@Colt45:
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
Thanks for your collection of very good posts, Colt, and for the above link. I’d like to lay a bit of a foundation before addressing the link itself.
Let’s say you have an ethnic conflict, like the undeclared war between the Jews and the Palestinians. Typically, there will be very little overlap between the claims being made by one side and the claims made by the other side. To believe all the factual assertions made by either participant will almost inevitably lead to favoring that participant over the other. The most important step in choosing a side to favor is to determine which factual assertions to actually believe. Factual assertions made by a third party (such as the Red Cross, or a human rights organization) are probably more reliable than the claims of either participant. (Except in cases where Jews or Palestinians have become influential members of such organizations. To the extent that members of either group have gained influence over those organizations, those organizations could no longer be regarded as neutral.) In a conflict such as this, a number of factual claims will need to be held in abeyance. Until a factual assertion has been either confirmed or denied by a highly credible neutral third party, that assertion should be regarded as something which could easily be true, and just as easily be false.
There are some parallels between the Jewish/Palestinian ethnic conflict, and the Jewish/Russian ethnic conflict. During the latter ethnic conflict, the Russians began in the stronger position. They used that position to do enough anti-Semitic things to create massive resentment and bitterness within the Jewish community. But they did little about the massive expansion of the Russian Jewish population which occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Jews were not expelled from Russia, and were not prevented from reproducing at well above replacement level. Most Russian Jews lived in poverty due to anti-Semitic economic discrimination. But they were also in a position of rapidly growing demographic strength.
The Jews were far from the only ones excluded from the center of Russian society. Czarist Russia had occupied nations such as Poland and Finland. Polish and Finns were not necessarily accorded the same treatment as ethnic Russians.
The phrase “Russian Revolution” is a misnomer, because the vast majority of inner circle Bolsheviks were not ethnic Russians. The phrase “Anti-Russian Revolution” would be far more accurate; to denote the fact that for the most part, that revolution resulted in ethnic Russians losing control over their own country. Those who gained control were typically people who had been excluded from the center of czarist Russia. They then exacted an ugly revenge against the groups they blamed for having excluded them. Stalin, for example, was from Georgia. (Not the American Georgia, but the Georgia south of Russia.)
Any time you have an ethnic conflict, whether it’s Jews against Palestinians, or Jews against czarist Russians, one often finds oneself wondering who started it. Normally the answer to that question depends on who you listen to. If you listen to the standard-issue Jewish account of the Jewish/Palestinian conflict, the Jews have made every reasonable effort to show restraint in the face of intolerable Palestinian provocation. The typical Palestinian description places blame for that conflict on the Jews. Jews describe atrocities committed by Palestinians, while remaining silent about atrocities committed by Jews. Palestinians of course are very vivid in their descriptions of Jewish atrocities committed against them, while remaining silent about their own acts of terror against Jews.
The article to which you linked was written from a pro-czarist/pro-ethnic Russian perspective. Because it was written from that perspective, it places the vast majority of blame for the Jewish/Russian ethnic conflict at the feet of the Jews. Something written from the Jewish perspective, on the other hand, would draw attention to the anti-Semitic measures undertaken by the czars, while downplaying or completely whitewashing the brutal revenge that some Jews exacted during the Soviet era. Because there was even more bitterness and hatred associated with the Jewish/Russian ethnic conflict than with the Jewish/Palestinian ethnic conflict, it’s at least as difficult to be objective about the former as it is the latter. All the more reason, therefore, to go the extra mile in the effort to reach objectivity.
Listening to both sides’ stories is an important part of going that extra mile. Obviously, both sides in any ethnic conflict are typically capable of presenting lies, half truths, distortions, exaggerations, facts taken out of context, and omissions. One typically has to sift large piles of that to find a few precious nuggets of objective truth.
Among the many problems with Kurt and Colt’s perspective is they don’t object to ethno-nationalism. In fact they celebrate it. It’s not like Hitler was for national/ethnic/cultural autonomy and leaving everyone be. Hitler was quite clear that the goal was Aryan domination of the world. Germans would become managers/owners/conquerors of a world dominion and would be educated to rule. So while the imagined enemy is an ethnic group that is supposedly conspiring to dominate the world (the Jews), and Nazis wanted to supplant that group with their own group. Via the process of defining their imaginary enemy, the Nazis also defined the lengths they would go to to supplant that enemy.
This is why communism/socialism, despite it’s severe flaws in terms of historical implementation (and I make no attempt to defend Lenin/Trotsky. I categorically condemn them and argue they shouldn’t even be called socialists on account of their rejection of democratic accountability) remains way more sympathetic (from the perspective of justice and liberty) than national socialism. Among the many reasons for this is that if international socialism had been achieved, then we wouldn’t have to worry about any particular ethnic group (or other type of group) dominating society via their ownership of capital and consequent control of governments. The ultimate goal of socialism is to abolish such centralization of power so that ordinary people control their own lives (via control/management of the means of production where they work) and are not marionettes for capital owners to play with. Socialism aims for solutions to the problems of ethno-nationlist domination, imperialism, and ecological degradation while national socialism celebrates ethno-nationalist domination as natural and good. Maybe this socialist goal is utopian, but not less honorable than national socialism.
Did international capital play a role in infiltrating, shaping, distorting and deforming the Bolshevik Revolution? Almost certainly. But they also played a role in shaping the Nazi Revolution and probably every major revolution since (with Revolutionary Catalonia as one of the few honorable exceptions). Yes the Bolsheviks failed and became tyrants, but if we look at history we see that most revolutions ultimately fail and revert to tyranny. With the clarity of history, we know that the French Revolution reverting to tyranny is not even remotely sufficient reason to reject the cause of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” for all times just as the present state of American political life is not sufficient reason to reject the principles upon which America was founded.
It is indeed quite silly to suppose that Trotsky and other prominent Bolsheviks were racial supremacists who were participating in some grand plot initiated by rich Jewish capitalists. But what is not at all silly is the idea that those people who control vast amounts of capital will use any means necessary to maintain and expand that position of power and domination over other people. And some of these people are indeed motivated by ethno-nationalism and other dishonorable ideologies (while others are motivated purely by greed). This means war, ecological degradation, and other irrational acts that lead to death, impoverishment, and diminution of the quality of life.
One of the many reasons to reject national socialism is that far from transcending ethno-nationalism, in fact it is just another ethno-nationalist power fantasy. It presupposes a world where ethnic groups are in a death-struggle with one another (and therefore it is natural and good for these ethnic groups to commit crimes and practice deception in pursuit of their own ends….) That’s right, according to the national socialist ethic and worldview, their imagined “Jewish” enemy is in fact doing what it ought to. If we really want to oppose ethno-nationalism as well as the tragedy of billionaires using war for their own ends, then what is necessary is not forming ethno-nationalist enclaves and fighting each other for domination. What is necessary is taking up cause against the system of global capitalism and imperialism that perpetuates such problems. And from this perspective, the Bolsheviks (while deserving condemnation) remain more sympathetic than the national socialists.
Its just a soapbox of the same ideas that is brought up in virtually every single thread regardless if said thread has any relevance to these topics. Its been going on for years and is pretty funny actually.
Interesting post Zhukov
@Imperious:
Its just a soapbox of the same ideas that is brought up in virtually every single thread regardless if said thread has any relevance to these topics. Its been going on for years and is pretty funny actually.
Ya… Kurt and Colt… some people you just have to let them talk… nothing you can say otherwise. :-P
Rather that attempt to counter each erroneous assertion Zhukov made, I will take a step back and look at the bigger picture. As a general rule there are two available evolutionary strategies: individual, and group-oriented. Both strategies are seen in the insect world. Most insects pursue an individual evolutionary strategy, and are unwilling to make sacrifices for anyone other than their own offspring. Ants, wasps, bees, and other social insects pursue a group evolutionary strategy. The latter strategy is much more powerful than the former, which is why there are no “individual evolutionary strategy” insects competing for the niches filled by ants.
What is true of insects is also true of human beings. During the rise of the Roman Republic, Rome pursued a group evolutionary strategy. Romans were willing to make considerable personal sacrifices for the good of Rome. All that ended during the declining days of the Roman Empire. Government officials became much easier to bribe. Concepts such as honor were regarded with cynicism and derision. Roman men were no longer willing to fight for Rome. A large population of able bodied Romans was given bread and circuses, without being required to work. All of this was consistent with an individual evolutionary strategy, and inconsistent with a group evolutionary strategy. The group evolutionary strategy had been abandoned; and that abandonment was the primary cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.
In a typical Third World nation the majority of wealth will have been seized by a very small economic elite. That elite acts in ways which benefit itself, and acts without regard for the welfare of the nation as a whole. Those outside the elite pursue “selfish familialism”–which basically means to always act in one’s family’s own interests, and assume everyone else will do the same. This is a group evolutionary strategy–but on a family scale, not a nation scale. Such a strategy cannot build or maintain a nation, and cannot threaten the narcissistic elites’ stranglehold on power.
The United States and Europe are steadily transitioning toward Third World status. The main reason for that transition is that our economic elites are at least as badly behaved as theirs. The lies and political agendas of the elites have consistently pushed the West closer to Third World status. (That does not necessarily mean that Third World status for us is their ultimate objective. It does, however, mean that they are consistently “acting as if” driven by that motive.) The elites have increasingly embraced crony capitalism. They have chosen to import workers while exporting jobs. They are choosing to physically replace the people of Western nations with those from Third World nations. At least in the U.S., 51% of immigrants are on welfare. $24,000 was spent, per income tax paying American, to fund the Wall Street bailouts. The elites have accumulated enormous government debts in order to pay for their spending–spending never intended to benefit the American people or the American nation. These are the sort of actions which can push a First World nation into Third World status.
Several years ago, the Mexican government passed a law imposing stricter standards on vehicular emissions. Both the public and police regarded this law as an excuse for police to extract more bribes from the people. Neither group felt the law had anything to do with environmental protection. The law never resulted in reduced emissions, but only resulted in more bribes for police.
More generally, Third World nations are nearly helpless to enforce any sort of environmental standards. The enforcement of such standards would require a group evolutionary strategy. Selfish familialism cannot result in solid environmental protections. Nor can it result in a strong collective response to any other national or global threat. To the extent that humanity needs to resist group level threats, that resistance can be achieved only to the extent that we resist the elites’ (highly dedicated) efforts to convert Western nations into Third World nations.
The Nazi government passed clean air and clean water standards. Worker safety measures were significantly improved. The workweek was reduced to 40 hours. Employers were forced to give their workers long vacations. On the other hand, corporate profits significantly increased during the Nazi regime. If the Nazi government significantly improved environmental protections, the well-being of German workers, and the profits of employers, there is no reason to suppose that Nazi Germany was in transition to Third World status.
Western nations are called “democracies,” even though money matters more than votes. It would be more accurate to label such nations democratic plutocracies. 50 - 100 years ago, there was no overlap between the values of the plutocratic elite and those of the American people. The American people valued things like justice, fairness, human rights, idealism, etc. (At least up to the point.) The primary value of the plutocratic elite is “Antiracism”. Other names for that term include white guilt, or the destruction of the white race.
That the elites couldn’t have cared less about human rights, or the prevention of mass murder, was proved by their indifference to the Ukrainian famine (7 million victims), other acts of Soviet mass murder (about 20 million additional victims). It was also proved by their use of a food blockade during WWI (700,000 victims), their use of a food blockade during WWII (20 - 30 million victims), the postwar Morgenthau Plan (6 million victims), Operation Keelhaul (an unknown number of victims, probably in the millions), and their passive acceptance of Soviet sphere deportations (probably at least 2 million victims). So how do you convince a gullible American public that the elites’ value set overlaps the public’s value set, even though there is no overlap? First, they created an exaggerated picture of the Nazis’ human rights violations, while sweeping Soviet mass murders and Western plutocrats’ mass murders under the rug. Then they argued that Nazism and mass murder were inextricably linked, and that it was impossible to embrace the former without also embracing the latter. The next step was to con the public into believing that any view the Nazis had which disagreed with the plutocrats’ perspective would inevitably lead to mass murder. The final step in this process was to convince the public that Nazism was worse than communism, regardless of which side had been more brutal. The public had by this point absorbed enough of the plutocrats’ values to make this argument stick.
Rather that attempt to counter each erroneous assertion Zhukov made, I will take a step back and look at the bigger picture. As a general rule there are two available evolutionary strategies: individual, and group-oriented. Both strategies are seen in the insect world. Most insects pursue an individual evolutionary strategy, and are unwilling to make sacrifices for anyone other than their own offspring. Ants, wasps, bees, and other social insects pursue a group evolutionary strategy. The latter strategy is much more powerful than the former, which is why there are no “individual evolutionary strategy” insects competing for the niches filled by ants.
OK Agent Smith
The Nazi government passed clean air and clean water standards. Worker safety measures were significantly improved. The workweek was reduced to 40 hours. Employers were forced to give their workers long vacations. On the other hand, corporate profits significantly increased during the Nazi regime. If the Nazi government significantly improved environmental protections, the well-being of German workers, and the profits of employers, there is no reason to suppose that Nazi Germany was in transition to Third World status.
Ever heard about Organisation Todt??
One of the workers saftey was, that they embedded your dead bodies in the wall of cement of when you would die at the Job site.
O-tone of Himmler was that he didn’t care if such an such millions slaves workers died while building a new street or Rollbahn and especially didn’t care of millions of millions Jews who would die in the same process of leveling a new Rollbahn.
OK Agent Smith
You remember that poster? wow!
Yea as a general rule i always compare insects and humans and apply what the former do as an example for the latter…. not
@aequitas:
Ever heard about Organisation Todt??
One of the workers saftey was, that they embedded your dead bodies in the wall of cement of when you would die at the Job site.
A number of anti-Nazi lies have been told over the years. For example, I’ve read Mein Kampf, and not once did Hitler say anything about a desire for world conquest. Instead, he wrote about his desire to conquer the Soviet Union–or at least that portion of the Soviet Union west of the Urals. This, he felt, would give Germany the same strength relative to Europe the United States had relative to North America. He pointed out that no one had ever imposed a Versailles Treaty on the United States. Under the Nazis, German naval spending was never more than 10 - 11% of overall military spending. A completely inadequate naval budget for any serious extra-European conquest. Early in the war, Hitler showed very little interest in conquering Britain’s colonies in North Africa, despite Britain’s temporary military weakness there.
None of which stopped FDR from (once again) lying to the American people, and claiming that Hitler had formulated long-term plans to conquer the United States. FDR also said that Hitler’s long-term goal was world conquest.
The above was hardly the only piece of deliberately deceitful anti-Nazi propaganda which had been spread by corrupt, evil politicians. Other talking points include the claims that the Nazis made lampshades out of human skin, soap out of human fat, the claim that Hitler described Nazism as a “big lie,” the jig Hitler supposedly did after the fall of France, the claim or implication that the Nazis could have fed all the people within their own borders, etc. Each of those claims are complete fiction. The claim that the Nazis embedded the dead bodies of foreign workers into cement walls sounds like more of the same.
I do agree, however, that during WWII the Nazis turned millions of non-Germans into conscripted laborers. Germany was fighting for its very existence against foes much larger and more powerful than itself. Conscripting all able-bodied people was a matter of absolute military necessity. I also acknowledge that many of these workers died of starvation. (Despite Hitler’s order that they be fed.) The Churchill/FDR food blockade made it physically impossible for Germany to feed all the people within its borders.
Western plutocrats worked very hard to create the impression that WWII was a war between the humanitarian Allies and the anti-humanitarian Axis. How did the plutocrats create that impression, when they themselves had vigorously rejected humanitarianism? They (very quietly) imposed a food blockade on Germany, then (very loudly) blamed Hitler for everyone who died as a result of that blockade. This was before the Internet, so the plutocrats’ ability to suppress information was quite considerable.
Sorry Kurt, but you simply sound like one who denies the Holocaust.
There is a original tape where Himmler exactly stats how much he cares for non Germans.
The KZ’s are real and will surely come again (History simply repeats it self).
Organisation Todt was real.
You read all your books and take them for granted. Just come over to Germany an visit Dachau, Bergen Belsen.
Take a close look and the truth will popp into your eyes.
Untill then, I suggest to you to take a notch back with wild assumptions and the spread of anti allies Propaganda.
Were the Allies good during WWII?? NO, not at all, but nor were the Nazis.
War Shows the ugly truth of human beings given the wrong Tools in their Hands too kill each other.
I don’t want to insult you nor be mean to you, but I think at least we all should show a Little bit more respect to the victims of WWII.
This Topic is about: National Socialism vs. Communism.
Your commnets are way off of it.
@aequitas:
Sorry Kurt, but you simply sound like one who denies the Holocaust.
There is a original tape where Himmler exactly stats how much he cares for non Germans.
The KZ’s are real and will surely come again (History simply repeats it self).
Organisation Todt was real.You read all your books and take them for granted. Just come over to Germany an visit Dachau, Bergen Belsen.
Take a close look and the truth will popp into your eyes.Untill then, I suggest to you to take a notch back with wild assumptions and the spread of anti allies Propaganda.
Were the Allies good during WWII?? NO, not at all, but nor were the Nazis.
War Shows the ugly truth of human beings given the wrong Tools in their Hands too kill each other.I don’t want to insult you nor be mean to you, but I think at least we all should show a Little bit more respect to the victims of WWII.
This Topic is about: National Socialism vs. Communism.
Your commnets are way off of it.
I will address many of the points you made in your post. But first I’d like to make a different point–one which pertains to the title of this thread. :) During the Cold War, the communist objective was world conquest. To achieve this, the Soviet Union favored corroding the United States from within. Communists in Western nations opposed traditional morality, supported massive immigration, opposed religion (especially Christianity), opposed patriotism, supported radical feminism, and did everything else they possibly could have done to corrode and destroy the existing social order. The theory was that weakening the existing social order was a necessary prelude for the coming communist revolution. That was also an important difference between the communists and the Nazis: the Nazis didn’t do stuff like that. They’d either conquer you outright, or they’d leave you alone.
My guess is that the vast majority of Western plutocrats don’t believe in communist fairy tales about a Marxist utopia. Nevertheless, those plutocrats have picked up right where the communists have left off. Plutocrats have also favored attacks on Christianity, attacks on traditional morality, attacks on patriotism, massive immigration, etc. It’s more or less the same list of things communists have favored, back when the communists had been consciously trying to destroy Western plutocracies from within. Given that the communists were actively and consciously engaged in a cold war against the West, one could make the argument that Western plutocrats are also engaged in a war against their host nations.
Should the plutocrats succeed in that war, the result will not be a chimerical communist utopia. It will be Third World status for the (formerly) First World nations. Western plutocrats appear to be pursuing a “divide and rule” strategy over their respective host nations. (Similar to the divide and rule strategy Britain used on India.) The plutocrats have steadily gained power at the expense of the population as a whole. Assuming that process continues, our own plutocrats will eventually have as much power relative to the nations of North America and Europe as a typical Third World elite has relative to the nation it rules. In a typical Third World nation, a narcissistic elite runs the nation for its own benefit, and the divided population is helpless to resist this hostile rule. The more our own plutocrats succeed in their “divide and rule” strategy, the more they succeed in physically replacing our populations with those from Third World nations, the more progress they will make toward their apparent objective of turning First World nations into Third World nations. (I don’t claim to know that this is their actual objective. What I’m saying is that if that was their objective, they would be doing exactly the things we’ve seen them do. They wouldn’t need to change a single thing.)
Anyone living in a Warsaw Pact nation was ruled by a government with malignant intent. Anyone living in a Western plutocracy was also ruled by a government with malignant intent. (Though, obviously, the plutocrats’ rule over Western nations is less absolute than the communists’ rule. The plutocrats have to be more constrained in the ways they demonstrate their malignant intent.)
Western plutocrats and communist leaders were similar, in that both were malignant toward Western nations. But both groups also had malignant intent toward the citizens of the Soviet Union. Look at the Ukrainian famine–a famine which killed more people than the Holocaust. Western plutocrats did their very best to shield the Soviet Union from the diplomatic or international political consequences of that famine. Just as those Western plutocrats, and their hired politicians, were perfectly happy to send millions of refugees to the Soviet Union after the war. (Thus consigning many or most of those refugees to their deaths.)
Ultimately, we have two seemingly separate groups (Western plutocrats and Soviet leaders) which are both comfortable with undermining Western Civilization. They’re both comfortable with large-scale Soviet mass murder. They’re both comfortable with Allied murder of large numbers of people during and after WWII. And yet, both these groups are very intent on stirring up plenty of outrage over the Holocaust. Why is that? Is it because they felt compassion for the millions of victims of the Holocaust? Is it because mass murder represents a violation of their values and principles?
Both the communists and the plutocrats amply demonstrated, again and again, that they do not feel compassion for the victims of mass murder. At no point did the Western plutocrats seriously pressure the Soviet Union into stopping, or even slowing, its extensive program of mass murder. Nor does mass murder represent a violation of the plutocrats’ or communists’ values: both groups were guilty of tens of millions of mass murders. Nor did the communists or the plutocrats attempt to stop the Holocaust, as shown by their decision to deny refuge to Jews who wished to flee Germany, and by their decision to prevent Germany from having the food it needed to feed the people within its borders.
In the modern Western world, people are given two choices: either a) surrender to the plutocrat/communist attack on Western Civilization, or b) be tainted by the stigma of the Holocaust. The objective of both plutocrats and communists is to destroy Western Civilization. Holocaust propaganda exists to cripple resistance to that attack.
By no means am I attempting to deny the Holocaust happened. Video footage of concentration camp inmates gives clear and conclusive proof that something horrible happened to the Jews. The “propaganda” part of “Holocaust propaganda” comes from the fact that the plutocrats, and the Western politicians those plutocrats controlled, very carefully hid the reasons why the Holocaust happened. No mention is made of the Allied food blockade, or of Germany’s total inability to feed all those within her own borders. We are merely told that Hitler hated the Jews, and that this hatred was the sole reason for his having killed 6 million of them. While it is true that millions of Jews died during the Holocaust, the plutocratic/communist explanation as to why those Jews died is a total lie.
Just come over to Germany an visit Dachau, Bergen Belsen.
Take a close look and the truth will popp into your eyes.
The intention of a food blockade is to kill people through hunger. As they are dying of hunger, they will look exactly like the victims of Dachau and Begen Belsen looked. The plutocrats’ food blockade did what it was intended to do. It killed a lot of people and inflicted unspeakable suffering. It gave the plutocrats and the communists exactly the propaganda story they wanted. Which is precisely why they imposed that food blockade in the first place.
Kurt the earth is still not flat, no matter how long and wordy your posts are. :mrgreen:
That was also an important difference between the communists and the Nazis: the Nazis didn’t do stuff like that. They’d either conquer you outright, or they’d leave you alone.
I think that Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States would argue with that theory.
By no means am I attempting to deny the Holocaust happened. Video footage of concentration camp inmates gives clear and conclusive proof that something horrible happened to the Jews. The “propaganda” part of “Holocaust propaganda” comes from the fact that the plutocrats, and the Western politicians those plutocrats controlled, very carefully hid the reasons why the Holocaust happened. No mention is made of the Allied food blockade, or of Germany’s total inability to feed all those within her own borders. We are merely told that Hitler hated the Jews, and that this hatred was the sole reason for his having killed 6 million of them. While it is true that millions of Jews died during the Holocaust, the plutocratic/communist explanation as to why those Jews died is a total lie.
Something??
And you say that you don’t deny the Holocaust??
Just come over to Germany an visit Dachau, Bergen Belsen.
Take a close look and the truth will popp into your eyes.The intention of a food blockade is to kill people through hunger. As they are dying of hunger, they will look exactly like the victims of Dachau and Begen Belsen looked. The plutocrats’ food blockade did what it was intended to do. It killed a lot of people and inflicted unspeakable suffering. It gave the plutocrats and the communists exactly the propaganda story they wanted. Which is precisely why they imposed that food blockade in the first place.
To underline your arguments you should have evidence of it.
You don’t! So just leave it!!
First you blame the Western Allies for the imaginary Food Blockade, now you are saying it was the beasty Pluto-rusky-soviets??
It is just sad… :-(
@aequitas:
Something??
And you say that you don’t deny the Holocaust??To underline your arguments you should have evidence of it.
You don’t! So just leave it!!
First you blame the Western Allies for the imaginary Food Blockade, now you are saying it was the beasty Pluto-rusky-soviets??It is just sad… :-(
And you say that you don’t deny the Holocaust??
Correct. I do not deny the Holocaust.
To underline your arguments you should have evidence of it.
If there are specific factual claims I’ve made for which you’d like to see more evidence, just ask. My typical response to such requests is to provide evidence of my assertions. In supporting such claims, I have never cited pro-Nazi or other far right sources. My rationale is that a far right source could be expected to present the Nazis’ case in the most favorable light, and might even be willing to exaggerate things in the Nazis’ favor. If on the other hand a mainstream (anti-Nazi) source is willing to admit the truth of something which casts a less than 100% favorable light on the Allies’ actions, then that admission is most likely true.
First you blame the Western Allies for the imaginary Food Blockade
After his political career ended, former U.S. president Herbert Hoover wrote a series of books. One of those books was Freedom Betrayed. On page 589 of Freedom Betrayed, Hoover wrote the following:
[In 1939] the Polish Government escaped to London under Prime Minister Wladyslaw Sikorski. He requested me to organize relief for his country. My old colleagues and I did so, but after about one year, during which about $6,000,000 was raised and supplies had been shipped, our work was stopped by the British blockade.
Neville Chamberlain had of course blockaded metals, oil, weapons, ammunition, and other items you’d normally expect to be blockaded. Churchill added food to the list of contraband items. That is why Hoover was able to send food to the starving Poles during the first year of the war, and was unable to send food to them thereafter.
The Wikipedia article expands on the subject of this blockade.
As 1940 drew to a close, the situation for many of Europe’s 525 million people was dire. With the food supply reduced by 15% by the blockade and another 15% by poor harvests, starvation and diseases such as influenza, pneumonia, tuberculosis, typhus and cholera were a threat. Germany was forced to send 40 freight cars of emergency supplies into occupied Belgium and France, and American charities such as the Red Cross, the Aldrich Committee, and the American Friends Service Committee began gathering funds to send aid. Former president Herbert Hoover, who had done much to alleviate the hunger of European children during World War I, wrote:[63]
The food situation in the present war is already more desperate than at the same stage in the [First] World War. … If this war is long continued, there is but one implacable end… the greatest famine in history.
Adam Tooze’s book Wages of Destruction has been praised by The Times (London), The Sunday Times (London), The Wall Street Journal, and History Today. The Financial Times called it “masterful.” On pages 418 - 419 Tooze writes the following:
After 1939 the supply of food in Western Europe was no less constrained than the supply of coal. . . . Grain imports in the late 1930s had run at the rate of more than 7 million tons per annum mostly from Argentina and Canada. These sources of supply were closed off by the British blockade. . . . By the summer of 1940, Germany was facing a Europe-wide agricultural crisis. . . . By 1941 there were already signs of mounting discontent due to the inadequate food supply. In Belgium and France, the official ration allocated to ‘normal consumers’ of as little as 1,300 calories per day, was an open invitation to resort to the black market.
now you are saying it was the beasty Pluto-rusky-soviets
The food blockade was of course imposed by the Western Allies. Those nations are typically known as democracies, even though a study showed that, in practice, decisions are made on a plutocratic basis. Princeton University found there is zero correlation between what the bottom economic 90% wants and what the federal government actually does. (The data go back a number of decades, but do not go all the way back to WWII. The study therefore represents very strong evidence, but not proof, that the U.S. had been a plutocracy during WWII.)
I regard most politicians as shills for America’s plutocrat class. The brutality of the Allied food blockade was not reflective of a murderous American population. It was reflective of a murderous, evil plutocrat class.
