomatic and international political consequences which would otherwise have arisen. Several years later, the New York Times began a vigorous campaign to get the United States to go to war against Nazi Germany (and perhaps in alliance with the Soviet regime). The thinking was that the Jewish community would benefit from the defeat of an anti-Semitic regime (such as Hitler’s), and the victory of a pro-Semitic regime (such as the Soviet Union).

Stalin, however, had the habit of allying with B against A. Then he’d ally with C to get rid of B. Then he’d eliminate C. He used this strategy to become the uncontested dictator of the Soviet Union. He also applied it to his other dealings, including his dealings with the Jews. His plan was to use the international Jewish community as part of a broader effort to destroy a common enemy (Nazi Germany). Once his Jewish ally had served its intended purpose, it could then be eliminated. Toward the end of his life, he ordered the construction of two large new concentration camps, widely rumored to be used on the Jews. His show trials of Jewish doctors were intended to create the legal fictions necessary for a broader campaign against Soviet Jews generally. The Soviet media began issuing statements such as the following “Unmasking the gang of poisoner-doctors struck a blow against the international Jewish Zionist organization.”

In America, Jews had achieved important positions in the media, finance, academia, and other fields. Due to all this Jewish influence in America, Stalin believed that in a war between America and the Soviet Union, the international Jewish community would favor the United States. Stalin’s political preparations for the war against Nazi Germany consisted of liquidating any Soviet citizen who had right wing political views. His internal political preparations for war against the United States and the West consisted primarily of the planned liquidation of the Soviet Jewish population.

NATO’s non-nuclear forces would have been completely inadequate to prevent the Red Army from sweeping across all of Western Europe. The only real deterrent to Soviet invasion was the American nuclear threat. But as of the early '50s, the United States did not have ICBMs. To drop a nuclear bomb on someone, one had to get a plane directly over the intended target. Stalin believed his (very numerous) MiG force capable of shooting down American bombers before they delivered their nuclear payloads.

However, Stalin died in 1953, without having had the time to either launch WWIII, or to liquidate the Soviet Jewish population. Stalin’s successors tended to embrace a milder and less aggressive version of his anti-Semitism. The United States and Israel were regarded with extreme distrust, and the Soviet Union tended to aid Israel’s enemies.