EVIL

[Mazzy]

And on the topic of evil here's an interesting subject: Agathe Habyarimana. She's the wife of former president of Rwanda, Juvenal Habyarimana and suspected of being the mastermind behind the Rwandan genocide (death toll between 800,000 and 1,000 000, a real butchery). She was never brought to court and is currently drinking champagne on the Riviera, a welcome guest of the French governement... A shame!

[zeusbheld]

hardly worth continuing on PMs, i can read a book or something. wouldn't want to bore people by discussing facts! no sir, let's just continue the thread the usual, superficial TF way and have people (shrilly) post their opinions without backing it up in any way whatsoever. yeah that'll be more interesting for sure.

Zbh, this is turning into a rhetorical debate. Not something I have much interest in. With more than 15,000 + posts to your active, I have no doubt you can win it...

But for the record, I still disagree with you on point 1 & 2.

Schacht and especially Papen were guilty. Your point about the sanction, is a good one, but it doesn't excuse these two old foxes. Their sentence was not proportional, they were acquitted. Both were later found guilty by German denazification court but released shortly thereafter.

As for the second point "mostly done by combat unit". I completely disagree. The oral orders were given by Hitler and the written directives signed by the reich top generals (or top doctors in the case of euthanasia).

Nuff' said...

as for combat units, the ss was split into two; one was elite combat units the other the guys who ran the death camps etc. not saying combat units or leaders were innocent just that Speer had his fingers in more of the dirtiest pies including the death camps than some of the combat types.

agree that neither one of those guys should have got away with what they did. if Doenitz got ten years they should have got at least that. but i'm still convinced that Speer conned his way out of execution.

[zeusbheld]

And on the topic of evil here's an interesting subject: Agathe Habyarimana. She's the wife of former president of Rwanda, Juvenal Habyarimana and suspected of being the mastermind behind the Rwandan genocide (death toll between 800,000 and 1,000 000, a real butchery). She was never brought to court and is currently drinking champagne on the Riviera, a welcome guest of the French governement... A shame!

so she may be in line for greatest *living* evil?

have to say categorically, those who commit genocide have an advantage in this contest for the most evil.

[Mazzy]

And on the topic of evil here's an interesting subject: Agathe Habyarimana. She's the wife of former president of Rwanda, Juvenal Habyarimana and suspected of being the mastermind behind the Rwandan genocide (death toll between 800,000 and 1,000 000, a real butchery). She was never brought to court and is currently drinking champagne on the Riviera, a welcome guest of the French governement... A shame!

so she may be in line for greatest *living* evil?

have to say categorically, those who commit genocide have an advantage in this contest for the most evil.

Well the thing is... As long as she's not put on trial and the existing evidence against her carefully analyzed, we might never know for sure how deeply she was implicated. The French having no interest in that, we will likely never know. The genocide in Rwanda is probably the most evil act commited in the last 20 years. The sad thing is that many European countries as well as the US have managed to sweep it completely under the rug. Only now are we starting to see a bit more clearly into what happened there and it sure wasn't pretty...

[Yoi]

I did read the report. But you just modified it that little bit to suit your argument didn't you?

Nope, that's fabrication.

Less than half of the population was in this condition (namely 17 out of 41 millions, according to this document, page 6)

Let's check Hoover report:

- the base ration is 1550 calories per peson per day to the normal consumer group with priorities and supplements as the situatione requires or permits; for other groups

- thus with the deficiency in quantity in fats, protein and other nutritients the 1550 ration is wholly incapable of supporting health of the groups which do not have supplements

- over haldo of 6595000 children and adolestents are in a deplorable condition

- considerable part of the normal consumer group of 17910000 is likewise in deplorable condition

- while workers rations are perhaps high enough yet the universal tendency is for the worker is to share it with his wife and children....

- 680000 displaced person, one third in British zone receives German ration only...

This paints rather a grim picture and is far from your statement. It seems like most of population was starving. But these reports are misleading because you see numbers and words but what you don't see are people starving.

while in neighbouring nations it has returned to pre war levels (i.e. 3000).

Taken into consideration were Britain, Holland, France, Italy and Belgium (page 9). And it says nearly pre-war levels, without specifying how much that is, though it says on page 5 that 3000 was the average German consumption before the war.

Let's check what it really says:

"He (member of Hoover's mission) reports that nutritional situation in those countries is nearly pre-war normal, while the special German groups that I have mentioned are not only far below the other nationas but disastrously so."

This was caused by harsh repression that was brought on German people by Americans

It doesn't say any of this, in fact it gives all the reasons for the food shortage, and why there is so much more people dying than in the other countries aforementioned. Listen up, this might ring a bell about one of my previous posts:

- 25% of urban housings destroyed

- 25% increase in population due to refugees

- 50% reduced coal production

- The areas taken over by Russia and Poland were agricultural backbone of Pre-War Germany. The British/American/French zones were more industrial and used to import a lot of food.

- Diseases rampant

Obviously neither of the other countries compared (Italy, France, Belgium, Britain and Holland) faced problems nearly as big as these.

Report simply assembles the facts about situation. But none of this is really important for my case. What I need to prove is this:

a) that there was famine in Germany after WW2;

that this famine was planned in order to punish German population

So let's try to prove that there was famine there. This was my main source:

RICHARD DOMINIC WIGGERS: The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II (RDW)

http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/history/htooley/WiggersOccFoo.pdf

Hoover report presents that large part of population was in deplorable condition. It explains that base ration (The ration for a normal adult civilian consumer) was 1550 calories. Daily rations for German POW were set to the 1500 calories after their status was changed from POW to Disarmed Enemy Force. (RDW 449) (BTW thir status was changed to avoid third Geneva convention).

But it seems that actual situation was even worse:

- quote

Not surprisingly, the average daily ration level in the western occupation zones during the summer of 1945 fluctuated between 700-1190 calories, far below not only the generally accepted minimum of 2000, but also the substandard ceiling of 1550 calories established by the Allies through their revised ?disease and unrest? formula.37 While non-German refugees living within DP camps were soon receiving 2300 calories thanks to emergency food imports and Red Cross supplements, German civilians living in the U.S. and British zones were authorized to receive just over half that amount (1354), and were in fact believed to be obtaining only 1250 on average.38 Conditions appeared to be only marginally better in the Soviet zone, which contained most of Germany?s best agricultural lands, and slightly worse in the French zone. In most dire need were the millions of ethnic Germans being expelled from their homes in eastern Europe.39 (RDW 451)

- end of quote

- quote

Even Allied officials began to protest the conditions. In an October 1945 letter to the Assistant Secretary of War, U.S. Deputy

Military Governor Lucius Clay reported that "undoubtedly a large number of refugees have already died of starvation, exposure and disease.... The death rate in many places has increased several fold, and infant mortality is approaching 65 percent in many places. By the spring of 1946, German observers expect that epidemics and malnutrition will claim 2.5 to 3 million victims between the Oder and Elbe."40 A British report warned that the 1150 calorie levels prevailing in places like the Ruhr would almost certainly lead to "Belsen" conditions, and reminded readers that "2000 calories is considered the minimum necessary to keep body and soul together,? and that by comparison the British civilian ration was 3000 calories at the time (RDW 452)

- end of quote

- quote

During

World War II, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded

that levels of 2200 calories or lower should be temporary,

and that 1700 should be considered the "upper limit of the 'semistarvation

level.'" (RDW 444)

- end of quote

I think this clearly shows that there was famine in Germany. So let's see if we can prove that it was planned and intentionally brought to punish the population for the war.

First, let's check Potsdam conference. There are 4 points relevant for this discussion:

- Germany would loose about 25% of its territory (which accounted for about 25% of its food production);

- expulsion of German populations remaining beyond the new eastern borders of Germany

- Destruction of German industrial war-potential

- Ensuring that German standards of living did not exceed the European average

Before WW2 Germany was net food importer. Potsdam conference determined that there would be much bigger need to import food after WW2 because Germany would loose land that accounted for 25% of pre-war production and would on the other hand receive many refugees (about 16 million IIRC). On the other hand Germany's industrial potential was to be cripled so there would be less money to import food. But beyond that Germans were condemned that in any case they would receive less food than European average. To that we have to add consequences of war - millions of soldiers had died and millions were taken prisoners so they were not about to participate to any production. Cities were destroyed. So Pedrito, many of the reasons that you blame for the famine in Germany were not just results of war but were actually planned in Potsdam.

So let's try to find some more evidence.

- quote

Prosecutors at Nuremberg accused German defendants of committing a war crime when they conspired to force down the ration levels in occupied France below 2000 calories (RDW 445)

Allied officials also complained when they discovered that POWs liberated from German captivity were subjected to ?starvation rations? of 1800-2000 calories during the last phase of the war, and were forced to rely on Red Cross packages to supplement their diet (RDW 445)

The first step towards a retributive food policy was taken during the fall of 1944 in response

to a draft SHAEF handbook that suggested that German civilians be guaranteed a base ration of 2000 calories after the war. While the authors of the handbook were naturally preoccupied

with the postwar rehabilitation of the European economy, this particular undertaking struck officials in Washington as being far too soft and constructive.20 President Roosevelt proposed a much harsher food policy in its place: the Germans ?should have simply a subsistence level of food?as he put it, soup kitchens would be ample to sustain life?that otherwise they should be stripped clean and should not have a level of subsistence above the lowest level of the people they had conquered."21 Soviet officials also proposed that the Allies limit grain and food production in postwar Germany, and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau conceived of a similar program that would limit the civilian population to a subsistence level. (RDW 445)

- end of quote

Since this was happening in 1944 I think it is correct to call it intention. I also think that it is not too controversial to name it "intention to carry out a war crime", because:

-quote

The Hague conventions are generally recognized as laying down the law which has to be followed by an occupying power. They are based on the assumptions that when a country has been defeated and occupied, the occupier or occupiers have become responsible for the orderly government of the people in their power. They must safeguard the basic rights of the local population and see to it that their basic needs are met just as if they were the national government of that country. Willfully to deny them the necessities of life is a violation of international law. (RDW 442)

- end of quote

Let's check some more

- quote

Paragraph 5 of Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) 1067?the operational guidelines for the U.S. occupation?also ordered Military Government officials to restrict themselves to promoting the production and maintenance of only those indigenous goods and services ?required to prevent starvation or such disease and unrest as would endanger the occupying forces."28 The U.S. Deputy Military Governor, Lucius Clay, confided that "I feel that the Germans should suffer from hunger and from cold as I believe such suffering is necessary to make them realize the consequences of a war which they caused,? but also warned officials in Washington that ?this type of suffering should not extend to the point where it results in mass starvation and sickness." (RDW 449)

Several months later, however, the first chink appeared in the armor of harsh Allied food policy. Throughout 1945, the Allied occupation armies centralized relief efforts to ensure that any international aid flowing into occupied Germany went exclusively to liberated Allied POWs, concentration camp survivors, and non-German DPs awaiting repatriation or resettlement.49 Only a few licensed international relief agencies such as the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) and several Papal relief missions were even permitted to operate in the U.S. zone. To ensure that they assisted only non-German nationals, the U.S. Military Government controlled all supplies, transportation and travel permits (RDW 455)

- end of quote

I have to stop somewhere because documentation that proves that starvation was planned is abundant. It is not even controvertial because it is common knowledge.

Another quote by Freda Utley (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thcov/7.html):

- quote

Many of the old, the young, and the sick died of hunger or cold or exposure on the long march into what remained of Germany, or perished of hunger and thirst and disease in the crowded cattle cars in which some of the refugees were transported. Those who survived the journey were thrust upon the slender resources of starving occupied Germany. No one of German race was allowed any help by the United Nations. The displaced-persons camps were closed to them and first the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) and then the International Refugee Organization (IRO) was forbidden to succor them. The new untouchables were thrown into Germany to die, or survive as paupers in the miserable accommodations which the bombed-out cities of Germany could provide for those even more wretched than their original inhabitants.

- end of quote

[Loburt]

I think this clearly shows that there was famine in Germany. So let's see if we can prove that it was planned and intentionally brought to punish the population for the war.

First, let's check Potsdam conference. There are 4 points relevant for this discussion:

- Germany would loose about 25% of its territory (which accounted for about 25% of its food production);

- expulsion of German populations remaining beyond the new eastern borders of Germany

- Destruction of German industrial warpotential

- Ensuring that German standards of living did not exceed the European average

Before WW2 Germany was net food importer. Potsdam conference determined that there would be much bigger need to import food after WW2 because Germany would loose land that accounted for 25% of pre-war production and would on the other hand receive many refugees (about 16 million IIRC). On the other hand Germany's industrial potential was to be cripled so there would be less money to import food. But beyond that Germans were condemned that in any case they would receive less food than European average. To that we have to add consequences of war - millions of soldiers had died and millions were taken prisoners so they were not about to participate to any production. Cities were destroyed. So Pedrito, many of the reasons that you blame for the famine in Germany were not just results of war but were actually planned in Potsdam.

I don't see anything in the four points from the Potsdam conference that supports your assertion of a planned famine inflicted on the German people.

The point says that Germany's industrial WAR potential should be crippled.

You subsequently changed that to Germany's entire INDUSTRIAL potential being crippled.

It's natural and justified that the victors in a war will remove the capacity of the losers to create the weapons and other material needed to launch a war.

By eliminating that one crucial word from your argument in the subsequent paragraph, you've revealed your willingness to twist information to the point where it is no longer factual.

That is, in essence, fabricating.

[zeusbheld]

....But then again there's people who make up sensational stories in order to make money, and I believe James Baque's Morgenthau theory to be as gross exaggeration for this same purpose.

as far as making up sensational stories goes the mother of all bullshit world war two conspiracy shitstorms-in-a-teacup is the "roosevelt knew about pearl harbor and let it happen." totally unsubstantiated by actual facts, largely supported by lemmings on an ideological agenda, mainly for the purpose of adding roosevelt to this list of evil.

[i_love_som_tam]

Evil is not about what you did, it is mostly about potential.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Without an act one has the potential for being evil. How can you judge or measure evil unless you have something to base it on?

Ted Bundy

John Wayne Gacy

Richard Ramirez

Jeffrey Dahmer

All evil without a doubt. If they had not have committed those murders then how would anyone have known that they were evil?

[Yoi]

First, let's check Potsdam conference. There are 4 points relevant for this discussion:

- Germany would loose about 25% of its territory (which accounted for about 25% of its food production);

- expulsion of German populations remaining beyond the new eastern borders of Germany

- Destruction of German industrial warpotential

- Ensuring that German standards of living did not exceed the European average

Before WW2 Germany was net food importer. Potsdam conference determined that there would be much bigger need to import food after WW2 because Germany would loose land that accounted for 25% of pre-war production and would on the other hand receive many refugees (about 16 million IIRC). On the other hand Germany's industrial potential was to be cripled so there would be less money to import food. But beyond that Germans were condemned that in any case they would receive less food than European average. To that we have to add consequences of war - millions of soldiers had died and millions were taken prisoners so they were not about to participate to any production. Cities were destroyed. So Pedrito, many of the reasons that you blame for the famine in Germany were not just results of war but were actually planned in Potsdam.

I don't see anything in the four points from the Potsdam conference that supports your assertion of a planned famine inflicted on the German people.

It is not possible to prove that famine was planned in Potsdam. I have provided other data to show that famine was planned before that. But some of the actions that would cause famine (or should I say that would make scarcity of the food even worse) were planned/agreed in Potsdam.

The point says that Germany's industrial WAR potential should be crippled.

Yes... it is only very controversial what it means and how far can one go in reducing "war potential" of another nation.

Fortunately this policy was to be abandoned in few years.

You subsequently changed that to Germany's entire INDUSTRIAL potential being crippled.

I simply took first part of first sentence of a much longer statement from wikipedia. I cut it to make my post shorter:

- quote

Destruction of German industrial war-potential through the destruction or control of all industry with military potential. To this end, all civilian shipyards and aircraft factories were to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed. All production capacity associated with war-potential, such as metals, chemical, machinery etc were to be reduced to a minimum level which was later determined by the Allied Control Commission. Manufacturing capacity thus made "surplus" was to be dismantled as reparations or otherwise destroyed. All research and international trade was to be controlled. The economy was to be decentralized (decartelization). The economy was also to be reorganized with primary emphasis on agriculture and peaceful domestic industries. In early 1946 agreement was reached on the details of the latter: Germany was to be converted into an agricultural and light industry economy. German exports were to be coal, beer, toys, textiles, etc ? to take the place of the heavy industrial products which formed most of Germany's pre-war exports

- end of quote

My assertion was that by doing this "Germany's industrial potential was to be cripled so there would be less money to import food". I think it is correct assertion, not fabrication. I didn't want to say that this was done so that Germans could not import food. But nevertheles outcome of that was just that - there was less money available to buy food while need for food was growing.

It's natural and justified that the victors in a war will remove the capacity of the losers to create the weapons and other material needed to launch a war.

I find it controversial. How far can you go with that? Is there any other way to remove capacity of losers to launch the war but condemning them to poverty? I can't accept that it is acceptable to punish general population and reduce potential of a nation to agriculture.

Victors are sometimes those who were attacked and sometimes they are agressors. I think that only natural and justified thing of war is not to make it (not to be agressor) and if you are forced in it to obey internatioal law and standards.

What Americans (allies) were doing between 1945 and 1947 in Germany was simply wrong. But in 1947 they started changing these harsh policies.

Another quote from Freda Utley (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thcov/7.html), I think this refers to the very reason why this theme is so problematic:

- quote

In Berlin, for instance, I found myself in disgrace after having remarked, at a cocktail party in Harnack House, that I thought it was high time we stopped talking about German guilt, since there was no crime the Nazis had committed, which we or our allies had not also committed. I had referred to our obliteration bombing, the mass expropriation and expulsion from their homes of twelve million Germans on account of their race; the starving of the Germansduring the first years of the occupation; the use of prisoners as slave laborers; the Russian concentration camps, and the looting perpetrated by Americans as well as Russians.

- endquote

By eliminating that one crucial word from your argument in the subsequent paragraph, you've revealed your willingness to twist information to the point where it is no longer factual.

That is, in essence, fabricating.

Nope, no fabrications, just pure facts, mostly quotes from other sources.

[Loburt]

You are being intellectually dishonest when you say you cut a single word "WAR" from industrial war potential - which changes the meaning of the phrase - to save space, when you posted one of the longest posts ever on this website.

I mean, that is utter BS. And I can't respect you for that answer. It's not truthful.

When one country is at war with another, destroying the opposing country's industrial capacity to make war is not controversial at all. Just about every adversary does it. Germany did.

That is not the same as reducing a nation to abject poverty.

But, granted, Germany was reduced to poverty. As were many of the nations of Europe because of the total war that raged across the continent.

Furthermore, having read the Wiggers paper, the harsh treatment concerning food lasted from about May 1945 to early 1946 when policy began to change.

What is not examined by Wiggers is, what were the conditions in other liberated and occupied areas of Europe, and what was the capacity of the US, British and other occupiers to deal with the problems there.

My understanding is that the problems in all these areas were enormous and that hunger and starvation were widespread (leading to the establishment of the FAO).

And why would you, or anyone, believe that in May 1945 that the Allies would immediately have in place the logistics and supplies to feed, clothe, shelter and rebuild vast swathes of the European continent - not to mention Asia and other parts of the world?

As we can so easily see from the military operations of the past two decades, it takes months and months to get the logistics together to feed and move an army around, much less the population of an entire continent.

Now, faced with limited resources to feed and care for huge numbers of people, it is only natural that the Allies would give preference to feeding those abused by the Germans, rather than the Germans themselves - who initiated the conflict in the first place.

The paper also ignores the fact that there was still significant resistance inside Germany after the fall of the Third Reich, and so in the beginning it was not a completely peaceful occupation.

There is no doubt the German people suffered in the aftermath of World War II.

Yet, considering the sufferings they inflicted on others, I am unmoved.

[Loburt]

And as for that quote by Freda Utley, I don't see how anyone could witness the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen etc., and blithely comment, well we did the same.

Then again, Ms. Utley supported the Munich agreement which ceded territory to Germany, opposed the US entry into WWII, and opposed Germany's unconditional surrender. She went on to help Sen. Joe McCarthy in his witch hunt against communists in the US. Now that's what I call controversial.

Her credibility would appear to be a serious issue.

Quotes are not necessarily the same as facts.

[CiaranM]

Quotes are not necessarily the same as facts.

facts r never in abundance on a TF forum !!!

unfortunately some ppl confuse opinions/quotes with facts/evidence !!

[zeusbheld]

And as for that quote by Freda Utley, I don't see how anyone could witness the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen etc., and blithely comment, well we did the same.

Then again, Ms. Utley supported the Munich agreement which ceded territory to Germany, opposed the US entry into WWII, and opposed Germany's unconditional surrender. She went on to help Sen. Joe McCarthy in his witch hunt against communists in the US. Now that's what I call controversial.

Her credibility would appear to be a serious issue.

Quotes are not necessarily the same as facts.

i don't know a thing about the context of the quote. but if she is saying the US did anything remotely similar to the death camps during world war 2, she was on crack. which is not to say there weren't war crimes--curtis lemay himself said that if the allies had lost the war, fire bombing japanese cities would be a war crime.

if she meant that the US had done its share of genocide, it had (the westward expansion, "manifest destiny" is as nauseatingly sanitized as "final solution."

or other crimes of equal magnitude, slavery wasn't quite final solution level, but it was up there.

assuming what Loburt said about Utley is true, she definitely had an axe to grind.

[Loburt]

She elaborates, it is at the end of Yoi's very long post.

[Yoi]

You are being intellectually dishonest when you say you cut a single word "WAR" from industrial war potential - which changes the meaning of the phrase - to save space, when you posted one of the longest posts ever on this website. I mean, that is utter BS. And I can't respect you for that answer. It's not truthful.

You're so full of s*. I haven't changed meaning of a single phrase (at least not intentionally). Everything is transparent and easy to check. You can stick your respect wherever you feel like cause I don't give a damn about it.

It is true that I have sent a long post but still there are many things that I have shortened or described them with my own words. So yes, "destruction of German war potential" ment that German industrial potential was to be crippled. Example of this was reduction of German steel production to 25% of pre-war production:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,934360,00.html

When one country is at war with another, destroying the opposing country's industrial capacity to make war is not controversial at all. Just about every adversary does it. Germany did.

"When one country is at war with another..."?

I agree.

But how is it after uncontitional capitulation?

Who's being "intellectually dishonest"?

That is not the same as reducing a nation to abject poverty.

Ohh, I didn't say it was, generally speaking. But in this particular case there is problematic string of facts

Well, let's repeat:

- Germany was net food importer before the war

- in 1944 some circles in USA showed intention to punish Germans after the war

- on Potsdam conference it was agreed that Germany would loose 25% of its territory, German population would be expeled from lost territories on the east Which would create refugees), German war potential would be destroyed "through the destruction or control of all industry". This ment that situation with the food would be worse than before the war even if there were no war

- base ration (The ration for a normal adult civilian consumer) was set 1550 calories (1700 should be considered the "upper limit of the 'semistarvation level - FAO)

What is not examined by Wiggers is, what were the conditions in other liberated and occupied areas of Europe, and what was the capacity of the US, British and other occupiers to deal with the problems there.

And why would you, or anyone, believe that in May 1945 that the Allies would immediately have in place the logistics and supplies to feed, clothe, shelter and rebuild vast swathes of the European continent - not to mention Asia and other parts of the world?

That would be a good argument if you could prove that there was no intention to cause famine or if allies were to act according to international law. But there is evidence that there was intent and that they disregarded internatinal law. I believe that there would be famine in Germany even if allies did their best to help population. But that is not the issue here, we are talking about evil. What makes somebody evil is intention to hurt, to cause others to suffer indiscriminately.

Now, faced with limited resources to feed and care for huge numbers of people, it is only natural that the Allies would give preference to feeding those abused by the Germans, rather than the Germans themselves - who initiated the conflict in the first place.

That I don't call natural. I call it fury, rage, hatred, vengeance and racism. Evil in its purest form.

I'm not trying to say that Germans were good and allies bad. War crimes comiited by Germans are really awful. But I don't see crimes commited by Germas as a good excuse to punish civilian population.

The paper also ignores the fact that there was still significant resistance inside Germany after the fall of the Third Reich, and so in the beginning it was not a completely peaceful occupation.

I don't know anything about this.

There is no doubt the German people suffered in the aftermath of World War II. Yet, considering the sufferings they inflicted on others, I am unmoved.

Maybe you should question your moral foundations then? How can one not be moved by innocent person dying of hunger just because people of his ethnic group commited crimes? That's hypocrisy, that's evil.

[Yoi]

Her credibility would appear to be a serious issue.

Quotes are not necessarily the same as facts.

You are right, it is very controversial issue and I wasn't aware of that when I posted it.

[Yoi]

i don't know a thing about the context of the quote. but if she is saying the US did anything remotely similar to the death camps during world war 2, she was on crack. which is not to say there weren't war crimes--curtis lemay himself said that if the allies had lost the war, fire bombing japanese cities would be a war crime.

if she meant that the US had done its share of genocide, it had (the westward expansion, "manifest destiny" is as nauseatingly sanitized as "final solution."

or other crimes of equal magnitude, slavery wasn't quite final solution level, but it was up there.

assuming what Loburt said about Utley is true, she definitely had an axe to grind.

I don't know, I'm not very happy with the fact that I have posted it. When I read it I understood it more like disillusionment and resentment of a person who visited Germany in 1948 and saw extent of destruction and misery there. But now when I read it it sounds more like ideology to me, attempt to equalize guilt... which may give excuse for the Nazi war crimes.

[Loburt]

You are being intellectually dishonest when you say you cut a single word "WAR" from industrial war potential - which changes the meaning of the phrase - to save space, when you posted one of the longest posts ever on this website. I mean, that is utter BS. And I can't respect you for that answer. It's not truthful.

You're so full of s*. I haven't changed meaning of a single phrase (at least not intentionally). Everything is transparent and easy to check. You can stick your respect wherever you feel like cause I don't give a damn about it.

It is true that I have sent a long post but still there are many things that I have shortened or described them with my own words. So yes, "destruction of German war potential" ment that German industrial potential was to be crippled. Example of this was reduction of German steel production to 25% of pre-war production:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,934360,00.html

No. YOU are full of sh*t. You deliberately left out a word which changes the meaning of the phrase. If you can't understand that, then you better go back and study English a little harder. Because in any debate that is unacceptable and dishonest. And considering the length of your post, the idea that you removed a single word for "space" is laughable. Yes, that is a dishonest claim. Wow. Steel production was slashed. That really supports your claim of deliberately starving a population.

There is no doubt the German people suffered in the aftermath of World War II. Yet, considering the sufferings they inflicted on others, I am unmoved.

Maybe you should question your moral foundations then? How can one not be moved by innocent person dying of hunger just because people of his ethnic group commited crimes? That's hypocrisy, that's evil.

No. German civilians were also complicit in what happened to the Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays and other minorities. They helped turn them in. They stood by and did nothing even when they lived right next to the camps and the gas chambers. Germany was not a nation divided by what was being perpetrated in its midst. The civilians supported Hitler and his regime. They knew what was happening and they supported it. THAT IS EVIL.

In that situation, if I were an Allied commander and had to choose between giving food, aid and resources to those abused by the Germans, or the Germans, I would give it to those abused by the Germans first. When those people have been fed and cared for, then I would take care of the Germans. Your claim that the abusers deserve equal treatment to those they abused is hypocrisy. If you think so, you should be questioning your own moral foundations.

And as others have pointed out, you have not proved that Morgenthau's plan was deliberately carried out. Nor, by your own admission, can you attribute any conspiracy to the Potsdam conference, (yet you have brought it up again as if you have) and yet you have no answer as to why many Germans starved who were not in areas under US control. They most likely starved for the reasons I already explained about the logistics and sheer difficulties of feeding and entire continent.

I am not, and did not, advocate deliberately inflicting starvation upon German civilians if there was plenty of food to feed everyone. Nonetheless, millions of people of all nationalities across Europe and other continents were starving and suffering in the first year or two after the war. Once again, in that context and considering that it was the Germans who caused this in the first place, I remain unmoved by their suffering. Nonetheless, I recognize the responsibility to feed and care for them - after their victims were fed and cared for first. And as for you contention that they should have been treated equally to those they victimized, well, you know where you can stick that.

[steevolution]

German civilians were also complicit in what happened to the Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays and other minorities. They helped turn them in. They stood by and did nothing even when they lived right next to the camps and the gas chambers. Germany was not a nation divided by what was being perpetrated in its midst. The civilians supported Hitler and his regime. They knew what was happening and they supported it. THAT IS EVIL.

this is true true true dirty true, and Germans never have come to grips with it. they're trying, i guess, but what i usually hear is "it was somebody else/before my time, nothin to do with me".

that happening with the Nazi hats and whores and the Formula one guy was a revelation, that somebody so filthy rich and comfortable could find some glory/hard-on inducing sparkle in a filthy piece of work like Adolph. an Austrian acquaintence of my family, living a comfortable life in the US, saw fit to keep a portrait of the scumshit on the wall. so Nazism isn't dead. it deserves to be hunted down and blotted out way more than any poisonous snakes, and the people/country that allowed/participated in it need to understand what it is in their national character that allowed it to happen. same with the Japanese. SIX MILLION! i couldn't kill six million flies. it boggles the mind.

Charlie Manson? pathetic. a twisted hippyfreak with a coupla dozen followers. not a flyshitspeck on the wall. the heads of monstermachines that grind huge numbers of humans into fertilizer for their fantasies of omnipotence, those are the fukkin fukkers. the Lizard Men that have been leading the recent Amerikkkan war machine aspire, but they're just... old small and shriveled.

[Mazzy]

German civilians were also complicit in what happened to the Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays and other minorities. They helped turn them in. They stood by and did nothing even when they lived right next to the camps and the gas chambers. Germany was not a nation divided by what was being perpetrated in its midst. The civilians supported Hitler and his regime. They knew what was happening and they supported it. THAT IS EVIL.

this is true true true dirty true, and Germans never have come to grips with it. they're trying, i guess, but what i usually hear is "it was somebody else/before my time, nothin to do with me".

Sorry Loburt and Steve but that's a generalisation that I have to disagree with. Most of the German certainly didn't know that the jews were being systematically murdered in gaz chamber. Some might have suspected a few might have known but that was a minority. What most people did know was that their governement was a racist one and that the jews were being taken away to be deported in the east. Most Germans were too busy surviving the daily adverse effect of the war to afford the time and energy to learn anything beyond that.

Some Germans actually protested Hitler's racist policy. For example I have some friends from the city of Lubeck. Well, the whole village was sent in a concentration camp because they refused to abide by Hitler's will.

But you are right on one thing, most German did nothing. Why? For the same reason that the jews themselves often didn't resist deportation or extermination: Fear of worst treatment or punishment. When you live in times of war, you quickly understand how little your life is worth to the government and other political leaders, and you learn that the easiest way to survive is to blend in. Nothing evil in that, just your basic survival 101.

Some Germans voluntarily collaborated with Hitler's regime and whole heartedely accepted the racist laws, but I hardly think that it was the majority of the people. Just a small active and vocal minority and even they, I suspect, weren't fully realizing what this was leading to....

[Stramash]

I am with Mazzy on this one. You cannot over generalise and say everyone supported Hitler. There was a German resistance, there were anti Hitler plots and, as Mazzy pointed out, there were many Germans also sent to camps for opposing the regime.

I did an exchange trip to Furth (nr Nurenberg) as a teenager and the grandfather of the girl I stayed with had been in the resistance and had been imprisoned from 1942 - 1945.

If we are going to bash the nation as a whole, what about the Catholic church?? They also did nothing and in fact assisted many Nazis to escape at the end of the war.

[Stramash]

and a postscript, Vlad Tepes wasnt actually evil per se. He defended his homeland against invaders who ere intent on rape and murder. Ok, he often impaled his enemys heads on poles, but that was pretty common practice worldwide. Go to Romania/Carpathia and he is regarded as a hero!! :twisted:

[Hobbes]

German civilians were also complicit in what happened to the Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays and other minorities. They helped turn them in. They stood by and did nothing even when they lived right next to the camps and the gas chambers. Germany was not a nation divided by what was being perpetrated in its midst. The civilians supported Hitler and his regime. They knew what was happening and they supported it. THAT IS EVIL.

this is true true true dirty true, and Germans never have come to grips with it. they're trying, i guess, but what i usually hear is "it was somebody else/before my time, nothin to do with me".

that happening with the Nazi hats and whores and the Formula one guy was a revelation, that somebody so filthy rich and comfortable could find some glory/hard-on inducing sparkle in a filthy piece of work like Adolph. an Austrian acquaintence of my family, living a comfortable life in the US, saw fit to keep a portrait of the scumshit on the wall. so Nazism isn't dead. it deserves to be hunted down and blotted out way more than any poisonous snakes, and the people/country that allowed/participated in it need to understand what it is in their national character that allowed it to happen. same with the Japanese. SIX MILLION! i couldn't kill six million flies. it boggles the mind.

...

Well, most of us Germans have come to grips with it. Since those things were committed by my forefathers and I was born over 20 years after the end of the war they have nothing to do with me. If you believe young Germans should constantly hang their heads in shame because of things done before their lifetime, then you are sadly mistaken.

Learning and understanding the lessons from our past - yes

feeling perpetual guilt and shame - no

Even more simplistic (and wrong) is your assertion that Fascism is somehow in our 'national character'. If you believe this then you might as well believe that all Muslims have a 'terrorism' gene. :roll:

At the time of Mussolini, Hitler and Franco gaining power most European countries had some fascist movements. It was a time of social upheaval. It was those economic and social conflicts and the inability of democratic governments to deal with these that lead to the rise of fascism. Nationality does not come into it.

Even today there are fascist organisations in most European countries (and I'm sure there will be some in the US as well). Most of them are on the fringe but some of them have quite a popular support. Given the right circumstances; world recession, high unemployment, distrust in political processes; it could happen again...anywhere!

[Loburt]

and a postscript, Vlad Tepes wasnt actually evil per se. He defended his homeland against invaders who ere intent on rape and murder. Ok, he often impaled his enemys heads on poles, but that was pretty common practice worldwide. Go to Romania/Carpathia and he is regarded as a hero!! :twisted:

I think on any reading of Vlad Tepes's treatment of his own people, it's hard to deny he was a supremely evil individual.

It's only hatred of Muslims that has turned him into a hero.

[Stramash]

make your mind up Loburt - first of all I am anti Israeli and now I support anti-muslims!!! Maybe I just hate everyone lol!! :twisted: