The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Philip Giraldi ArchiveBlogview
Nazis on the Backlot
How Hollywood has changed our perception of war
shutterstock_2103533

Memorial Day used to be a somber occasion, dedicated to reflection and remembrance of those killed in America’s wars. Today it is instead a celebration of ongoing wars, a long shopping weekend and the unofficial start of summer. Part of the problem with America’s shifting perception of the price to be paid when one goes to war is that it has been shaped by Hollywood and video games, so much so that it has become divorced from the horrible reality of what happens when countries and peoples do their best to kill each other. Protected by two oceans, the continental United States has been largely immune from being on the receiving end of war, not suffered any form of military attack since Pancho Villa rode against Blackjack Pershing in New Mexico in 1916. And apart from some experiments with weather balloons launched by the Japanese in 1942, the country has never been subjected to aerial bombardment.

But even if the homeland was itself untouched by war, American soldiers nevertheless fought and died and did the sorts of things soldiers do. SSgt. John Basilone, one of America’s most decorated Marines, was born in my hometown, which also had a larger percentage of its young men serving in the Second World War than any other town in the U.S. On the main street there is a statue of Basilone cradling a 50 caliber Browning water cooled machine gun and he is celebrated with an annual parade. My father and three uncles served in the South Pacific and Europe in infantry and combat engineer units during World War II. One was at Pearl Harbor. A first cousin was in a regiment that was decimated in the retreat from the Yalu River in Korea in 1950 while another served with the Americal infantry division in Vietnam. Both my brother and I were in the army during Vietnam, though as a Russian speaker I spent my war in Germany.

Such exposure to the military was not atypical in working class families while the draft was still in effect, but after the wars were over everyone was happy to go home and no one ever talked about what they had done and seen. It seemed easier that way but now, in retrospect, I am actually beginning to think it better if my family had opened up a lot more about just how awful some of their experiences had been. I can recall my father making only one serious comment about his war, saying cryptically that “when you are a soldier the difference between being a hero and a monster is being in the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time.”

And it was certainly easy to forget war back in the United States, prosperous and untouched by the enemy. In Asia and Europe it is different and that is why there is a clear reluctance to follow Washington’s lead as global policeman. The war for many families is still alive. Even though the World War II generation is itself vanishing there remain numerous memorials and cemeteries as well as other powerful physical reminders of the suffering and destruction that war brought in every theater of that conflict.

All of which means that war, unlike for the rest of the world, is itself pretty much an abstraction for the vast majority of Americans who have not themselves been in the military since the draft ended in 1973. “Boots on the ground” is one of the most delicious expressions that one encounters from a media and public that want more fighting. And then there is the descriptor “kinetic” applied to military operations, which is a euphemism for shooting people and dropping bombs. Far too many Americans see war as an endless series of patriotic bumper stickers with the United States invariably wearing the white hat and emerging victorious. Few consider that a kinetic experience can blow your brains out while the boots on the ground are attached to legs that lead up to torsos, heads and arms, all of which are vulnerable to small arms fire and Improvised Explosive Devices.

Note the recent comments by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who doubles down on his brother George’s disastrous Iraq policy and also tags “W” as his foreign policy adviser. Jeb might well be regarded as the smartest of the Bushes, but he clearly is unable to correct course based on careful analysis of bad outcomes, recalling the Albert Einstein quip that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If we elect another Bush we will undoubtedly have the same result.

There was nothing good about the Iraq adventure, not even the near mythical surge, apart from the profits accruing to defense contractors. Iraq is still bearing bitter fruit in the form of the anarchy prevailing both in that unhappy land itself and also in neighboring Syria. Jeb apparently also confuses America’s interests with those of his family, okay or even admirable in private life but a bit over the top in one who aspires to be a statesman. Or is it just that Jeb does not hesitate to appeal to the more rabid component of what he perceives to be his potential electorate, a group that knows nothing of war but is again baying for blood?

The point is that Americans who want to show the rest of the world how serious we are would best begin by being serious themselves about the downside of all that intervention. Real people, including thousands of Americans, die and there is no way to avoid a government like ours having to declare insolvency when the credit card comes due, as it eventually will.

The message of the bubble that most Americans exist in regarding the U.S.’s place in the world came home to me over Memorial Day weekend when I had the misfortune to watch two war movies. Both were set in the Second World War, which is always a favorite because there were nasty Nazis and diabolical Japanese all over the place, convenient foils for American down home virtues. Somewhat confusingly the Commies were actually on our side in that war but Hollywood is well able to handle that potential embarrassment by never showing the Russians at all. Most Americans born post 1945 are probably not even aware that it was an allied Red Army that actually defeated Hitler with John Wayne nowhere in sight.

The first jarring feature that one notices about contemporary war movies coming out of Hollywood is that a serious effort is always made to have diversity. That means that any army unit will look just like Barack Obama’s vision of America, even if such a depiction is completely ahistorical. Each infantry platoon is supposed to look like it came out of a Marvel comic line-up.

Second, since guys from Hollywood don’t exactly enlist in droves in the United States Army there is an underlying assumption that the folks who do the scriptwriting don’t know what the hell they are writing about. That means the storyline will be extremely stupid, unrealistic with a stark depiction of good guys and bad guys. But even if everyone dies heroically at the end, American values will triumph and the audience will be able to leave the theater feeling good about itself.

The first movie I saw was Fury starring Brad Pitt. Reveling in the nickname “Wardaddy,” Brad was the crusty “old man” commander of his Sherman tank near the end of the fighting in Germany. The crew included the usual odd guy newcomer and a bunch of disillusioned veterans. The lads are not all very nice and they get into some friskiness with a Fraulein that Brad eventually protects before she gets killed by an alleged howitzer round fired by the Germans directed against their own fellow citizens, meaning that war can be both nasty and unpredictable, the moral message that must accompany every war film before one goes on to the blood spurting out in slow motion.

Brad and his gang go off unaccompanied by infantry support with four other Shermans to forestall an impending Kraut attack but they have the misfortune of running into a German Tiger tank, far superior to their own armor. The German tank is hull down, which means its heaviest turret armor is up front and it presents no good target. It manages to destroy three of the Shermans before it uncharacteristically emerges to engage on even terms, a very gallant thing to do in tank warfare. It kills a fourth Sherman before Brad manages to maneuver behind it and destroy it. Brad’s tank is hit in the side in the exchange but survives the 88mm Tiger round, which in reality would have easily penetrated the relatively lightly armored Sherman before bouncing around inside, turning the crew into minced meat before the tank itself would blow up. This combat sequence was, incidentally, the most interesting part of the film as the Tiger and Sherman were both real tanks, not Hollywood mock-ups, and it was the reason why I watched the movie.

Anyway, Brad is not finished yet. His tank eventually breaks down on a road that must be held against an approaching battalion of the feared Waffen SS. The men could abandon their tank and disappear into the woods, but no, they decide to fight it out, even the bookish new guy. So it’s five against eight hundred, but this is Hollywood we’re talking about. The Krauts obligingly attack frontally lined up as if they were on parade in Potsdam. The Pitts crew cuts them down wave after wave with automatic weapon and tank fire, every round hitting its target while the Germans play at being The Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight, but, alas, the Americans eventually get picked off one by one until it is all over. The last scene shows the surviving Germans marching by the huge heaps of their own dead. Oh, and the new guy somehow survives to tell the tale. Finis.

Understand that the Waffen SS were the most lethal soldiers in the European war. By 1945 they had been fighting for nearly six years and they surely understood that when coming upon a disabled tank all one had to do was either go around it and ignore it or flank it and destroy it from its lightly armored rear. Game over. Somehow they didn’t figure that out and paid the price. But the audience did get the message, i.e. that American exceptionalism means you never give up when confronted by a bad guy. The only poor reviews of the film came from folks like me who expected something serious about tank warfare and the many critics who maintained that American soldiers would never do things like abuse civilians, commit rape and shoot enemy soldiers who were surrendering. Nah.

The second film I saw was called Sahara and it featured James Belushi playing the Brad Pitt role. I don’t even want to write about it as I have already lost considerable sleep revisiting the horrific acting and plot. It too featured a tank – a Grant instead of a Sherman – and the cast was excitingly diverse, a virtual United Nations on tracks. The German actors, clearly having been coached by the same guy who staged the battle scenes in “Fury,” advanced in straight lines down the sand dunes to be mowed down in their hundreds by Belushi and his team. The good guys never even had to reload and were able to exchange black humor bon mots during the intervals between slaughtering Krauts.

But if you actually want to see how awful war can be cinematically speaking, I would recommend something quite different, the Italian post-war Vittorio de Sica movie Two Women, filmed in 1960 in a country that was still devastated. Sophia Loren won an Oscar for her performance. When the movie first came out on VHS the blurb on the box said that mother and daughter were raped by the Germans. It had to be the Germans of course on a Hollywood-marketed product, but the Italians who made the film and who had actually lived through the events depicted knew otherwise. It was Moroccan soldiers from the Free French Army who were notorious for raping and looting their way from Sicily to Milan. In fact, the German soldiers were highly disciplined. Not so the Brits, Americans and French.

My point is that when Americans think of war they think of something heroic and relatively painless unless you are somehow electrocuted by your PlayStation. There are no bad consequences arising from stomping on Afghans from a control center in Nevada. And if you screw up and kill a wedding party, so what? I am not advocating a salutary invasion of the United States to create an awareness of just how terrible war is, but a little more creative candor from the media, Hollywood and the political class might just help make the public think twice before it goes into that voting booth to pull the handle for Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush. Or Hillary.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Of Related Interest
shutterstock_22561885
Life on an Increasingly Improbable Planet
Vietnam War Montage, Credit: Wikimedia Commons
“Cry havoc, and Let Slip the Frogs of Yore”
202 Comments to "Nazis on the Backlot"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Thoroughly insulated from the death and destruction meted out daily in their name overseas, Americans nonetheless manage to affect a 15-year (and counting) national trauma upon having a couple buildings taken down. It’s just another form of the outright treason practiced by our Hollywood Overlords that merkins celebrate something they know absolutely nothing about. And imagine that it’s patriotism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @conatus
    Lyndon Johnson is the locus classicus, originator of the phrase "My fellow Merkins."
    Everyone got a laugh out of the President calling his countrymen 'Medievil genital wigs' Ha ha
    Perhaps Lyndon was being a serious funnyman? We recently went to Texas and toured his Texas White House. I never realized the guy had a sense of humor. The plane he traveled in he named Air Force One Half because the runway behind his ranch house was too small for a big jet so he had a slimmed down version of Air Force One. And he named his beagles Him and Her, so just msybe he was not just being rustic when he called us all 'Merkins' in those national speeches.

    I always wondered why he refused to run? That is like committing suicide for a politician. What's up with that? Perhaps that Jeff Gates story about the paramour on the adjoining ranch during the Six Day War is true and Lyndon could not bear that seeing the light of day.
    , @Susan
    The corrupt, US government purposefully keeps this crap alive in order to convince the American populace that wars are noble and necessary to protect our freedom.
    , @Eternal Vigilance
    Well, there were 3000 people in those "couple of buildings" all of whom became nonexistent by fire, crushing, mangling and eventual disintegration. It was, indeed, a national trauma which you seek to trivialize.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/nazis-on-the-backlot/#comment-958111
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Relevant info from the G2mil blog:

    Sep 4, 2012 – The Boys’ War

    One of my favorite authors, Paul Fussell, recently died. In his must read classic “Class” he noted that upper class Americans say someone died, while middle class folks are afraid of the word, and say passed away. Lower class Americans fear death even more, and say something even more vague, like: “has gone to a better place.” I use his advice to appear upper class, like never wearing digital watches or ball caps or clothing with logos.

    I just finished Fussell’s short book “The Boys’ Crusade”, about our infantrymen fighting in Europe during World War II, where he served as a lieutenant. He noted many great books on the war, but wrote that all missed key elements, such as:

    - Most fighting was done by American infantrymen, who were just out of high school. They were drafted and didn’t want to be in the war or the army. The Army’s official tally was 19,000 deserters in Europe.

    - Self-inflicted wounds (a downward bullet wound to a leg or arm) were so common that the Army kept a tally and used it to measure of unit morale.

    - When the U.S. Army’s new 106th Infantry Division was attacked at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge, it didn’t put up a fight. Its boys were so startled by the unexpected appearance of large numbers of German panzers that officers jumped into jeeps and fled while 8000 GIs threw up their hands and surrendered without firing a shot.

    - The “platoon guide” was a junior sergeant added to each infantry platoon, whose duty was the trail the platoon and confront anyone who attempted to desert.

    - During the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans sent 150 English speaking commandos dressed in U.S. Army uniforms to infiltrate American frontlines and cause chaos. They were quickly captured because American MPs guarded all roadways. Any healthy soldier heading toward the rear was presumed a deserter and arrested and interrogated.

    Overall the book is good, but short.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12

    - When the U.S. Army’s new 106th Infantry Division was attacked at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge, it didn’t put up a fight. Its boys were so startled by the unexpected appearance of large numbers of German panzers that officers jumped into jeeps and fled while 8000 GIs threw up their hands and surrendered without firing a shot.
     
    2nd and 99th Divisions, however, fought like hell. But those are very little known formations in US being eclipsed by a magnificent Oscar-winning performance by George C. Scott as Patton, whose merits as a "tactical genius" (not for once declared by many in US--Carlo Di Este, anyone) raise only questions among real scholars of WW II. How an average but loud mouthed general could merit such a high praise when he never encountered any serious Wehrmacht force at the peak of German panzers might, yet left a trail of scandalous statements which can only create desire to scratch one's head.
    , @Orville H. Larson
    Regarding the collapse of the U.S. 106th Division during the Ardennes counteroffensive: Some years ago, I read "Death of a Division" by Charles Whiting. If memory serves me correctly, the division commander--Major General Alan Jones, USA--had no combat experience (in that, he was similar to Supreme Commander Ike). And, of course, the division was green and untested.

    There were tens of thousands of deserters in the ETO. Only one man was shot for it--Private Eddie Slovik. (Read "The Execution of Private Slovik" by William Bradford Huie.)
    , @Dutch Boy
    Nothing new about the WW II platoon guide; in the American Civil War, the platoon guide role was played by a sergeant called a file closer.
  3. Finally some humor from Giraldi. Yes, I also laughed at the US war porn movie called “Fury”. I missed John Wayne in the Pacific whilst watching this Fury tosh.

    It is strange to readers outside of the US to read Giraldi’s article – is it really necessary to explain such basic things to someone. For example, that war is an unimaginably mean enterprise in which some band of sick and f’ed up individuals rapes women and murders children – sometimes both things to both? These days, more often then not, it is the US trailer trash and psychos who are doing the raping and the murdering to bring “democracy” to a place. Are the US people so stupid to need such explanations?

    Nevertheless, nicely written article. There is a saying that you can avoid trouble for a long time but not forever. One day the modern war will come back to the US, where it came from. Then the US citizens will not need an article such as this to understand the most basic fact which almost all other people on planet Earth understand – there is no good war except fighting for your own home .

    Read More
  4. “Then the US citizens will not need an article such as this to understand the most basic fact which almost all other people on planet Earth understand – there is no good war except fighting for your own home .”

    Indeed, I as a non-American find it difficult to understand the mindset of the American people. They maintain a gigantic and mind-boggingly costly military, they send their soldiers to die in large amounts and to kill in even greater amounts, in countries on the other side of the world… and their pubic somehow believes it is all necessary in order to defend their own freedom?

    The US is obviously a country that could get away with having a relatively small military and neutral foreign policy if it wanted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    You make an excellent point--the U.S. could have the foreign policy of a large Switzerland and 95-98% of Americans would be better off if it did so. But the 2-5% that the activist foreign and military policy benefits are in control. Moreover, even ordinary Americans want a military "second to none," and revel in the victories of "their team."

    Once a nation, really any nation, grows large enough, the temptation to become an empire becomes almost overwhelming; the elites reap the benefits and the rest pay the price. George Kennan in Around the Cragged Hill, advocated breaking the U.S. up into 8-12 autonomous republics; each of which would be strong enough to defend itself, but no one of which could interfere in other countries' business. Interesting idea, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
    , @Orville H. Larson
    Sir, you're a discerning fellow, and I associate myself with your comments. (That "relatively small military" and "neutral foreign policy" stuff resonates with me.)
    , @Eternal Vigilance
    As a non-American, you are probably from a country that has directly solicited USA defensive aid against real or imagined enemies. After all, it is much cheaper in terms of treasury and lives to have the USA act as the World's Policeman to protect your backside. It can be safely said that there are a few, very few, allies have remained loyal friends of the USA in these troubled times. The USA can indeed protect its shores if the libs will let us protect our borders and the hawks will eliminate military aid to "good times" allies.

    Does Obama's ISIS Coalition stand the test of shared allied responsibilities for treasury, equipment, lives and limb? Hardly, it is a Presidential fiction fostered to keep the USA in a war that should be of greatest concern to members of the EU. Pull the plug on USA foreign aid and behind the scenes foreign subsidies by the military and the CIA and wait for the weeping and wailing that would emanate from our supposed allies. Time to wean the entire world off USA welfare!
  5. @Carlton Meyer
    Relevant info from the G2mil blog:

    Sep 4, 2012 - The Boys' War

    One of my favorite authors, Paul Fussell, recently died. In his must read classic "Class" he noted that upper class Americans say someone died, while middle class folks are afraid of the word, and say passed away. Lower class Americans fear death even more, and say something even more vague, like: "has gone to a better place." I use his advice to appear upper class, like never wearing digital watches or ball caps or clothing with logos.

    I just finished Fussell's short book "The Boys' Crusade", about our infantrymen fighting in Europe during World War II, where he served as a lieutenant. He noted many great books on the war, but wrote that all missed key elements, such as:

    - Most fighting was done by American infantrymen, who were just out of high school. They were drafted and didn't want to be in the war or the army. The Army's official tally was 19,000 deserters in Europe.

    - Self-inflicted wounds (a downward bullet wound to a leg or arm) were so common that the Army kept a tally and used it to measure of unit morale.

    - When the U.S. Army's new 106th Infantry Division was attacked at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge, it didn't put up a fight. Its boys were so startled by the unexpected appearance of large numbers of German panzers that officers jumped into jeeps and fled while 8000 GIs threw up their hands and surrendered without firing a shot.

    - The "platoon guide" was a junior sergeant added to each infantry platoon, whose duty was the trail the platoon and confront anyone who attempted to desert.

    - During the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans sent 150 English speaking commandos dressed in U.S. Army uniforms to infiltrate American frontlines and cause chaos. They were quickly captured because American MPs guarded all roadways. Any healthy soldier heading toward the rear was presumed a deserter and arrested and interrogated.

    Overall the book is good, but short.

    - When the U.S. Army’s new 106th Infantry Division was attacked at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge, it didn’t put up a fight. Its boys were so startled by the unexpected appearance of large numbers of German panzers that officers jumped into jeeps and fled while 8000 GIs threw up their hands and surrendered without firing a shot.

    2nd and 99th Divisions, however, fought like hell. But those are very little known formations in US being eclipsed by a magnificent Oscar-winning performance by George C. Scott as Patton, whose merits as a “tactical genius” (not for once declared by many in US–Carlo Di Este, anyone) raise only questions among real scholars of WW II. How an average but loud mouthed general could merit such a high praise when he never encountered any serious Wehrmacht force at the peak of German panzers might, yet left a trail of scandalous statements which can only create desire to scratch one’s head.

    Read More
  6. I’m glad that I didn’t waste my time watching Fury. When I read that it involved tanks without supporting infantry in the reviews, I knew that it would be so unrealistic that I would feel nothing but frustration.

    Years ago I heard James Webb say that one trouble with war movies is that the actors depicting soldiers are always way too old for the parts. Soldiers, he said, and the article points out, are almost always very young (although the present U.S. military may be changing that). He was trying to get genuine Marines for a movie version of his very good Vietnam war novel Fields of Fire, but I don’t think that he ever arranged it. In fairness, not many young men are all that good as actors; it takes some time to develop acting skills.

    I sometimes wonder about the alleged reluctance of vets to talk about their experiences. It just may be no one asks them and they assume disinterest. The existence of reunions and veterans organization suggests that while the memories may be painful, they are tolerable, and time probably softens the roughest of the ednges.

    Read More
  7. Reality, as usual, was completely the opposite of what Hollywood portrays. Martin van Creveld, long at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and long before he became the premier 4GW savant, wrote extensively of the respective performances of the German and U.S. armies during World War II. See: http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Power-Performance-1939-1945-Contributions/dp/0313091579

    Short version: German armor and infantry were much more effective than American ones because of the superb leadership, high unit cohesion, and mission-oriented tactical methods of the Germans. Contrary to the myth of the robotic Germans, they actually let their small unit leaders exercise their initiative and daring, much more so than the supposedly more individualist Americans.

    When the film “Saving Private Ryan” first came out, I saw it with an elderly family member who was an American World War II ETO vet who was at the vanguard of infantry combat. He liked the initial landing sequence a great deal and it made him very emotional. But about the only thing he had to say about the rest of that film was, “If we had bunched up liked that and chatted incessantly on the march, one burst of machine gun fire from a hidden nest would have killed us all.”

    Hollywood often has criminals who gun fight like socom ninjas (“Heat,” “Way of the Gun”) but soldiers, especially if they are bad guys, fight like cartoon villains that they are in movies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kat Grey
    "Saving Private Ryan" was very good, it misses being excellent by leaving out the significant British and Canadian contribution to the D Day landings. Hollywood and history make for disparate bedfellows, alas.
    , @syonredux
    RE: military performance:


    Extrapolating the individual soldiers against each other – and although the Wehrmacht was far lower in numbers – so the German troops that faced British and American troops under all combat conditions (for assaults with the usual factor of 1.0 – in the defense in carefully selected positions with view by a factor of 1.3 – in prepared defense positions 1.5 – in fortified defense positions by a factor of 1.6) cause approximately 50 percent higher losses than they suffer.


    Even in the bitter years of defeats on the Russian front, the German combat effectiveness superiority over the Russians was even more pronounced. In the early days of the campaign in the east, one German division could take up with three Russian divisions of comparable strength and power. And, theoretically, under favorable defense conditions one German division could stand against no less than seven comparable Russian divisions.

    In 1944 this superiority was still about 2:1, and one German soldier at the front caused an average loss of 7.78 Russians for one German casualty. These figures need to adapted to the fact that the Wehrmacht in 1944 was almost always in the defense, had a relatively higher mobility and at this time the German weapons were better than the weapons of the Russians. But even if you take into account these considerations, the ratio for the infliction of losses was more than 4:1 and the German fighting power in battle was – man by man – about more than 50% better.


    http://ww2-weapons.com/fighting-power-of-the-wehrmacht/
  8. Actually there was relatively little rape carried out by the British or Germans for that matter. The top prize goes to the Red Army who systemically violated German and Polish on a massive scale that often involved gang-rape leading to a large number of babies born in 1946 that were sired by unknown Russian fathers. The Americans and Free French did their fair share as well. It’s about time the world was educated about this ugly stain on the Allied forces.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Saving Private Ryan” was very good, it misses being excellent by leaving out the significant British and Canadian contribution to the D Day landings.
     
    The film was hardly intended to be an examination of the D-Day landings.After all, The Longest Day already exists.

    Actually there was relatively little rape carried out by the British or Germans for that matter. The top prize goes to the Red Army who systemically violated German and Polish on a massive scale that often involved gang-rape leading to a large number of babies born in 1946 that were sired by unknown Russian fathers. The Americans and Free French did their fair share as well. It’s about time the world was educated about this ugly stain on the Allied forces.
     
    I'm not sure what you mean by "fair share." J. Robert Lilly, in Taken By Force, estimates that US forces committed approximately 14,000 rapes during the war in Europe, with the vast majority (11,040) taking place in Germany.In contrast, estimates on the number of rapes committed by Soviet forces are in the hundreds of thousands.Indeed, 100,000 women are estimated to have been raped by Soviet troops in Berlin alone.And Antony Beevor estimates that Soviet soldiers raped 1.4 million women in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia.


    So far as I know, the only Allied instance that comes anywhere near the Soviet example would be the Marocchinate, the mass rapes that were committed by Moroccan troops serving under Free French command:

    Monte Cassino was captured by the Allies on May 18, 1944. The next night, thousands of Goumiers and other colonial troops scoured the slopes of the hills surrounding the town and the villages of Ciociaria (in South Latium). Over 60,000 women, ranging in age from 11 to 86, suffered from violence, when village after village came under control of the Goumiers. Civilian men who tried to protect their wives and daughters were murdered. The number of men killed has been estimated at 800.[3]
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate
    , @MQ
    Actually there was relatively little rape carried out by the British or Germans for that matter.

    The British may not have raped a lot but the Germans sure did. The Trent Park tapes of captured German soldiers and officers captured many hours of German soldiers telling rape stories. They raped pretty much everywhere they went, even on the Western front, although I'd guess the Eastern front was worse. Even though raping Jewish women was forbidden, a lot of German soldiers apparently had a taste for raping them before they killed them. See here for some examples:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/rape-murder-and-genocide-nazi-war-crimes-as-described-by-german-soldiers-a-755385-4.html

    It is crazy to suppose that young men caught up in a genocidal war of annihilation and encouraged to kill civilians are going to refrain from sampling the women at the same time.

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Most likely, the Moroccans were followers of Islam. Regarding their fair shape of raping women they were only following in the example of their holy prophet, dating back from what he and his followers generally did post battle during the 620s.
    , @Pete
    Are you serious? Better consult the Russians about German atrocities in Russia. Of course, the Germans were paid in-kind by the rape of 93,000 (reported) women in Berlin. Scripture says "you reap what you sow."
  9. I thought the same thing when I watched Fury. Brad Pitt mowing down all these German soldiers how stupid. All these years after the war and Hollywood keeps the propaganda coming. You never know Israel may dig such a hole for itself it might need some help from American boys, got to keep the nonsense flowing.
    That said you should try Monuments Men,(it gets worse) it is a collection of Hollywood narcissists saving European Art from the Nazis apparently these clowns never heard of Dresden : pathetic. The perfect puritan position act morally superior to all and make a ton of cash.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Brad Pitt mowing down all these German soldiers how stupid. "

    Hollywood wants white Americans to feel that nothing is as glorious as shooting other whites.

    FURY is less about WWII but about Hollywood's desire to keep whites hating 'bad whites'.

  10. Thanks a lot for that. You have helped restore some of my faith in human (and especially American) common sense and decency. Because, as you know, one can go for years without ever hearing such obvious factual debunking of the horrible cultural norms we get thrust down our throats.

    Read More
  11. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Hollywood tough guys like John Wayne made war propaganda movies that glorify war but of course they themselves never came close to any danger. The government has always tried to censor pictures of actual war that might create some cognitive dissonance such as photos of American soldiers laying dead in pools of water or of their mutilated corpses that might take some of the glamour out of it. Instead we get around the clock depictions of fake guts and glory.
    The reality is that America goes around the world searching for enemies; every conflict has been voluntary and optional. If one looks at the pattern it becomes clear that American policy is a predatory one. It always waits for a country to fall into a state of weakness before pouncing upon it or simply attacks smaller, weaker third world countries that it feels can’t fight back. Vietnam came as a surprise since it was deemed to be a weaker third world country. The Spanish were weak and so were ripe to have their possessions taken away in 1898. In both world wars the US entered with it’s troops at the very last minute after the Germans were already defeated so as to get in on the victory. Later on countries like Panama and Grenada were invaded as well as the more recent ones of Afghanistan and Iraq where they can blow up natives at long range with their fancy hi-tech weapons with impunity. This won’t be shown in the movies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    Oh, hell, give John Wayne a break. Remember, it was The Duke who took Normandy and Iwo Jima. That part of the historical record remains intact!

    Seriously, Wayne--for whatever reason--avoided service during WW2. I wonder how Wayne looked his fellow actors James Stewart (Army Air Force), Clark Gable (Army Air Force), Henry Fonda (Navy), George Montgomery (Navy), Robert Taylor (Navy), Tyrone Power (Marine Corps), Audie Murphy (Army) in the eye. . . .
    , @chet roman
    Not only did John Wayne not fight but he was a draft dodger. While some Hollywood actors actually did enlist in the military, Wayne ignored his draft notices and was able to sit out the war playing hero. I think that's why he was so happy to play soldier (over compensation?) in the WWII films and was such a supporter of the Vietnam War. His "Green Berets" movie was a pure propaganda film supported by the warmongers in the Defense Dept.

    There is no better example of U.S. propaganda hypocrisy than the "hero" John Wayne.
  12. @Twinkie
    Reality, as usual, was completely the opposite of what Hollywood portrays. Martin van Creveld, long at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and long before he became the premier 4GW savant, wrote extensively of the respective performances of the German and U.S. armies during World War II. See: http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Power-Performance-1939-1945-Contributions/dp/0313091579

    Short version: German armor and infantry were much more effective than American ones because of the superb leadership, high unit cohesion, and mission-oriented tactical methods of the Germans. Contrary to the myth of the robotic Germans, they actually let their small unit leaders exercise their initiative and daring, much more so than the supposedly more individualist Americans.

    When the film "Saving Private Ryan" first came out, I saw it with an elderly family member who was an American World War II ETO vet who was at the vanguard of infantry combat. He liked the initial landing sequence a great deal and it made him very emotional. But about the only thing he had to say about the rest of that film was, "If we had bunched up liked that and chatted incessantly on the march, one burst of machine gun fire from a hidden nest would have killed us all."

    Hollywood often has criminals who gun fight like socom ninjas ("Heat," "Way of the Gun") but soldiers, especially if they are bad guys, fight like cartoon villains that they are in movies.

    “Saving Private Ryan” was very good, it misses being excellent by leaving out the significant British and Canadian contribution to the D Day landings. Hollywood and history make for disparate bedfellows, alas.

    Read More
  13. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    NY Giants head coach Tom Caughlin:”The young Men of my generation fought in Vietnam so that I could play football at Syracuse.”

    WFAN’S Boomer Esiason huffing and puffing on WFAN during the Sochi Olympics about how America must take down Vladimir Putin because this evil dictator opposes gay marriage and gays teaching Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian Children.

    The permanent extinction of The Human Species will occur after a direct final order from a homosexual nosepicking narcissistic Kenyan Foriegner or a direct final order from a fat-ankled hairy bulldyke with a mole on the lip married to a violent psychopathic serial rapist from Hot Springs Arkansas.

    Read More
  14. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Benjamin Ferencz was a Jewish immigrant who became a lawyer and later was lead Nuremberg prosecutor and founder of the International Criminal Court. He served as a sergeant in the U.S. Army and served on a team that collected evidence for war crimes at concentration camps liberated by the U.S. Army. From Washington Post (07/24/2005): Giving Hitler Hell:

    Ferencz, who today is 85 and lives in New York, cautions against making sweeping armchair moral judgments. “Someone who was not there could never really grasp how unreal the situation was,” he says. “I once saw DPs [displaced persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?”

    From Wikipedia:

    “Two days after the death of Osama bin Laden was reported, Ferencz published a letter in the New York Times [05/03/2011] reminding readers that “illegal and unwarranted execution – even of suspected mass murderers – undermines democracy.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Ferencz was just another 'holocau$t' shyster and has been exposed as a liar, see:

    Did Benjamin Ferencz really parachute into Berlin?
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8681

    Extra: LIVE JEWS PUT IN ROAD MIXER
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7543

    Jewish groups protest ‘revisionist plaque’ at Babi Yar
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7167

    As for Wikipedia, it's dominated by the usual enemies of free speech.
    see:
    'Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course'
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6175

    Jewish Internet Defense Force
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force

    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    and:
    The endless Zionist organizations engaged in propaganda:

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
    Israel tech site paying “interns” to covertly plant stories in social media

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook
    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
  15. If one doesn’t like fiction he should stick to non-fiction and documentaries. What you shouldn’t do is waste everyone’s time demanding that there be no fiction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Good fiction captures reality. What Phil describes here is pure propaganda for war to maintain what has now come to be called "persistent war," meaning on the part of the U.S.
    , @Vendetta
    He asked for better fiction, not no fiction. Jesus. Not that hard to understand. I'd like some too.
  16. Excellent piece, Phil! Though I admit I am still trying to wrap my head around the phrase “smartest of the Bushes”….

    Read More
  17. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iffen
    If one doesn't like fiction he should stick to non-fiction and documentaries. What you shouldn't do is waste everyone's time demanding that there be no fiction.

    Good fiction captures reality. What Phil describes here is pure propaganda for war to maintain what has now come to be called “persistent war,” meaning on the part of the U.S.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Phil is giving his opinion. Like quite a few writers he is concerned that the un-washed are being led astray. They can’t see the “truth” like he can. He can handle fiction and reality but has doubts about the ability of the peons to do the same. If only they would listen to him everything would work much better.

    What is good fiction or bad is obviously a personal preference.

  18. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Among the reasons why I hate IQ tests and IQ psychometrics:IQ Tests …..meaningless standardized tests….are a way of tracking who becomes canon fodder-limbless basket cases with a teenager screaming inside to be euthanized by the Walter Reed Army Hospital Phillipino Doctor……and who becomes the socially worthless Wall Street wheeler-dealer. This in itself should be good enough of a reason to abolish IQ tests….a pox on Robert Plomin..and Jared Taylor. I write this as a hard-core Native Born White American Racial Patriot….

    If you are antiwar….you must be in favor of abolishing IQ Testing of young children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    Eliminating the IQ test will not eliminate the fact that some people are intelligent and some are not.

    Ignorance is never a good thing.
    , @JessicaR
    You make an excellent point. One I hadn't thought of before.
  19. @iffen
    If one doesn't like fiction he should stick to non-fiction and documentaries. What you shouldn't do is waste everyone's time demanding that there be no fiction.

    He asked for better fiction, not no fiction. Jesus. Not that hard to understand. I’d like some too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    What he is demanding is that works of fiction depict “reality” as he sees it. That would not be fiction.

    I shouldn't be too critical I suppose, sometimes I want reality to be more like fiction.
  20. Another Philip Giraldi, “I can’t ever seem to get it right.” piece. No Phil, Hollywood has not changed our perception of war; however, it has changed our perception of history. The primary, ultimate, far and away biggest warping of our perceptions of inhumanity to man is caused by: TELEVISION NEWS. Or , more accurately, TELEVISION NON-NEWS.
    In one sense, Hollywood has a slight, but undeniable, duty to softball war to it’s audience. That is, if the movie is purporting to be “entertainment”. But television news doesn’t get that excuse. The news is supposed to be an accurate, honest representation of reality. Tell me, how many infants have you seen with their entrails and body parts spread over a square meter because it’s mother was carrying him and got caught by a 88mm mortar round? They would show the mother too, but there is no body part of hers that is over a square centimeter.

    C’mon folks, you can’t even see ISIS chop the head off somebody, unless someone “leaks” a copy to You-Tube. Wake up, people. Doubtlessly, when God gets around to kicking this diseased planet out of His universe, the place where foot meets planet will be Hollywood; however, how much war would we be supporting if we were treated to the reality as it happens?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Flower, how can you say

    No Phil, Hollywood has not changed our perception of war; however, it has changed our perception of history.
     
    then follow it up with directly-contradicting observation?

    Tell me, how many infants have you seen with their entrails and body parts spread over a square meter because it’s mother was carrying him and got caught by a 88mm mortar round?
     
    Of COURSE Hollywood has changed our perception of war. Some Americans have seen war, and know better, but most Americans have seen war as Hollywood depicts it, that is, as guns, glory, and patriotism.
  21. @Anonymous
    Good fiction captures reality. What Phil describes here is pure propaganda for war to maintain what has now come to be called "persistent war," meaning on the part of the U.S.

    Phil is giving his opinion. Like quite a few writers he is concerned that the un-washed are being led astray. They can’t see the “truth” like he can. He can handle fiction and reality but has doubts about the ability of the peons to do the same. If only they would listen to him everything would work much better.

    What is good fiction or bad is obviously a personal preference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    Giraldi's "reality as he sees it," which you put in bullshit quotes, is reality as pretty much anyone who's been in the military or a war sees it. I'm not opposed to military fantasy when it's, you know, fantasy. Inglourious Basterds is absurd by any standard of historical realism but it doesn't claim any standard of historical realism. They shoot Hitler in the face just to spell it out for the audience. Indulge away on your artistic whims if you're going to make a live-action comic book, it can be good and entertaining cinema for sure. Just don't make a live-action cartoon and then turn around and market it as the most authentic war movie ever. It starts doing audiences a disservice when fantastical departures from the reality of war start appearing under the label of "based on on a true story" and get hyped up as being the closest cinema has ever come to capturing what war is really like. Particularly when these movies are made about contemporary wars.
  22. Felt the same upon seeing Lone Survivor. Granted, the SEALs took down probably two or three dozen more of the Taliban in the film than they actually did in the real firefight, but you saw these men get brutalized to an extent Hollywood rarely puts its soldier protagonists through.

    It’s all pretty good until it gets to the third act…that fucking third act. Where they smack themselves on the head and say, “Shit, did we just make a movie where the Taliban won?” So they go and make up a ludicrous fake battle where two hundred Taliban break the code of Pashtunwali and descend upon the village so that there can be a heroic final battle, so Ahmad Shah doesn’t get away with it, so American air power can arrive to punish the bad guys while all the villagers and their homes are miraculously unscathed by the barrage from above.

    Damn it, Hollywood. They’ll do this to you every time they make something competent looking. Carry the ball 80% of the way and then drop it right at the end, not just drop it but spike it.

    Read More
  23. @foreigner
    "Then the US citizens will not need an article such as this to understand the most basic fact which almost all other people on planet Earth understand – there is no good war except fighting for your own home ."

    Indeed, I as a non-American find it difficult to understand the mindset of the American people. They maintain a gigantic and mind-boggingly costly military, they send their soldiers to die in large amounts and to kill in even greater amounts, in countries on the other side of the world... and their pubic somehow believes it is all necessary in order to defend their own freedom?

    The US is obviously a country that could get away with having a relatively small military and neutral foreign policy if it wanted.

    You make an excellent point–the U.S. could have the foreign policy of a large Switzerland and 95-98% of Americans would be better off if it did so. But the 2-5% that the activist foreign and military policy benefits are in control. Moreover, even ordinary Americans want a military “second to none,” and revel in the victories of “their team.”

    Once a nation, really any nation, grows large enough, the temptation to become an empire becomes almost overwhelming; the elites reap the benefits and the rest pay the price. George Kennan in Around the Cragged Hill, advocated breaking the U.S. up into 8-12 autonomous republics; each of which would be strong enough to defend itself, but no one of which could interfere in other countries’ business. Interesting idea, but I don’t see it happening any time soon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    "... even ordinary Americans want a military 'second to none,' and revel in the victories of 'their team'.”

    You put your finger on it, just like Giraldi did. For most US citizens war is a football game, entertainment. For the victims of US aggression it could not be any further. A bit of a silly comparison but just like in Hunger Games: one man's dying is another man's game. But when dying one day comes home to roost, then it will lose all entertainment value. Somehow, own suffering does not qualify as entertainment.

    This is Giraldi's principal message.
  24. @Vendetta
    He asked for better fiction, not no fiction. Jesus. Not that hard to understand. I'd like some too.

    What he is demanding is that works of fiction depict “reality” as he sees it. That would not be fiction.

    I shouldn’t be too critical I suppose, sometimes I want reality to be more like fiction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    You are familiar with the concept of supply and demand, no? If you want something supplied, you have to create a demand for it. Social justice advocates created enough of a demand that they started getting what they wanted. Those who want better war movies should demand better war movies.

    Frankly I don't see how Giraldi's essay has inconvenienced you in any way. Do you have any argument against more realistic military fiction?
  25. A similar myth is that American GIs are saints on a mission to save people. From the G2mil blog:

    Dec 26, 2014 – The Greatest Generation?

    I saw an article on a ceremony to remember the 84 American GI prisoners gunned down by German troops near Malmedy, Belgium on Dec 17, 1944. This is part a long standing propaganda effort to justify World War II and American worldwide domination. It seems the advancing Germans had taken so many prisoners they could not guard them all, so some were shot. Since 43 GIs managed to run away during this massacre, it wasn’t a well planned event. There were many cases of GIs killing German prisoners too, but those are never mentioned. Here is a list of major incidents:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_States

    and this youtube video of an incident where an officer lined up 25 German prisoners and had them gunned down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD4bDHTHdpU

    That Wikipedia link explains another wartime myth – Japs never surrendered! This is mostly true, but not because they were all fanatics. GIs almost always killed Japanese soldiers who tried to surrender, discouraging the idea and resulting in very few prisoners.
    ____________________________

    And here is a History Channel program about American armored units with Sherman tanks slaughtered by the Germans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Of course, when compared to the Nazi record:

    The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union. Had things gone the way that Hitler, Himmler, and Göring expected, German forces would have implemented a Hunger Plan in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1941–1942. As Ukrainian and south Russian agricultural products were diverted to Germany, some 30 million people in Belarus, northern Russia, and Soviet cities were to be starved to death. The Hunger Plan was only a prelude to Generalplan Ost, the colonization plan for the western Soviet Union, which foresaw the elimination of some 50 million people.

    The Germans did manage to carry out policies that bore some resemblance to these plans. They expelled half a million non-Jewish Poles from lands annexed to the Reich. An impatient Himmler ordered a first stage of Generalplan Ost implemented in eastern Poland: ten thousand Polish children were killed and a hundred thousand adults expelled. The Wehrmacht purposefully starved about one million people in the siege of Leningrad, and about a hundred thousand more in planned famines in Ukrainian cities. Some three million captured Soviet soldiers died of starvation or disease in German prisoner-of-war camps. These people were purposefully killed: as with the siege of Leningrad, the knowledge and intention to starve people to death was present. Had the Holocaust not taken place, this would be recalled as the worst war crime in modern history.

    In the guise of anti-partisan actions, the Germans killed perhaps three quarters of a million people, about 350,000 in Belarus alone, and lower but comparable numbers in Poland and Yugoslavia. The Germans killed more than a hundred thousand Poles when suppressing the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. Had the Holocaust not happened, these “reprisals” too would be regarded as some of the greatest war crimes in history. In fact they, like the starvation of Soviet prisoners of war, are scarcely recalled at all beyond the countries directly concerned. German occupation policies killed non-Jewish civilians in other ways as well, for example by hard labor in prison camps. Again: these were chiefly people from Poland or the Soviet Union.

    The Germans killed somewhat more than ten million civilians in the major mass killing actions, about half of them Jews, about half of them non-Jews. The Jews and the non-Jews mostly came from the same part of Europe. The project to kill all Jews was substantially realized; the project to destroy Slavic populations was only very partially implemented.

     

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/
    , @syonredux

    That Wikipedia link explains another wartime myth – Japs never surrendered! This is mostly true, but not because they were all fanatics. GIs almost always killed Japanese soldiers who tried to surrender, discouraging the idea and resulting in very few prisoners.
     
    Push-pull.Early on, American marines and soldiers had to deal with quite a few " booby-trapped-fake surrender" instances involving Japanese troops.After that, US troops were somewhat less inclined to accept offers of surrender from the Japanese.

    And, of course, the Japanese record in the War is not very good:


    Manila, Philippines (massacre of civilians by Japanese: Nov. 1944-Feb. 1945): 100 000
    Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 100,000 Filipinos k.
    William Manchester, American Caesar (1978): "nearly 100,000 Filipinos were murdered by the Japanese"
    PBS: "100,000 of its citizens died."
    World War II Database: 100,000


    Nanking Massacre, 13 Dec. 1937-Feb. 38:
    Spence, The Search for Modern China: 42,000
    Gilbert: >200,000 civilians and 90,000 POWs
    Dict.Wars: 200,000
    Rummel: 200,000
    P. Johnson: 200-300,000
    27 Aug 2001 Newsweek, quoting Japanese textbook: "The number of dead is said to be over 100,000 and it is estimated to be over 300,000 in China."
    Palmowski, Dictionary of 20th Century World History: "perhaps as many as" 400,000
    Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking (1997) cites these:
    Liu Fang-chu: 430,000
    James Yin & Shi Young: 400,000
    Sun Zhaiwei: 377,400 corpses disposed of
    Wu Tien-wei: 340,000
    District Court of Nanking: 300,000
    International Military Tribunal of the Far East: 260,000
    Fujiwara Akira: 200,000
    John Rabe: 50,000-60,000
    Hata Ikuhiko: 38,000-42,000
    [Median: 260,000]
    Unit 731, Manchukuo (bio-warfare center: 1937-45)
    Discovery Channel: "as many as 200,000 people — Chinese soldiers, private citizens and prisoners of war — had died" [http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/spotlight/bioterror/history/history2.html]
    Global Security: Up to 3,000 died in this facility. Perhaps as many 200,000 Chinese died from germ war campaign in Yunnan Province, Ningbo, and Changde. [http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/japan/bw.htm]


    East Timor
    James Dunn, in Century of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997)): 70,000 died under Japanese occupation
    19 May 2002 San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "January 1942: Japan occupies the entire island. With support from the local people, Australian commandos in East Timor battle Japan. Japanese reprisals kill 60,000 civilians 13 percent of East Timor's population."
    Dutch East Indies: 25,000 Dutch d. out of 140,000 imprisoned (3 Feb. 1998 Agence France Presse)
    Singapore, citizens (mostly Chinese) massacred, 1942


    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Nanking
    , @The Plutonium Kid
    GIs shot Japanese attempting to surrender because the attempt at surrender was often a ruse. A lone Japanese might be carrying a grenade with the pin out, ready for blowing up his "captors." A trio of Japanese might advance with a machine gun strapped to one man's back and suddenly start firing at their would be captors. American soldiers quite wisely decided that the best way to get back home alive was to shoot any Japanese approaching them.

    Next time, tell the whole story.
    , @MarkinPnw
    My Uncle, who was an infantryman who fought against the Japanese, never mentioned or discussed his wartime service, except once, when he described an incident where some Japanese soldiers tried to surrender, and his company commander ordered my uncle to shoot them. My uncle said he refused, offered his M-1 rifle to his commander to do it himself, the commander declined and allowed the enemy soldiers to surrender.
  26. @Kyle McKenna
    Thoroughly insulated from the death and destruction meted out daily in their name overseas, Americans nonetheless manage to affect a 15-year (and counting) national trauma upon having a couple buildings taken down. It's just another form of the outright treason practiced by our Hollywood Overlords that merkins celebrate something they know absolutely nothing about. And imagine that it's patriotism.

    Lyndon Johnson is the locus classicus, originator of the phrase “My fellow Merkins.”
    Everyone got a laugh out of the President calling his countrymen ‘Medievil genital wigs’ Ha ha
    Perhaps Lyndon was being a serious funnyman? We recently went to Texas and toured his Texas White House. I never realized the guy had a sense of humor. The plane he traveled in he named Air Force One Half because the runway behind his ranch house was too small for a big jet so he had a slimmed down version of Air Force One. And he named his beagles Him and Her, so just msybe he was not just being rustic when he called us all ‘Merkins’ in those national speeches.

    I always wondered why he refused to run? That is like committing suicide for a politician. What’s up with that? Perhaps that Jeff Gates story about the paramour on the adjoining ranch during the Six Day War is true and Lyndon could not bear that seeing the light of day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kat Grey
    Didn't LBJ have a deal with Nixon not to run in the 1968 election?
  27. @Flower
    Another Philip Giraldi, "I can't ever seem to get it right." piece. No Phil, Hollywood has not changed our perception of war; however, it has changed our perception of history. The primary, ultimate, far and away biggest warping of our perceptions of inhumanity to man is caused by: TELEVISION NEWS. Or , more accurately, TELEVISION NON-NEWS.
    In one sense, Hollywood has a slight, but undeniable, duty to softball war to it's audience. That is, if the movie is purporting to be "entertainment". But television news doesn't get that excuse. The news is supposed to be an accurate, honest representation of reality. Tell me, how many infants have you seen with their entrails and body parts spread over a square meter because it's mother was carrying him and got caught by a 88mm mortar round? They would show the mother too, but there is no body part of hers that is over a square centimeter.

    C'mon folks, you can't even see ISIS chop the head off somebody, unless someone "leaks" a copy to You-Tube. Wake up, people. Doubtlessly, when God gets around to kicking this diseased planet out of His universe, the place where foot meets planet will be Hollywood; however, how much war would we be supporting if we were treated to the reality as it happens?

    Flower, how can you say

    No Phil, Hollywood has not changed our perception of war; however, it has changed our perception of history.

    then follow it up with directly-contradicting observation?

    Tell me, how many infants have you seen with their entrails and body parts spread over a square meter because it’s mother was carrying him and got caught by a 88mm mortar round?

    Of COURSE Hollywood has changed our perception of war. Some Americans have seen war, and know better, but most Americans have seen war as Hollywood depicts it, that is, as guns, glory, and patriotism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flower
    I'm not sure the purpose of your reply. If a motion picture production company were to be so stupid as to truthfully show what war is, would you go see it? If a television "drama" were to show the truth of war, would you watch it? Hollywood naturally has to sanitize their stuff, that is the nature (mechanics?) of fiction, otherwise the film is all a waste of time.

    "News" does not get the same option, or, at least, it shouldn't have the option to sanitize it. Like I said, your "truthful news" won't even show ISIS decapitating people. Is that for the sensitivities of the audience? Or is it just to continue a greater lie?

    It is curious to me that you complain about fiction sanitizing the truth, but stand there mute and with you wanger in your hand when the "News" sanitizes (read: lies) about the truth. May you bubble never burst.

  28. @iffen
    What he is demanding is that works of fiction depict “reality” as he sees it. That would not be fiction.

    I shouldn't be too critical I suppose, sometimes I want reality to be more like fiction.

    You are familiar with the concept of supply and demand, no? If you want something supplied, you have to create a demand for it. Social justice advocates created enough of a demand that they started getting what they wanted. Those who want better war movies should demand better war movies.

    Frankly I don’t see how Giraldi’s essay has inconvenienced you in any way. Do you have any argument against more realistic military fiction?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    By that standard how did Fury inconveince Giraldi? And let's be clear Giraldi loathes with a passion all those redneck Chritians who apply his exact same logic to abortion. They think America should be forced to come to terms with what they see as the abattoir of legalized abortion and use pictures of aborted fetuses to do so. Giraldi calls them Christian facist. Giraldi has no interest in reality he just wants to be commissar.
  29. Maybe the problem goes back to Mel Brooks, whose “Blazing Saddles” apparently set the standard for realism for portrayal of World War Two soldiers

    Read More
  30. @iffen
    Phil is giving his opinion. Like quite a few writers he is concerned that the un-washed are being led astray. They can’t see the “truth” like he can. He can handle fiction and reality but has doubts about the ability of the peons to do the same. If only they would listen to him everything would work much better.

    What is good fiction or bad is obviously a personal preference.

    Giraldi’s “reality as he sees it,” which you put in bullshit quotes, is reality as pretty much anyone who’s been in the military or a war sees it. I’m not opposed to military fantasy when it’s, you know, fantasy. Inglourious Basterds is absurd by any standard of historical realism but it doesn’t claim any standard of historical realism. They shoot Hitler in the face just to spell it out for the audience. Indulge away on your artistic whims if you’re going to make a live-action comic book, it can be good and entertaining cinema for sure. Just don’t make a live-action cartoon and then turn around and market it as the most authentic war movie ever. It starts doing audiences a disservice when fantastical departures from the reality of war start appearing under the label of “based on on a true story” and get hyped up as being the closest cinema has ever come to capturing what war is really like. Particularly when these movies are made about contemporary wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I was just expressing my opinion which is what he does.

    His argument is the same one that some people use when they deride Gone With The Wind because it doesn't dwell on the horrors of slavery.

    Inglourious Basterds was a great movie and I am going to watch it again the first chance that I get.

    Anyway, we learned that the only way to knockout a Panzer tank was from the rear in 1970 in Kelly's Heroes.

  31. @Vendetta
    Giraldi's "reality as he sees it," which you put in bullshit quotes, is reality as pretty much anyone who's been in the military or a war sees it. I'm not opposed to military fantasy when it's, you know, fantasy. Inglourious Basterds is absurd by any standard of historical realism but it doesn't claim any standard of historical realism. They shoot Hitler in the face just to spell it out for the audience. Indulge away on your artistic whims if you're going to make a live-action comic book, it can be good and entertaining cinema for sure. Just don't make a live-action cartoon and then turn around and market it as the most authentic war movie ever. It starts doing audiences a disservice when fantastical departures from the reality of war start appearing under the label of "based on on a true story" and get hyped up as being the closest cinema has ever come to capturing what war is really like. Particularly when these movies are made about contemporary wars.

    I was just expressing my opinion which is what he does.

    His argument is the same one that some people use when they deride Gone With The Wind because it doesn’t dwell on the horrors of slavery.

    Inglourious Basterds was a great movie and I am going to watch it again the first chance that I get.

    Anyway, we learned that the only way to knockout a Panzer tank was from the rear in 1970 in Kelly’s Heroes.

    Read More
  32. We are ruled by Nero and we get our jollies in the Coliseum.

    So emasculated are we that we think we are “projecting power” when we set starved and incited beasts of prey on unarmed hapless civilians whose offense is to have worshipped the wrong god/s or traded in the wrong form of currency.

    St. Augustine had something to say about the evil of the games to which he had become addicted.

    We are told that “Americans are weary of war,” as if we had actually experienced it.

    I think the weariness part is correct, in the same sense that an addict is weary of the compulsion to seek a fix, even as the fix is less and less impactful. And so we need a bigger dose, more war, the cycle of addiction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I honestly think most Americans would be perfectly content to stay home and mind their own business.

    As a group they seem to be easily roused into dumb and destructive jingoism...but somebody always seems to be happy to do the rousing.

    Why is the elite/media class always on the war path?

    It's all pretty simple in my mind...stay home and stick to your own knitting. There is no reason why Americans should even be involved in the Middle East. It's not America's business.

    The people who live there need to find some sort of equilibrium on their own ...recall that western societies have had to give and take and fight it out to get to the point we are as well.

    We are bombarded with images of ISIS atrocities, but there are similar things going on (for different reasons) in Mexico, and it gets very limited press

    People say it's about oil, and it is to a degree...but ME oil is going to find it's way to market no matter who is running things over there... It's the only resource they have, they sell oil or starve.

    Everything comes down to Jews and Isreal. But we can't even discuss this stuff... Not least because Jews themselves own and control the means to even have that discussion.

    Its so central but we can only whisper about it on obscure websites... And even that outlet is being strangled with laws restricting 'Anti-Semitism'

    It's a strange situation.
  33. @War for Blair Mountain
    Among the reasons why I hate IQ tests and IQ psychometrics:IQ Tests .....meaningless standardized tests....are a way of tracking who becomes canon fodder-limbless basket cases with a teenager screaming inside to be euthanized by the Walter Reed Army Hospital Phillipino Doctor......and who becomes the socially worthless Wall Street wheeler-dealer. This in itself should be good enough of a reason to abolish IQ tests....a pox on Robert Plomin..and Jared Taylor. I write this as a hard-core Native Born White American Racial Patriot....

    If you are antiwar....you must be in favor of abolishing IQ Testing of young children.

    Eliminating the IQ test will not eliminate the fact that some people are intelligent and some are not.

    Ignorance is never a good thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    If it means saving certain Native Born White American Teenagers from being sorted into, and employed as canon fodder by the Kenyan Foriegner and the Bulldyke...than it is most definitely a good thing to get rid of IQ tests.

    IQ test score enthusiasm has 0 to do with deep scientific issues and concepts...but every thing to with nitwit enthusiasm for economic efficiency.

    To repeat:If you are antiwar...you must be opposed to IQ tests being given to young children. IQ tests are a crucial part of the process of creating and processing Hillary Clinton's canon fodder.

    The whole vile..rancid...vapid socio-cultural life of America 2015 is built around the nasty sorting process that begins with given young school children IQ tests...there is a direct line from this to the fat-pimply assed bastard in the Football Stadium with his BMW in the parking lot screaming "I support the Troops"...which translates into" my kid aint gonna be a Walter Reed Army Hospital basket case shitting in a filthy bed pan...my kids will have a different career choice"...I am just about quoting fat bastard Mike Francessa(WFAN) verbatim.
  34. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    If anyone really wants to understand what combat is like in second world war, they should read the book “The Forgotten Soldier” by Guy Sajer. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Soldier

    In answer to some of the questions as to why soldiers would not share their combat experience I can say this: when I was a teenager in the late 1970s I was in the Canadian army cadets. Every Veterans Day or remembrance Day in Canada, we would go to the legion with the veterans of World War I and World War II. The old boys would get into their drink and start telling stories.

    I heard the horrific stories of their experiences. I also learned that they were uncomfortable sharing the stories with their family members and the public because no one could understand the context of their experiences.

    A lot of former combatants would like to have just forgotten the horrible things that had to do and to experience and really they didn’t want to talk about it because they didn’t want to live the emotion all over again. A lot of them feel they couldn’t be forgiven for the things they had to do to survive. If you want to talk to a former combatant about their experience you must approach them with compassion, empathy and non-judgment.

    Read More
  35. It’s been many years since I saw Two Women, but I think the actual film did show the rapists being Moroccan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite
    They just looked like a dark swarm. They were obviously "Africans" and as I recall, that's how they were spoken of later on in the movie. The film didn't show their faces, but I watched it on late night tv when I was only 12 and didn't exactly know what was going in. I had to ask my mother, and she said they were being "molested" or something like that. But you had a sense of something dark and alien. Even then, I knew they weren't "Germans."
  36. @conatus
    Lyndon Johnson is the locus classicus, originator of the phrase "My fellow Merkins."
    Everyone got a laugh out of the President calling his countrymen 'Medievil genital wigs' Ha ha
    Perhaps Lyndon was being a serious funnyman? We recently went to Texas and toured his Texas White House. I never realized the guy had a sense of humor. The plane he traveled in he named Air Force One Half because the runway behind his ranch house was too small for a big jet so he had a slimmed down version of Air Force One. And he named his beagles Him and Her, so just msybe he was not just being rustic when he called us all 'Merkins' in those national speeches.

    I always wondered why he refused to run? That is like committing suicide for a politician. What's up with that? Perhaps that Jeff Gates story about the paramour on the adjoining ranch during the Six Day War is true and Lyndon could not bear that seeing the light of day.

    Didn’t LBJ have a deal with Nixon not to run in the 1968 election?

    Read More
  37. The matter of war rape has an interesting role to play in one of the pillars of modern American political and racial correctness, namely the Emmet Till story. The Wikipedia discussion page is fascinating, for predictable reasons.

    Read More
  38. Just a few observations Phil.

    Jeb or Hillary, makes no difference, same Doug Coe ‘family’ cult, protecting their Christian mafia holdings in line with the organized crime the operational division of the CIA has historically been up to its neck in. Ted Cruz is the ‘Batista’ or Bush fallback candidate if Jeb can’t overcome ‘dubya’s’ legacy. There’s your Nazis, my take.

    Nearly 40 comments in, I don’t see a veteran speaking up (I waited) so here goes; when 122 rockets are dropping at 5am, you don’t notice any pain when running for a bunker barefoot across sharp gravel. Anticipation is worse than action. When outside the wire driving, we came under RPG fire; at that moment you realize there’s no control over what’s coming down, so you don’t worry and only do what needs doing, in this case keep driving (and give the warrant officer riding shotgun a verbal qualification in the use of my M16, he not touched a rifle since he’d qualified with a M14 in basic training.) I liked driving jeep, particularly after I’d been drafted for a mission as a backup LOH gunner on the Cambodia frontier (Tay Ninh.) My pilot had been enlisted infantry in a previous tour, he had to show me how an infantry style M60 operated from a hilltop landing pad. So, things can balance out. After, I understood why the regular gunner for that OH-58 would pause after breakfast, just at the point of walking from the chow hall to where the flight line came into view, to see if he would keep food down or vomit to start the day.

    We had a psycho killer who was a 50 Cal gunner the commanders loved, he was really good. A small time (White) hoodlum in ‘the real world’ you couldn’t leave untended outside of combat. I stepped between him and a Vietnamese civilian who he’d have shot dead with his pocket 38 when he’d been short-changed at a roadside stand just outside of Saigon. Just part of the job, keeping a premium killer out of trouble and life uncomplicated with preventing a spurious murder.

    We were loading (American) bodies at Xuan Loc and rigor mortis stopped one of the body bags (on a stretcher) at the narrow door of the bunker he’d been temporarily kept in (a mid-point transfer.) I grabbed his arms (elbows) and pulled them up so we could get him out to the chopper. You don’t think about it after. At least for a long while. But you can get caught off guard. Such as the time I went to walk the grounds of a Buddhist temple to get away from it all and instead was confronted with a beggar whose face had been pretty much entirely burned away with napalm, no nose, no lips, no ears, eyes just like large white cataracts, no iris or pupils.

    I can imagine those (many) with more graphic experience than mine would probably simply prefer not to recall, it could be the best remedy for some. Insofar as the veteran’s service clubs, American Legion & Veterans of Foreign Wars, drinking and war stories just weren’t my style. But my guess would be, as a general rule, those most immersed in combat would be the least likely to frequent these places.

    All that said, I tend to agree with Flower; television news is the greater liar and at the end of the day, I agree with Smedley Butler: “War is a Racket”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eternal Vigilance
    Thank you for your service and your common sense. I value your comments because they come from EXPERIENCE! By extension, the wars you call a racket are directly attributable to politicians inside the DC beltway who are deeply indebted to major corporations, overseas interests and weapons/munitions manufacturing.

    Strange but all those leftist and Conservative media mongers never extol the VICES of big business and weapons manufacturers to the viewing and listening public. In fact, most USA citizens would find it difficult to name these conflict dependent parasites who feed off the US government. It seems axiomatic that to budget for weaponry, politicians must create an enemy or enemies.

    Politicians are like buzzards hanging around to pick the innards of hanging lobbyist fruit thrown their way by unprincipled major moguls. There exists only a few solutions to the hawkish mentality of the left and of the right. Decentralize outside of the DC beltway all federal agencies headquarters including the military. Two, term limitations and rollover of federal agency leadership every four years. Three, selection by lottery of citizen review panels to undertake budgetary reviews, purchases of weaponry, turnover of all federal personnel to insure that these so-called public servants do not gain too much power. Amen!
  39. @Carlton Meyer
    A similar myth is that American GIs are saints on a mission to save people. From the G2mil blog:

    Dec 26, 2014 - The Greatest Generation?

    I saw an article on a ceremony to remember the 84 American GI prisoners gunned down by German troops near Malmedy, Belgium on Dec 17, 1944. This is part a long standing propaganda effort to justify World War II and American worldwide domination. It seems the advancing Germans had taken so many prisoners they could not guard them all, so some were shot. Since 43 GIs managed to run away during this massacre, it wasn't a well planned event. There were many cases of GIs killing German prisoners too, but those are never mentioned. Here is a list of major incidents:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_States

    and this youtube video of an incident where an officer lined up 25 German prisoners and had them gunned down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD4bDHTHdpU

    That Wikipedia link explains another wartime myth - Japs never surrendered! This is mostly true, but not because they were all fanatics. GIs almost always killed Japanese soldiers who tried to surrender, discouraging the idea and resulting in very few prisoners.
    ____________________________

    And here is a History Channel program about American armored units with Sherman tanks slaughtered by the Germans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4

    Of course, when compared to the Nazi record:

    The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union. Had things gone the way that Hitler, Himmler, and Göring expected, German forces would have implemented a Hunger Plan in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1941–1942. As Ukrainian and south Russian agricultural products were diverted to Germany, some 30 million people in Belarus, northern Russia, and Soviet cities were to be starved to death. The Hunger Plan was only a prelude to Generalplan Ost, the colonization plan for the western Soviet Union, which foresaw the elimination of some 50 million people.

    The Germans did manage to carry out policies that bore some resemblance to these plans. They expelled half a million non-Jewish Poles from lands annexed to the Reich. An impatient Himmler ordered a first stage of Generalplan Ost implemented in eastern Poland: ten thousand Polish children were killed and a hundred thousand adults expelled. The Wehrmacht purposefully starved about one million people in the siege of Leningrad, and about a hundred thousand more in planned famines in Ukrainian cities. Some three million captured Soviet soldiers died of starvation or disease in German prisoner-of-war camps. These people were purposefully killed: as with the siege of Leningrad, the knowledge and intention to starve people to death was present. Had the Holocaust not taken place, this would be recalled as the worst war crime in modern history.

    In the guise of anti-partisan actions, the Germans killed perhaps three quarters of a million people, about 350,000 in Belarus alone, and lower but comparable numbers in Poland and Yugoslavia. The Germans killed more than a hundred thousand Poles when suppressing the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. Had the Holocaust not happened, these “reprisals” too would be regarded as some of the greatest war crimes in history. In fact they, like the starvation of Soviet prisoners of war, are scarcely recalled at all beyond the countries directly concerned. German occupation policies killed non-Jewish civilians in other ways as well, for example by hard labor in prison camps. Again: these were chiefly people from Poland or the Soviet Union.

    The Germans killed somewhat more than ten million civilians in the major mass killing actions, about half of them Jews, about half of them non-Jews. The Jews and the non-Jews mostly came from the same part of Europe. The project to kill all Jews was substantially realized; the project to destroy Slavic populations was only very partially implemented.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
    I heard Timothy Snyder speak to a group of Ukrainian-Americans. He cautioned them to never, never compare the Holodomor to the sacred holocaust.

    In fact, he insisted that the matter of the Holodomor not be raised at all.

    I find it very difficult to give any credence at all to Snyder's writing.

    When an argument hinges on "IF _____ then the Germans WOULD HAVE _____," it's bogus.

    A J P Taylor has refuted the claim that "Hitler would have starved _____ to death_____" That was a scenario -- a war game tactic or whatever it is all these overpaid overfed ex-warriors do to monetize the only skills they have acquired in a lifetime -- It was one among many possible lines of actions tossed into the idea barrel after the defeat and famine of WWI.

    That Snyder relies on such material to build his wildly speculative hypothetical further discredits him.

    But IF balancing arguments is the thing to do, the exchange Jeff Herf had with Carla Cohen at Politics & Prose is instructive: Cohen asked, "Are you saying that if there had been no war then no final solution?"
    Herf: "That's right: no war, no final solution."

    ---

    Who wanted war? Not the Germans.

    Gerd Schultze-Rhon explains the efforts the Germans exerted to negotiate a settlement with Poland in his "1939: The War that Had Many Fathers."

    Charles Lindbergh named those who wanted war. He was correct.

    , @FederalistForever
    From the article you linked to:

    "If we concentrate on Auschwitz and the Gulag, we fail to notice that over a period of twelve years, between 1933 and 1944, some 12 million victims of Nazi and Soviet mass killing policies perished in a particular region of Europe, one defined more or less by today’s Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia."

    This "particular region of Europe" being the region controlled by the Austro-Hungarian empire pre WWI. And whom should we blame for the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire and the power vacuum that resulted? From John R. Schindler's blog:

    http://20committee.com/2015/04/24/woodrow-wilsons-great-folly/

    Key quote:

    "None of Wilson’s Points would have more impact than the tenth, which advocated autonomy for the peoples of Austria-Hungary, which a month later Wilson expanded into full “self-determination.” In other words, Wilson wanted to break up the ancient Habsburg realm. . . .
    While multinational Austria-Hungary had many problems, it was a much more coherent and capable polity than the European Union of today, and none of the Allied powers save America wanted to see it disappear. Some sort of Habsburg realm was seen as a strategic necessity by the British and French, since without that dynasty, Southeastern Europe would fall into chaos, with a dozen ethnic groups fighting amongst themselves. Yet, following Wilson’s lead, the Allies in early 1918 began advocating for the dissolution of Austria-Hungary along ethnic lines, giving material support to exile groups, mainly Czechs, who sought the end of the Habsburg Monarchy. . . . They achieved that at the end of 1918, thanks to Allied accomplishments on the battlefield, and Europe has been living with the consequences ever since."

    If Schindler is correct, Wilson's decision to abolish the Habsburg Monarchy must rank among the very worst foreign policy decisions made by any American President, right up there with LBJ's Vietnam folly and George W. Bush's Iraq invasion.
  40. Phil,

    I commend you not only for your extremely interesting article but also your resilience in being able to sit through a movie starring that vapid ham, Brad Pitt.

    Read More
  41. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Benjamin Ferencz was a Jewish immigrant who became a lawyer and later was lead Nuremberg prosecutor and founder of the International Criminal Court. He served as a sergeant in the U.S. Army and served on a team that collected evidence for war crimes at concentration camps liberated by the U.S. Army. From Washington Post (07/24/2005): Giving Hitler Hell:

    Ferencz, who today is 85 and lives in New York, cautions against making sweeping armchair moral judgments. "Someone who was not there could never really grasp how unreal the situation was," he says. "I once saw DPs [displaced persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?"
     
    From Wikipedia:

    "Two days after the death of Osama bin Laden was reported, Ferencz published a letter in the New York Times [05/03/2011] reminding readers that "illegal and unwarranted execution - even of suspected mass murderers - undermines democracy."
     

    Ferencz was just another ‘holocau$t’ shyster and has been exposed as a liar, see:

    Did Benjamin Ferencz really parachute into Berlin?

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8681

    Extra: LIVE JEWS PUT IN ROAD MIXER

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7543

    Jewish groups protest ‘revisionist plaque’ at Babi Yar

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7167

    As for Wikipedia, it’s dominated by the usual enemies of free speech.
    see:
    ‘Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6175

    Jewish Internet Defense Force

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force

    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    and:
    The endless Zionist organizations engaged in propaganda:

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media

    Israel tech site paying “interns” to covertly plant stories in social media

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook

    Read More
  42. @Carlton Meyer
    A similar myth is that American GIs are saints on a mission to save people. From the G2mil blog:

    Dec 26, 2014 - The Greatest Generation?

    I saw an article on a ceremony to remember the 84 American GI prisoners gunned down by German troops near Malmedy, Belgium on Dec 17, 1944. This is part a long standing propaganda effort to justify World War II and American worldwide domination. It seems the advancing Germans had taken so many prisoners they could not guard them all, so some were shot. Since 43 GIs managed to run away during this massacre, it wasn't a well planned event. There were many cases of GIs killing German prisoners too, but those are never mentioned. Here is a list of major incidents:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_States

    and this youtube video of an incident where an officer lined up 25 German prisoners and had them gunned down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD4bDHTHdpU

    That Wikipedia link explains another wartime myth - Japs never surrendered! This is mostly true, but not because they were all fanatics. GIs almost always killed Japanese soldiers who tried to surrender, discouraging the idea and resulting in very few prisoners.
    ____________________________

    And here is a History Channel program about American armored units with Sherman tanks slaughtered by the Germans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4

    That Wikipedia link explains another wartime myth – Japs never surrendered! This is mostly true, but not because they were all fanatics. GIs almost always killed Japanese soldiers who tried to surrender, discouraging the idea and resulting in very few prisoners.

    Push-pull.Early on, American marines and soldiers had to deal with quite a few ” booby-trapped-fake surrender” instances involving Japanese troops.After that, US troops were somewhat less inclined to accept offers of surrender from the Japanese.

    And, of course, the Japanese record in the War is not very good:

    Manila, Philippines (massacre of civilians by Japanese: Nov. 1944-Feb. 1945): 100 000
    Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 100,000 Filipinos k.
    William Manchester, American Caesar (1978): “nearly 100,000 Filipinos were murdered by the Japanese”
    PBS: “100,000 of its citizens died.”
    World War II Database: 100,000

    Nanking Massacre, 13 Dec. 1937-Feb. 38:
    Spence, The Search for Modern China: 42,000
    Gilbert: >200,000 civilians and 90,000 POWs
    Dict.Wars: 200,000
    Rummel: 200,000
    P. Johnson: 200-300,000
    27 Aug 2001 Newsweek, quoting Japanese textbook: “The number of dead is said to be over 100,000 and it is estimated to be over 300,000 in China.”
    Palmowski, Dictionary of 20th Century World History: “perhaps as many as” 400,000
    Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking (1997) cites these:
    Liu Fang-chu: 430,000
    James Yin & Shi Young: 400,000
    Sun Zhaiwei: 377,400 corpses disposed of
    Wu Tien-wei: 340,000
    District Court of Nanking: 300,000
    International Military Tribunal of the Far East: 260,000
    Fujiwara Akira: 200,000
    John Rabe: 50,000-60,000
    Hata Ikuhiko: 38,000-42,000
    [Median: 260,000]
    Unit 731, Manchukuo (bio-warfare center: 1937-45)
    Discovery Channel: “as many as 200,000 people — Chinese soldiers, private citizens and prisoners of war — had died” [http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Nanking

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    I'm not defending the horrible actions of the Germans and Japanese during World War II. I just want Americans to understand the false homeland propaganda that America dispatches saints to save the world. So far as starving civilians as a strategy, the Allies killed almost a million Germans after the 1918 armistice by continuing the food blockade to force territorial concessions from the German government. Then there were the millions of Japanese civilians who starved during WW II because of unrestricted American submarine warfare that sunk merchant ships filled with food, and sometimes American POWs. There were also the tens of thousands of German POWs who died in allied Rhineland camps after the war ended. And other mass slaughter fun, like Dresden.

    A must see is "Fog of War" where MacNamara describes how our boys burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in one night, admitting that it was his idea. The strategy was to kill Japs and burn up cities, burning over a million civilians with fire bombs. All this occurred before the two atomic bombs were dropped. He says USAF General LeMay said that if we'd lost the war he'd be prosecuted as a war criminal, and rightly so he said!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFw3HC-UBlc

    And then we had our former Secretary of State Albright saying the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions against non-existent WMDs was worth it. And they knew all the WMDs had been destroyed years before (in 1995) as confirmed by UN inspectors and the defecting General in charge, Kamel. The deaths were caused after our bombing of their water and sewer treatment plants, and then our refusal to allow repair parts to be imported.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

    Even right now, our planes are killing dozens of civilians each day in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Your tax dollars at work.
    , @Anonymous
    The American history of killing civilians isn't much better than that in Asia.

    America has killed and raped scores of civilians in Korea, Japan, Philippines, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc etc.
  43. @Carlton Meyer
    A similar myth is that American GIs are saints on a mission to save people. From the G2mil blog:

    Dec 26, 2014 - The Greatest Generation?

    I saw an article on a ceremony to remember the 84 American GI prisoners gunned down by German troops near Malmedy, Belgium on Dec 17, 1944. This is part a long standing propaganda effort to justify World War II and American worldwide domination. It seems the advancing Germans had taken so many prisoners they could not guard them all, so some were shot. Since 43 GIs managed to run away during this massacre, it wasn't a well planned event. There were many cases of GIs killing German prisoners too, but those are never mentioned. Here is a list of major incidents:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_States

    and this youtube video of an incident where an officer lined up 25 German prisoners and had them gunned down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD4bDHTHdpU

    That Wikipedia link explains another wartime myth - Japs never surrendered! This is mostly true, but not because they were all fanatics. GIs almost always killed Japanese soldiers who tried to surrender, discouraging the idea and resulting in very few prisoners.
    ____________________________

    And here is a History Channel program about American armored units with Sherman tanks slaughtered by the Germans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4

    GIs shot Japanese attempting to surrender because the attempt at surrender was often a ruse. A lone Japanese might be carrying a grenade with the pin out, ready for blowing up his “captors.” A trio of Japanese might advance with a machine gun strapped to one man’s back and suddenly start firing at their would be captors. American soldiers quite wisely decided that the best way to get back home alive was to shoot any Japanese approaching them.

    Next time, tell the whole story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    Well the true story is, one guy in ten trying that fake surrender attack ruins it for the other nine. I'm willing to believe that it might have been only a small fraction of Japanese soldiers who attempted to surrender had a suicide attack in mind, but even so, you don't bet your life at those odds.

    Still brutal, still awful, probably quite a lot of men who honestly intended to surrender got bayoneted or shot. But how can you really blame the soldiers for putting their own lives above those of the enemy? They really did try to do those fake surrender tricks sometimes. Are you really going to risk throwing away you and your friends' lives on some godforsaken island if there's a statistically signficant chance of that happening.

    Terrible, but it's pretty much what had to happen. That's called war. Imperial Japanese Army encouraged that kind of bullshit as an institutional policy and it reaped what it sowed. They gave no quarter and so they got none.

    Same reason I roll my eyes every time someone plays up the Red Army rapes of German women as such an unprecedented atrocity. Yeah, it's horrible. But that's called reaping what you sow. They killed millions upon millions of Soviet people. They'd have all had to have been saints not to have taken some revenge at the first opportunity.

    And same reason I roll my eyes at all those who rail against dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being such an evil, unjustified act. You never see those people raising that kind of moral outrage about all the people the Japanese killed in China, the twenty or thirty or even fifty Hiroshimas' worth.
  44. @syonredux
    Of course, when compared to the Nazi record:

    The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union. Had things gone the way that Hitler, Himmler, and Göring expected, German forces would have implemented a Hunger Plan in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1941–1942. As Ukrainian and south Russian agricultural products were diverted to Germany, some 30 million people in Belarus, northern Russia, and Soviet cities were to be starved to death. The Hunger Plan was only a prelude to Generalplan Ost, the colonization plan for the western Soviet Union, which foresaw the elimination of some 50 million people.

    The Germans did manage to carry out policies that bore some resemblance to these plans. They expelled half a million non-Jewish Poles from lands annexed to the Reich. An impatient Himmler ordered a first stage of Generalplan Ost implemented in eastern Poland: ten thousand Polish children were killed and a hundred thousand adults expelled. The Wehrmacht purposefully starved about one million people in the siege of Leningrad, and about a hundred thousand more in planned famines in Ukrainian cities. Some three million captured Soviet soldiers died of starvation or disease in German prisoner-of-war camps. These people were purposefully killed: as with the siege of Leningrad, the knowledge and intention to starve people to death was present. Had the Holocaust not taken place, this would be recalled as the worst war crime in modern history.

    In the guise of anti-partisan actions, the Germans killed perhaps three quarters of a million people, about 350,000 in Belarus alone, and lower but comparable numbers in Poland and Yugoslavia. The Germans killed more than a hundred thousand Poles when suppressing the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. Had the Holocaust not happened, these “reprisals” too would be regarded as some of the greatest war crimes in history. In fact they, like the starvation of Soviet prisoners of war, are scarcely recalled at all beyond the countries directly concerned. German occupation policies killed non-Jewish civilians in other ways as well, for example by hard labor in prison camps. Again: these were chiefly people from Poland or the Soviet Union.

    The Germans killed somewhat more than ten million civilians in the major mass killing actions, about half of them Jews, about half of them non-Jews. The Jews and the non-Jews mostly came from the same part of Europe. The project to kill all Jews was substantially realized; the project to destroy Slavic populations was only very partially implemented.

     

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    I heard Timothy Snyder speak to a group of Ukrainian-Americans. He cautioned them to never, never compare the Holodomor to the sacred holocaust.

    In fact, he insisted that the matter of the Holodomor not be raised at all.

    I find it very difficult to give any credence at all to Snyder’s writing.

    When an argument hinges on “IF _____ then the Germans WOULD HAVE _____,” it’s bogus.

    A J P Taylor has refuted the claim that “Hitler would have starved _____ to death_____” That was a scenario — a war game tactic or whatever it is all these overpaid overfed ex-warriors do to monetize the only skills they have acquired in a lifetime — It was one among many possible lines of actions tossed into the idea barrel after the defeat and famine of WWI.

    That Snyder relies on such material to build his wildly speculative hypothetical further discredits him.

    But IF balancing arguments is the thing to do, the exchange Jeff Herf had with Carla Cohen at Politics & Prose is instructive: Cohen asked, “Are you saying that if there had been no war then no final solution?”
    Herf: “That’s right: no war, no final solution.”

    Who wanted war? Not the Germans.

    Gerd Schultze-Rhon explains the efforts the Germans exerted to negotiate a settlement with Poland in his “1939: The War that Had Many Fathers.”

    Charles Lindbergh named those who wanted war. He was correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    In fact, he insisted that the matter of the Holodomor not be raised at all.
     
    Weird, seeing as how he talked extensively about the Ukrainian Terror Famine in Bloodlands:

    The largest human catastrophe of Stalinism was the famine of 1930–1933, in which more than five million people died.

    Of those who starved, the 3.3 million or so inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine who died in 1932 and 1933 were victims of a deliberate killing policy related to nationality. In early 1930, Stalin had announced his intention to “liquidate” prosperous peasants (“kulaks”) as a class so that the state could control agriculture and use capital extracted from the countryside to build industry. Tens of thousands of people were shot by Soviet state police and hundreds of thousands deported. Those who remained lost their land and often went hungry as the state requisitioned food for export. The first victims of starvation were the nomads of Soviet Kazakhstan, where about 1.3 million people died. The famine spread to Soviet Russia and peaked in Soviet Ukraine. Stalin requisitioned grain in Soviet Ukraine knowing that such a policy would kill millions. Blaming Ukrainians for the failure of his own policy, he ordered a series of measures—such as sealing the borders of that Soviet republic—that ensured mass death.
     
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/

    Who wanted war? Not the Germans.
     
    Not the Germans.A German.Hitler.He had goals in Eastern Europe (destroying the Soviet Union, subjugating the Eastern Slavs, etc).Those goals could only be met through conquest.

    But IF balancing arguments is the thing to do, the exchange Jeff Herf had with Carla Cohen at Politics & Prose is instructive: Cohen asked, “Are you saying that if there had been no war then no final solution?”
    Herf: “That’s right: no war, no final solution.”
     
    Well, yes.In order to implement the Holocaust, Hitler had to be in control of large chunks of Eastern Europe.Without war, he would not have had that kind of control.This is axiomatic.

    A J P Taylor has refuted the claim that “Hitler would have starved _____ to death_____” That was a scenario — a war game tactic or whatever it is all these overpaid overfed ex-warriors do to monetize the only skills they have acquired in a lifetime — It was one among many possible lines of actions tossed into the idea barrel after the defeat and famine of WWI.
     
    On the other hand, Hitler starved to death over two million Soviet POWs during the Winter '41-Spring of '42.And around 632,000 + plus civilians died in the siege of Leningrad, most due to hunger.And around 8 million foreigners from subject territories were brought to Germany as Slave Labor during the War.And pleasant episodes like the response to the Warsaw revolt show something of Hitler's attitude towards the Slavs in the East:

    Warsaw, Poland (urban uprising: 1 Aug.-2 Oct. 1944): 200 000
    Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 200,000 Poles, mostly civilians
    Spartacus: 18,000 insurgents + 150,000 civilians k. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWwarsawU.htm]
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 225,000 "in the largest single atrocity of the war."
    John Erickson, Hitler Versus Stalin ("lost", implied to be KIA)
    Polish Home Army: 15,000
    Germans: 17,000
    Civilians: 200,000-250,000 k., incl. 40,000 shot in 5 days

    And then, of course, there's the Holocaust:

    Babi Yar, near Kiev, USSR (massacre of Jews by Germans: Sept. 1941): 33 000
    PBS Nova: 34,000
    Gilbert: 33,771 k. in 3 days
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 33,771 according to German records
    Michael Hamm, Kiev: 33,000 (29-30 Sept.)
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): >30,000 (29-30 Sept.)


    Odessa, USSR (massacre of Jews by Romanians: 22-23 Oct. 1941): 36 000
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 75,000 to 80,000 k.
    Historical Atlas of the Holocaust, p.74: 39,000
    Gilbert: 35,782 at Nikolayev and Kherson
    PBS Nova: 34,000

    Treblinka, Poland (German death camp: July 1942-Fall 1943): 800 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 700,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and www.ushmm.org: 700,000-850,000
    Wiesenthal Center: 870,000 Jews k.

    Belzec, Poland (German death camp: March 1942-July 1943): 600 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 600,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and www.ushmm.org: 600,000

    Hence, I'm not sure how one can assume that Hitler would not have carried out things like the Hunger Plan and Generalplan Ost.Certainly not for moral reasons.
  45. @Kat Grey
    Actually there was relatively little rape carried out by the British or Germans for that matter. The top prize goes to the Red Army who systemically violated German and Polish on a massive scale that often involved gang-rape leading to a large number of babies born in 1946 that were sired by unknown Russian fathers. The Americans and Free French did their fair share as well. It's about time the world was educated about this ugly stain on the Allied forces.

    “Saving Private Ryan” was very good, it misses being excellent by leaving out the significant British and Canadian contribution to the D Day landings.

    The film was hardly intended to be an examination of the D-Day landings.After all, The Longest Day already exists.

    Actually there was relatively little rape carried out by the British or Germans for that matter. The top prize goes to the Red Army who systemically violated German and Polish on a massive scale that often involved gang-rape leading to a large number of babies born in 1946 that were sired by unknown Russian fathers. The Americans and Free French did their fair share as well. It’s about time the world was educated about this ugly stain on the Allied forces.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “fair share.” J. Robert Lilly, in Taken By Force, estimates that US forces committed approximately 14,000 rapes during the war in Europe, with the vast majority (11,040) taking place in Germany.In contrast, estimates on the number of rapes committed by Soviet forces are in the hundreds of thousands.Indeed, 100,000 women are estimated to have been raped by Soviet troops in Berlin alone.And Antony Beevor estimates that Soviet soldiers raped 1.4 million women in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia.

    So far as I know, the only Allied instance that comes anywhere near the Soviet example would be the Marocchinate, the mass rapes that were committed by Moroccan troops serving under Free French command:

    Monte Cassino was captured by the Allies on May 18, 1944. The next night, thousands of Goumiers and other colonial troops scoured the slopes of the hills surrounding the town and the villages of Ciociaria (in South Latium). Over 60,000 women, ranging in age from 11 to 86, suffered from violence, when village after village came under control of the Goumiers. Civilian men who tried to protect their wives and daughters were murdered. The number of men killed has been estimated at 800.[3]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    But why limit yourself to analyzing American behavior during WW2. We already know that Americans raped and killed their way across America until the red man no longer existed.

    Today Germany is filled with Germans, what about the red man?

    Not to mention how many civilians were raped and killed in Asia since WW2. Of course the commentators here will try to explain these deaths and rapes away as somehow being less severe than the evil Russians.
  46. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Vendetta
    You are familiar with the concept of supply and demand, no? If you want something supplied, you have to create a demand for it. Social justice advocates created enough of a demand that they started getting what they wanted. Those who want better war movies should demand better war movies.

    Frankly I don't see how Giraldi's essay has inconvenienced you in any way. Do you have any argument against more realistic military fiction?

    By that standard how did Fury inconveince Giraldi? And let’s be clear Giraldi loathes with a passion all those redneck Chritians who apply his exact same logic to abortion. They think America should be forced to come to terms with what they see as the abattoir of legalized abortion and use pictures of aborted fetuses to do so. Giraldi calls them Christian facist. Giraldi has no interest in reality he just wants to be commissar.

    Read More
  47. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Realist
    Eliminating the IQ test will not eliminate the fact that some people are intelligent and some are not.

    Ignorance is never a good thing.

    If it means saving certain Native Born White American Teenagers from being sorted into, and employed as canon fodder by the Kenyan Foriegner and the Bulldyke…than it is most definitely a good thing to get rid of IQ tests.

    IQ test score enthusiasm has 0 to do with deep scientific issues and concepts…but every thing to with nitwit enthusiasm for economic efficiency.

    To repeat:If you are antiwar…you must be opposed to IQ tests being given to young children. IQ tests are a crucial part of the process of creating and processing Hillary Clinton’s canon fodder.

    The whole vile..rancid…vapid socio-cultural life of America 2015 is built around the nasty sorting process that begins with given young school children IQ tests…there is a direct line from this to the fat-pimply assed bastard in the Football Stadium with his BMW in the parking lot screaming “I support the Troops”…which translates into” my kid aint gonna be a Walter Reed Army Hospital basket case shitting in a filthy bed pan…my kids will have a different career choice”…I am just about quoting fat bastard Mike Francessa(WFAN) verbatim.

    Read More
  48. Somebody just wrote that they intended to see the “the great” movie Inglorious Basterds again

    I wonder if this commenter realizes that the scene in which the German solider is killed by a blow from a baseball bat is in fact based on real life events.

    The problem in that the great majority of the killings that took place in such a manner occurred AFTER the war had ended in postwar 1945. The person actually accused of the killing in such a manner was prisoner of war camp head Simon Morel. Read about him below. He was accused of killing approximately 1,500 German prisoners under his control. Many were killed by him bashing their heads in, just like in the movie.

    The writer John Sack details the killing of German prisoners of wars in the period 1945-1948 in his book “An Eye for An Eye.” The estimates of the number German prisoners killed by mainly Jewish prisoner of war camp leaders during this period range as high as 1,500,000.

    http://here4u.heliohost.org/articles/sg_pri_israelis_protect_concentration_camp_boss.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    Somebody just wrote that they intended to see the “the great” movie Inglorious Basterds again

    I wonder if this commenter realizes
     

    No this commenter did not know that. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

    I liked the movie because of the intensity of some of the scenes. They were great; the acting was great. This is #2 on my list of Tarantino movies, Pulp Fiction being #1.

    Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

  49. @Twinkie
    Reality, as usual, was completely the opposite of what Hollywood portrays. Martin van Creveld, long at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and long before he became the premier 4GW savant, wrote extensively of the respective performances of the German and U.S. armies during World War II. See: http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Power-Performance-1939-1945-Contributions/dp/0313091579

    Short version: German armor and infantry were much more effective than American ones because of the superb leadership, high unit cohesion, and mission-oriented tactical methods of the Germans. Contrary to the myth of the robotic Germans, they actually let their small unit leaders exercise their initiative and daring, much more so than the supposedly more individualist Americans.

    When the film "Saving Private Ryan" first came out, I saw it with an elderly family member who was an American World War II ETO vet who was at the vanguard of infantry combat. He liked the initial landing sequence a great deal and it made him very emotional. But about the only thing he had to say about the rest of that film was, "If we had bunched up liked that and chatted incessantly on the march, one burst of machine gun fire from a hidden nest would have killed us all."

    Hollywood often has criminals who gun fight like socom ninjas ("Heat," "Way of the Gun") but soldiers, especially if they are bad guys, fight like cartoon villains that they are in movies.

    RE: military performance:

    Extrapolating the individual soldiers against each other – and although the Wehrmacht was far lower in numbers – so the German troops that faced British and American troops under all combat conditions (for assaults with the usual factor of 1.0 – in the defense in carefully selected positions with view by a factor of 1.3 – in prepared defense positions 1.5 – in fortified defense positions by a factor of 1.6) cause approximately 50 percent higher losses than they suffer.

    Even in the bitter years of defeats on the Russian front, the German combat effectiveness superiority over the Russians was even more pronounced. In the early days of the campaign in the east, one German division could take up with three Russian divisions of comparable strength and power. And, theoretically, under favorable defense conditions one German division could stand against no less than seven comparable Russian divisions.

    In 1944 this superiority was still about 2:1, and one German soldier at the front caused an average loss of 7.78 Russians for one German casualty. These figures need to adapted to the fact that the Wehrmacht in 1944 was almost always in the defense, had a relatively higher mobility and at this time the German weapons were better than the weapons of the Russians. But even if you take into account these considerations, the ratio for the infliction of losses was more than 4:1 and the German fighting power in battle was – man by man – about more than 50% better.

    http://ww2-weapons.com/fighting-power-of-the-wehrmacht/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Those numbers are mostly drawn from the Martin van Creveld study I cited earlier (to which you replied).
  50. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Warren peterson
    I thought the same thing when I watched Fury. Brad Pitt mowing down all these German soldiers how stupid. All these years after the war and Hollywood keeps the propaganda coming. You never know Israel may dig such a hole for itself it might need some help from American boys, got to keep the nonsense flowing.
    That said you should try Monuments Men,(it gets worse) it is a collection of Hollywood narcissists saving European Art from the Nazis apparently these clowns never heard of Dresden : pathetic. The perfect puritan position act morally superior to all and make a ton of cash.

    “Brad Pitt mowing down all these German soldiers how stupid. ”

    Hollywood wants white Americans to feel that nothing is as glorious as shooting other whites.

    FURY is less about WWII but about Hollywood’s desire to keep whites hating ‘bad whites’.

    Read More
  51. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @solontoCroesus
    We are ruled by Nero and we get our jollies in the Coliseum.

    So emasculated are we that we think we are "projecting power" when we set starved and incited beasts of prey on unarmed hapless civilians whose offense is to have worshipped the wrong god/s or traded in the wrong form of currency.

    St. Augustine had something to say about the evil of the games to which he had become addicted.

    We are told that "Americans are weary of war," as if we had actually experienced it.

    I think the weariness part is correct, in the same sense that an addict is weary of the compulsion to seek a fix, even as the fix is less and less impactful. And so we need a bigger dose, more war, the cycle of addiction.

    I honestly think most Americans would be perfectly content to stay home and mind their own business.

    As a group they seem to be easily roused into dumb and destructive jingoism…but somebody always seems to be happy to do the rousing.

    Why is the elite/media class always on the war path?

    It’s all pretty simple in my mind…stay home and stick to your own knitting. There is no reason why Americans should even be involved in the Middle East. It’s not America’s business.

    The people who live there need to find some sort of equilibrium on their own …recall that western societies have had to give and take and fight it out to get to the point we are as well.

    We are bombarded with images of ISIS atrocities, but there are similar things going on (for different reasons) in Mexico, and it gets very limited press

    People say it’s about oil, and it is to a degree…but ME oil is going to find it’s way to market no matter who is running things over there… It’s the only resource they have, they sell oil or starve.

    Everything comes down to Jews and Isreal. But we can’t even discuss this stuff… Not least because Jews themselves own and control the means to even have that discussion.

    Its so central but we can only whisper about it on obscure websites… And even that outlet is being strangled with laws restricting ‘Anti-Semitism’

    It’s a strange situation.

    Read More
  52. @rabbitbait
    Somebody just wrote that they intended to see the "the great" movie Inglorious Basterds again

    I wonder if this commenter realizes that the scene in which the German solider is killed by a blow from a baseball bat is in fact based on real life events.

    The problem in that the great majority of the killings that took place in such a manner occurred AFTER the war had ended in postwar 1945. The person actually accused of the killing in such a manner was prisoner of war camp head Simon Morel. Read about him below. He was accused of killing approximately 1,500 German prisoners under his control. Many were killed by him bashing their heads in, just like in the movie.

    The writer John Sack details the killing of German prisoners of wars in the period 1945-1948 in his book "An Eye for An Eye." The estimates of the number German prisoners killed by mainly Jewish prisoner of war camp leaders during this period range as high as 1,500,000.

    http://here4u.heliohost.org/articles/sg_pri_israelis_protect_concentration_camp_boss.html

    Somebody just wrote that they intended to see the “the great” movie Inglorious Basterds again

    I wonder if this commenter realizes

    No this commenter did not know that. I don’t see what that has to do with anything.

    I liked the movie because of the intensity of some of the scenes. They were great; the acting was great. This is #2 on my list of Tarantino movies, Pulp Fiction being #1.

    Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

    Read More
  53. @solontoCroesus
    I heard Timothy Snyder speak to a group of Ukrainian-Americans. He cautioned them to never, never compare the Holodomor to the sacred holocaust.

    In fact, he insisted that the matter of the Holodomor not be raised at all.

    I find it very difficult to give any credence at all to Snyder's writing.

    When an argument hinges on "IF _____ then the Germans WOULD HAVE _____," it's bogus.

    A J P Taylor has refuted the claim that "Hitler would have starved _____ to death_____" That was a scenario -- a war game tactic or whatever it is all these overpaid overfed ex-warriors do to monetize the only skills they have acquired in a lifetime -- It was one among many possible lines of actions tossed into the idea barrel after the defeat and famine of WWI.

    That Snyder relies on such material to build his wildly speculative hypothetical further discredits him.

    But IF balancing arguments is the thing to do, the exchange Jeff Herf had with Carla Cohen at Politics & Prose is instructive: Cohen asked, "Are you saying that if there had been no war then no final solution?"
    Herf: "That's right: no war, no final solution."

    ---

    Who wanted war? Not the Germans.

    Gerd Schultze-Rhon explains the efforts the Germans exerted to negotiate a settlement with Poland in his "1939: The War that Had Many Fathers."

    Charles Lindbergh named those who wanted war. He was correct.

    In fact, he insisted that the matter of the Holodomor not be raised at all.

    Weird, seeing as how he talked extensively about the Ukrainian Terror Famine in Bloodlands:

    The largest human catastrophe of Stalinism was the famine of 1930–1933, in which more than five million people died.

    Of those who starved, the 3.3 million or so inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine who died in 1932 and 1933 were victims of a deliberate killing policy related to nationality. In early 1930, Stalin had announced his intention to “liquidate” prosperous peasants (“kulaks”) as a class so that the state could control agriculture and use capital extracted from the countryside to build industry. Tens of thousands of people were shot by Soviet state police and hundreds of thousands deported. Those who remained lost their land and often went hungry as the state requisitioned food for export. The first victims of starvation were the nomads of Soviet Kazakhstan, where about 1.3 million people died. The famine spread to Soviet Russia and peaked in Soviet Ukraine. Stalin requisitioned grain in Soviet Ukraine knowing that such a policy would kill millions. Blaming Ukrainians for the failure of his own policy, he ordered a series of measures—such as sealing the borders of that Soviet republic—that ensured mass death.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/

    Who wanted war? Not the Germans.

    Not the Germans.A German.Hitler.He had goals in Eastern Europe (destroying the Soviet Union, subjugating the Eastern Slavs, etc).Those goals could only be met through conquest.

    But IF balancing arguments is the thing to do, the exchange Jeff Herf had with Carla Cohen at Politics & Prose is instructive: Cohen asked, “Are you saying that if there had been no war then no final solution?”
    Herf: “That’s right: no war, no final solution.”

    Well, yes.In order to implement the Holocaust, Hitler had to be in control of large chunks of Eastern Europe.Without war, he would not have had that kind of control.This is axiomatic.

    A J P Taylor has refuted the claim that “Hitler would have starved _____ to death_____” That was a scenario — a war game tactic or whatever it is all these overpaid overfed ex-warriors do to monetize the only skills they have acquired in a lifetime — It was one among many possible lines of actions tossed into the idea barrel after the defeat and famine of WWI.

    On the other hand, Hitler starved to death over two million Soviet POWs during the Winter ’41-Spring of ’42.And around 632,000 + plus civilians died in the siege of Leningrad, most due to hunger.And around 8 million foreigners from subject territories were brought to Germany as Slave Labor during the War.And pleasant episodes like the response to the Warsaw revolt show something of Hitler’s attitude towards the Slavs in the East:

    Warsaw, Poland (urban uprising: 1 Aug.-2 Oct. 1944): 200 000
    Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 200,000 Poles, mostly civilians
    Spartacus: 18,000 insurgents + 150,000 civilians k. [http://www.ushmm.org: 700,000-850,000
    Wiesenthal Center: 870,000 Jews k.

    Belzec, Poland (German death camp: March 1942-July 1943): 600 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 600,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org: 600,000

    Hence, I’m not sure how one can assume that Hitler would not have carried out things like the Hunger Plan and Generalplan Ost.Certainly not for moral reasons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    Can't say he for sure if he would or he woudln't have, but a lot of wartime starvation in Europe happened because Germany was blockaded again from importing food from overseas and kept itself sustained by appropriating the harvests from the all the conquered territories in Europe. They had a hierarchy of who it was important to keep fed. The military #1, the workers in war industry #2, then the rest of Germany #3.

    Then, a good distance lower on the totem pole, allied countries in Europe #4 (and the Italians and others went hungry a lot). Then the people in the occupied territories, starting with places like Holland and Denmark #5, then France #6, than way the fuck down you have the people in Poland and the East.

    And at the very, very bottom of all that, you have Allied POWs, and then at some subterranean level you have Soviet POWs and the people in concentration camps. They couldn't have fed those people properly even if they wanted to (but they weren't too worried about that anyway).

    There was starvation in neutral countries like Spain simply because everything that was on the market in Europe was getting bought or taken by Germany.

  54. @Kat Grey
    Actually there was relatively little rape carried out by the British or Germans for that matter. The top prize goes to the Red Army who systemically violated German and Polish on a massive scale that often involved gang-rape leading to a large number of babies born in 1946 that were sired by unknown Russian fathers. The Americans and Free French did their fair share as well. It's about time the world was educated about this ugly stain on the Allied forces.

    Actually there was relatively little rape carried out by the British or Germans for that matter.

    The British may not have raped a lot but the Germans sure did. The Trent Park tapes of captured German soldiers and officers captured many hours of German soldiers telling rape stories. They raped pretty much everywhere they went, even on the Western front, although I’d guess the Eastern front was worse. Even though raping Jewish women was forbidden, a lot of German soldiers apparently had a taste for raping them before they killed them. See here for some examples:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/rape-murder-and-genocide-nazi-war-crimes-as-described-by-german-soldiers-a-755385-4.html

    It is crazy to suppose that young men caught up in a genocidal war of annihilation and encouraged to kill civilians are going to refrain from sampling the women at the same time.

    Read More
  55. @War for Blair Mountain
    If it means saving certain Native Born White American Teenagers from being sorted into, and employed as canon fodder by the Kenyan Foriegner and the Bulldyke...than it is most definitely a good thing to get rid of IQ tests.

    IQ test score enthusiasm has 0 to do with deep scientific issues and concepts...but every thing to with nitwit enthusiasm for economic efficiency.

    To repeat:If you are antiwar...you must be opposed to IQ tests being given to young children. IQ tests are a crucial part of the process of creating and processing Hillary Clinton's canon fodder.

    The whole vile..rancid...vapid socio-cultural life of America 2015 is built around the nasty sorting process that begins with given young school children IQ tests...there is a direct line from this to the fat-pimply assed bastard in the Football Stadium with his BMW in the parking lot screaming "I support the Troops"...which translates into" my kid aint gonna be a Walter Reed Army Hospital basket case shitting in a filthy bed pan...my kids will have a different career choice"...I am just about quoting fat bastard Mike Francessa(WFAN) verbatim.

    You are hiding from reality.

    Read More
  56. @foreigner
    "Then the US citizens will not need an article such as this to understand the most basic fact which almost all other people on planet Earth understand – there is no good war except fighting for your own home ."

    Indeed, I as a non-American find it difficult to understand the mindset of the American people. They maintain a gigantic and mind-boggingly costly military, they send their soldiers to die in large amounts and to kill in even greater amounts, in countries on the other side of the world... and their pubic somehow believes it is all necessary in order to defend their own freedom?

    The US is obviously a country that could get away with having a relatively small military and neutral foreign policy if it wanted.

    Sir, you’re a discerning fellow, and I associate myself with your comments. (That “relatively small military” and “neutral foreign policy” stuff resonates with me.)

    Read More
  57. @The Plutonium Kid
    GIs shot Japanese attempting to surrender because the attempt at surrender was often a ruse. A lone Japanese might be carrying a grenade with the pin out, ready for blowing up his "captors." A trio of Japanese might advance with a machine gun strapped to one man's back and suddenly start firing at their would be captors. American soldiers quite wisely decided that the best way to get back home alive was to shoot any Japanese approaching them.

    Next time, tell the whole story.

    Well the true story is, one guy in ten trying that fake surrender attack ruins it for the other nine. I’m willing to believe that it might have been only a small fraction of Japanese soldiers who attempted to surrender had a suicide attack in mind, but even so, you don’t bet your life at those odds.

    Still brutal, still awful, probably quite a lot of men who honestly intended to surrender got bayoneted or shot. But how can you really blame the soldiers for putting their own lives above those of the enemy? They really did try to do those fake surrender tricks sometimes. Are you really going to risk throwing away you and your friends’ lives on some godforsaken island if there’s a statistically signficant chance of that happening.

    Terrible, but it’s pretty much what had to happen. That’s called war. Imperial Japanese Army encouraged that kind of bullshit as an institutional policy and it reaped what it sowed. They gave no quarter and so they got none.

    Same reason I roll my eyes every time someone plays up the Red Army rapes of German women as such an unprecedented atrocity. Yeah, it’s horrible. But that’s called reaping what you sow. They killed millions upon millions of Soviet people. They’d have all had to have been saints not to have taken some revenge at the first opportunity.

    And same reason I roll my eyes at all those who rail against dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being such an evil, unjustified act. You never see those people raising that kind of moral outrage about all the people the Japanese killed in China, the twenty or thirty or even fifty Hiroshimas’ worth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    You never see those people raising that kind of moral outrage about all the people the Japanese killed in China, the twenty or thirty or even fifty Hiroshimas’ worth.
     
    Japan isn't my nation. They can have their own moral outrage over their actions. The United States is my nation. I will judge it's actions.
  58. @syonredux
    RE: military performance:


    Extrapolating the individual soldiers against each other – and although the Wehrmacht was far lower in numbers – so the German troops that faced British and American troops under all combat conditions (for assaults with the usual factor of 1.0 – in the defense in carefully selected positions with view by a factor of 1.3 – in prepared defense positions 1.5 – in fortified defense positions by a factor of 1.6) cause approximately 50 percent higher losses than they suffer.


    Even in the bitter years of defeats on the Russian front, the German combat effectiveness superiority over the Russians was even more pronounced. In the early days of the campaign in the east, one German division could take up with three Russian divisions of comparable strength and power. And, theoretically, under favorable defense conditions one German division could stand against no less than seven comparable Russian divisions.

    In 1944 this superiority was still about 2:1, and one German soldier at the front caused an average loss of 7.78 Russians for one German casualty. These figures need to adapted to the fact that the Wehrmacht in 1944 was almost always in the defense, had a relatively higher mobility and at this time the German weapons were better than the weapons of the Russians. But even if you take into account these considerations, the ratio for the infliction of losses was more than 4:1 and the German fighting power in battle was – man by man – about more than 50% better.


    http://ww2-weapons.com/fighting-power-of-the-wehrmacht/

    Those numbers are mostly drawn from the Martin van Creveld study I cited earlier (to which you replied).

    Read More
  59. “The good guys never even had to reload and were able to exchange black humor bon mots during the intervals between slaughtering Krauts.”

    What – did you leave out the part where the Jewish black lesbian flying the experimental jet fighter, “swooped down and saved the day?”

    Read More
  60. @syonredux

    In fact, he insisted that the matter of the Holodomor not be raised at all.
     
    Weird, seeing as how he talked extensively about the Ukrainian Terror Famine in Bloodlands:

    The largest human catastrophe of Stalinism was the famine of 1930–1933, in which more than five million people died.

    Of those who starved, the 3.3 million or so inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine who died in 1932 and 1933 were victims of a deliberate killing policy related to nationality. In early 1930, Stalin had announced his intention to “liquidate” prosperous peasants (“kulaks”) as a class so that the state could control agriculture and use capital extracted from the countryside to build industry. Tens of thousands of people were shot by Soviet state police and hundreds of thousands deported. Those who remained lost their land and often went hungry as the state requisitioned food for export. The first victims of starvation were the nomads of Soviet Kazakhstan, where about 1.3 million people died. The famine spread to Soviet Russia and peaked in Soviet Ukraine. Stalin requisitioned grain in Soviet Ukraine knowing that such a policy would kill millions. Blaming Ukrainians for the failure of his own policy, he ordered a series of measures—such as sealing the borders of that Soviet republic—that ensured mass death.
     
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/

    Who wanted war? Not the Germans.
     
    Not the Germans.A German.Hitler.He had goals in Eastern Europe (destroying the Soviet Union, subjugating the Eastern Slavs, etc).Those goals could only be met through conquest.

    But IF balancing arguments is the thing to do, the exchange Jeff Herf had with Carla Cohen at Politics & Prose is instructive: Cohen asked, “Are you saying that if there had been no war then no final solution?”
    Herf: “That’s right: no war, no final solution.”
     
    Well, yes.In order to implement the Holocaust, Hitler had to be in control of large chunks of Eastern Europe.Without war, he would not have had that kind of control.This is axiomatic.

    A J P Taylor has refuted the claim that “Hitler would have starved _____ to death_____” That was a scenario — a war game tactic or whatever it is all these overpaid overfed ex-warriors do to monetize the only skills they have acquired in a lifetime — It was one among many possible lines of actions tossed into the idea barrel after the defeat and famine of WWI.
     
    On the other hand, Hitler starved to death over two million Soviet POWs during the Winter '41-Spring of '42.And around 632,000 + plus civilians died in the siege of Leningrad, most due to hunger.And around 8 million foreigners from subject territories were brought to Germany as Slave Labor during the War.And pleasant episodes like the response to the Warsaw revolt show something of Hitler's attitude towards the Slavs in the East:

    Warsaw, Poland (urban uprising: 1 Aug.-2 Oct. 1944): 200 000
    Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 200,000 Poles, mostly civilians
    Spartacus: 18,000 insurgents + 150,000 civilians k. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWwarsawU.htm]
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 225,000 "in the largest single atrocity of the war."
    John Erickson, Hitler Versus Stalin ("lost", implied to be KIA)
    Polish Home Army: 15,000
    Germans: 17,000
    Civilians: 200,000-250,000 k., incl. 40,000 shot in 5 days

    And then, of course, there's the Holocaust:

    Babi Yar, near Kiev, USSR (massacre of Jews by Germans: Sept. 1941): 33 000
    PBS Nova: 34,000
    Gilbert: 33,771 k. in 3 days
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 33,771 according to German records
    Michael Hamm, Kiev: 33,000 (29-30 Sept.)
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): >30,000 (29-30 Sept.)


    Odessa, USSR (massacre of Jews by Romanians: 22-23 Oct. 1941): 36 000
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 75,000 to 80,000 k.
    Historical Atlas of the Holocaust, p.74: 39,000
    Gilbert: 35,782 at Nikolayev and Kherson
    PBS Nova: 34,000

    Treblinka, Poland (German death camp: July 1942-Fall 1943): 800 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 700,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and www.ushmm.org: 700,000-850,000
    Wiesenthal Center: 870,000 Jews k.

    Belzec, Poland (German death camp: March 1942-July 1943): 600 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 600,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and www.ushmm.org: 600,000

    Hence, I'm not sure how one can assume that Hitler would not have carried out things like the Hunger Plan and Generalplan Ost.Certainly not for moral reasons.

    Can’t say he for sure if he would or he woudln’t have, but a lot of wartime starvation in Europe happened because Germany was blockaded again from importing food from overseas and kept itself sustained by appropriating the harvests from the all the conquered territories in Europe. They had a hierarchy of who it was important to keep fed. The military #1, the workers in war industry #2, then the rest of Germany #3.

    Then, a good distance lower on the totem pole, allied countries in Europe #4 (and the Italians and others went hungry a lot). Then the people in the occupied territories, starting with places like Holland and Denmark #5, then France #6, than way the fuck down you have the people in Poland and the East.

    And at the very, very bottom of all that, you have Allied POWs, and then at some subterranean level you have Soviet POWs and the people in concentration camps. They couldn’t have fed those people properly even if they wanted to (but they weren’t too worried about that anyway).

    There was starvation in neutral countries like Spain simply because everything that was on the market in Europe was getting bought or taken by Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    And at the very, very bottom of all that, you have Allied POWs, and then at some subterranean level you have Soviet POWs and the people in concentration camps. They couldn’t have fed those people properly even if they wanted to (but they weren’t too worried about that anyway).
     
    2 million plus Soviet POWs starved to death during the Winter of '41 and the Spring of '42. When Germany was winning the war.They didn't die because Germany lacked food to give them.They died because Hitler wanted them dead.

    Can’t say he for sure if he would or he woudln’t have, but a lot of wartime starvation in Europe happened because Germany was blockaded again from importing food from overseas and kept itself sustained by appropriating the harvests from the all the conquered territories in Europe. They had a hierarchy of who it was important to keep fed. The military #1, the workers in war industry #2, then the rest of Germany #3.
     
    That was the logic of the Hunger Plan.Food was going to be to taken from the East and consumed in Germany.Germany would thrive at the cost of killing millions of Slavic "subhumans":

    As German leaders prepared for the invasion of the Soviet Union in spring 1941, they agreed a quick summer victory would be followed by the starvation of some 30 million people. A Hunger Plan foresaw the "extinction of industry as well as a great part of the population". Soviet cities would be destroyed, Soviet industry destroyed, and eastern lands reduced to depopulated prairie ripe for German agrarian colonisation.

    But the Red Army resisted and Stalin remained in the Kremlin. It proved difficult to starve large numbers of civilians without total control of territory. Stalin had managed to starve millions of his own citizens in these same lands a few years before, but he had at his disposal, then, an apparatus of terror and a loyal party organisation that the invading Germans could not match.

    Though the Hunger Plan proved impossible, it provided the moral premises for the Wehrmacht's treatment of civilians and prisoners of war after the invasion of June 1941. Starvation proceeded where German soldiers had total control of land and people. Kharkiv, Kiev and, above all, besieged Leningrad were starved, killing more than 1 million Soviet civilians.


    In the German POW camps in occupied Soviet Belarus, Soviet Ukraine and Poland, prisoners were not even registered by name. As the German quartermaster general of the German army indicated, prisoners who could not work "were to be starved". At a single camp near Minsk, some 109,500 prisoners died. At another at Molodechno, prisoners submitted written petitions asking to be shot rather than dying slowly of hunger in the cold.


    Some 3.1 million Soviet prisoners perished in German captivity: about 500,000 were shot; the remaining 2.6 million died of starvation and hunger-related disease. More Soviet prisoners died in German camps on a given day in autumn 1941 than American and British prisoners did during the entire war.

    As of the end of 1941, by which time the Germans, with local help, had already murdered about 1 million Jews, the starvation of Soviet prisoners was still the greatest German crime. Even in occupied Poland – in 1942 to become the major site of the Holocaust – the mass murder of POWs brought from the east was, in 1941, still the central horror. As of December 1941, more Soviet POWS had died in occupied Poland than had either Jews or Poles.

     

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/21/secondworldwar-russia
  61. “It was Moroccan soldiers from the Free French Army who were notorious for raping and looting their way from Sicily to Milan.”

    Oh yes, those Moroccans were pretty horrible. My English grandfather was at Caserta in 1944, and local Italian civilians came to the British complaining about the Moroccans’ raping and pillaging (“they’re worse than the Germans”, the Italians apparently said). Eventually my grandfathers’ unit rounded up some of those Moroccans (under threat they’d be shot if they resisted), and beat them bloody with rifle butts.
    Of course things like this are nowadays forgotten, because it’s too un-pc…and since the people who lived through all of this are now mostly dead, there’s no corrective anymore to the official narrative.
    Anyway, great article by Mr Giraldi, raises a lot of valid points.

    Read More
  62. For years I avoided Inglourious Basterds, feeling certain it would be yet more typical Hollywood propaganda. I finally saw it about a year ago and came away from it with profoundly mixed feelings. Most of the cinema/Goebbels plotline is fairly lightweight and doesn’t interest me very much, but the opening scene in the farmhouse and the stand-off in the French pub are magisterial pieces of cinema and of drama. 10/10-rated stuff.

    Generally speaking, the portrayal of German soldiers in general and officers in particular as either honourable, resolute, defiant, intelligent or cultured was a welcome surprise. The Basterds are murderous thugs and bumbling ones at that.

    Overall, it is somewhat the propaganda piece I expected. But there’s more to it and denizens Steveosphere (apologies to the author of this post) can probably take something away from it.

    (I’ve also been avoiding Django Unchained, successfully so far. Not sure I’ll be persuaded to see that one.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    but the opening scene in the farmhouse and the stand-off in the French pub are magisterial pieces of cinema and of drama. 10/10-rated stuff.
     
    These two scenes were what I was thinking about.

    Tarantino's movies remind me of Mel Brooks. If you could take all of the really funny scenes from all of his movies and put them into one movie you would have the comedy masterpiece of the century.
  63. @Vendetta
    Can't say he for sure if he would or he woudln't have, but a lot of wartime starvation in Europe happened because Germany was blockaded again from importing food from overseas and kept itself sustained by appropriating the harvests from the all the conquered territories in Europe. They had a hierarchy of who it was important to keep fed. The military #1, the workers in war industry #2, then the rest of Germany #3.

    Then, a good distance lower on the totem pole, allied countries in Europe #4 (and the Italians and others went hungry a lot). Then the people in the occupied territories, starting with places like Holland and Denmark #5, then France #6, than way the fuck down you have the people in Poland and the East.

    And at the very, very bottom of all that, you have Allied POWs, and then at some subterranean level you have Soviet POWs and the people in concentration camps. They couldn't have fed those people properly even if they wanted to (but they weren't too worried about that anyway).

    There was starvation in neutral countries like Spain simply because everything that was on the market in Europe was getting bought or taken by Germany.

    And at the very, very bottom of all that, you have Allied POWs, and then at some subterranean level you have Soviet POWs and the people in concentration camps. They couldn’t have fed those people properly even if they wanted to (but they weren’t too worried about that anyway).

    2 million plus Soviet POWs starved to death during the Winter of ’41 and the Spring of ’42. When Germany was winning the war.They didn’t die because Germany lacked food to give them.They died because Hitler wanted them dead.

    Can’t say he for sure if he would or he woudln’t have, but a lot of wartime starvation in Europe happened because Germany was blockaded again from importing food from overseas and kept itself sustained by appropriating the harvests from the all the conquered territories in Europe. They had a hierarchy of who it was important to keep fed. The military #1, the workers in war industry #2, then the rest of Germany #3.

    That was the logic of the Hunger Plan.Food was going to be to taken from the East and consumed in Germany.Germany would thrive at the cost of killing millions of Slavic “subhumans”:

    As German leaders prepared for the invasion of the Soviet Union in spring 1941, they agreed a quick summer victory would be followed by the starvation of some 30 million people. A Hunger Plan foresaw the “extinction of industry as well as a great part of the population”. Soviet cities would be destroyed, Soviet industry destroyed, and eastern lands reduced to depopulated prairie ripe for German agrarian colonisation.

    But the Red Army resisted and Stalin remained in the Kremlin. It proved difficult to starve large numbers of civilians without total control of territory. Stalin had managed to starve millions of his own citizens in these same lands a few years before, but he had at his disposal, then, an apparatus of terror and a loyal party organisation that the invading Germans could not match.

    Though the Hunger Plan proved impossible, it provided the moral premises for the Wehrmacht’s treatment of civilians and prisoners of war after the invasion of June 1941. Starvation proceeded where German soldiers had total control of land and people. Kharkiv, Kiev and, above all, besieged Leningrad were starved, killing more than 1 million Soviet civilians.

    In the German POW camps in occupied Soviet Belarus, Soviet Ukraine and Poland, prisoners were not even registered by name. As the German quartermaster general of the German army indicated, prisoners who could not work “were to be starved”. At a single camp near Minsk, some 109,500 prisoners died. At another at Molodechno, prisoners submitted written petitions asking to be shot rather than dying slowly of hunger in the cold.

    Some 3.1 million Soviet prisoners perished in German captivity: about 500,000 were shot; the remaining 2.6 million died of starvation and hunger-related disease. More Soviet prisoners died in German camps on a given day in autumn 1941 than American and British prisoners did during the entire war.

    As of the end of 1941, by which time the Germans, with local help, had already murdered about 1 million Jews, the starvation of Soviet prisoners was still the greatest German crime. Even in occupied Poland – in 1942 to become the major site of the Holocaust – the mass murder of POWs brought from the east was, in 1941, still the central horror. As of December 1941, more Soviet POWS had died in occupied Poland than had either Jews or Poles.

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

    Read More
  64. There was nothing good about the Iraq adventure, not even the near mythical surge, apart from the profits accruing to defense contractors. Iraq is still bearing bitter fruit in the form of the anarchy prevailing both in that unhappy land itself and also in neighboring Syria.

    Sorry, I don’t buy this. I’m certainly no cheerleader for Republicans, neocons, or the Bush family, but Obama broke Iraq. It was doing okay when he took over, and then he rushed through the withdrawal process and refused to leave any troops to protect the peace, and kaboom.

    Isis is largely Obama’s fault, not Bush’s.

    And just so you know, I was loudly opposing Iraq Attaq II from the second the rumors emerged that planning was in the works, arguing with ‘Merican derps all over the place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    Wrong Svigor. Obama wanted to leave a small force in Iraq complete with military bases but the Iraqi government would not agree to a status of forces agreement (SOFA) governing its legal status. Plus Iraq was not "doing okay" at the end of 2011 as the government had already gone far down the road of sectionalism by alienating both the Sunnis and Kurds. Baghdad was ethnically cleansed of Sunnis.
  65. @Carlton Meyer
    Relevant info from the G2mil blog:

    Sep 4, 2012 - The Boys' War

    One of my favorite authors, Paul Fussell, recently died. In his must read classic "Class" he noted that upper class Americans say someone died, while middle class folks are afraid of the word, and say passed away. Lower class Americans fear death even more, and say something even more vague, like: "has gone to a better place." I use his advice to appear upper class, like never wearing digital watches or ball caps or clothing with logos.

    I just finished Fussell's short book "The Boys' Crusade", about our infantrymen fighting in Europe during World War II, where he served as a lieutenant. He noted many great books on the war, but wrote that all missed key elements, such as:

    - Most fighting was done by American infantrymen, who were just out of high school. They were drafted and didn't want to be in the war or the army. The Army's official tally was 19,000 deserters in Europe.

    - Self-inflicted wounds (a downward bullet wound to a leg or arm) were so common that the Army kept a tally and used it to measure of unit morale.

    - When the U.S. Army's new 106th Infantry Division was attacked at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge, it didn't put up a fight. Its boys were so startled by the unexpected appearance of large numbers of German panzers that officers jumped into jeeps and fled while 8000 GIs threw up their hands and surrendered without firing a shot.

    - The "platoon guide" was a junior sergeant added to each infantry platoon, whose duty was the trail the platoon and confront anyone who attempted to desert.

    - During the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans sent 150 English speaking commandos dressed in U.S. Army uniforms to infiltrate American frontlines and cause chaos. They were quickly captured because American MPs guarded all roadways. Any healthy soldier heading toward the rear was presumed a deserter and arrested and interrogated.

    Overall the book is good, but short.

    Regarding the collapse of the U.S. 106th Division during the Ardennes counteroffensive: Some years ago, I read “Death of a Division” by Charles Whiting. If memory serves me correctly, the division commander–Major General Alan Jones, USA–had no combat experience (in that, he was similar to Supreme Commander Ike). And, of course, the division was green and untested.

    There were tens of thousands of deserters in the ETO. Only one man was shot for it–Private Eddie Slovik. (Read “The Execution of Private Slovik” by William Bradford Huie.)

    Read More
  66. Thoroughly insulated from the death and destruction meted out daily in their name overseas, Americans nonetheless manage to affect a 15-year (and counting) national trauma upon having a couple buildings taken down.

    What really gets my goat is how this was, and is, used so often to advance neocon/Israeli interests. “We’re all Israelis now.” What a crock. Have the Israelis even lost 3,000 civilians since their Manifest Destiny of the Chosen People conquest of the Arabs began?

    I use his advice to appear upper class, like never wearing digital watches or ball caps or clothing with logos.

    Does he explain the advice? Digital watches = obvious (though they’re fine while exercising). Ball caps = obvious (again, it’s sports wear). Logos = advertising is gauche, why be someone’s billboard for free?

    I thought the same thing when I watched Fury. Brad Pitt mowing down all these German soldiers how stupid.

    Reminds me of this:

    Wittmann is most famous for his ambush of elements of the British 7th Armoured Division, during the Battle of Villers-Bocage on 13 June 1944. While in command of a single Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger he destroyed up to 14 tanks and 15 personnel carriers along with 2 anti-tank guns within the space of 15 minutes.

    Read More
  67. I’m honestly stumped why there isn’t a popular brand of clothing/accessories that uses the “we don’t plaster a gauche logo all over our stuff” as a selling point.

    Read More
  68. @Svigor

    There was nothing good about the Iraq adventure, not even the near mythical surge, apart from the profits accruing to defense contractors. Iraq is still bearing bitter fruit in the form of the anarchy prevailing both in that unhappy land itself and also in neighboring Syria.
     
    Sorry, I don't buy this. I'm certainly no cheerleader for Republicans, neocons, or the Bush family, but Obama broke Iraq. It was doing okay when he took over, and then he rushed through the withdrawal process and refused to leave any troops to protect the peace, and kaboom.

    Isis is largely Obama's fault, not Bush's.

    And just so you know, I was loudly opposing Iraq Attaq II from the second the rumors emerged that planning was in the works, arguing with 'Merican derps all over the place.

    Wrong Svigor. Obama wanted to leave a small force in Iraq complete with military bases but the Iraqi government would not agree to a status of forces agreement (SOFA) governing its legal status. Plus Iraq was not “doing okay” at the end of 2011 as the government had already gone far down the road of sectionalism by alienating both the Sunnis and Kurds. Baghdad was ethnically cleansed of Sunnis.

    Read More
  69. Just a few observations Phil.

    Jeb or Hillary, makes no difference, same Doug Coe ‘family’ cult, protecting their Christian mafia

    I tend to read the comments without paying attention to who’s making them. I usually scroll back up and check if a comment is especially good or bad. I am thankful for RTW’s psycho writing style that alerts me of my oversight almost immediately.

    GIs shot Japanese attempting to surrender because the attempt at surrender was often a ruse. A lone Japanese might be carrying a grenade with the pin out, ready for blowing up his “captors.” A trio of Japanese might advance with a machine gun strapped to one man’s back and suddenly start firing at their would be captors. American soldiers quite wisely decided that the best way to get back home alive was to shoot any Japanese approaching them.

    Next time, tell the whole story.

    Then there’s the small matter of what it was like to be captured and imprisoned by the Japs.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “fair share.” J. Robert Lilly, in Taken By Force, estimates that US forces committed approximately 14,000 rapes during the war in Europe, with the vast majority (11,040) taking place in Germany.In contrast, estimates on the number of rapes committed by Soviet forces are in the hundreds of thousands.Indeed, 100,000 women are estimated to have been raped by Soviet troops in Berlin alone.And Antony Beevor estimates that Soviet soldiers raped 1.4 million women in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia.

    So far as I know, the only Allied instance that comes anywhere near the Soviet example would be the Marocchinate, the mass rapes that were committed by Moroccan troops serving under Free French command

    The Allies

    The anti-German coalition at the start of the war (1 September 1939) consisted of France, Poland and Great Britain, soon to be joined by the British Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.)[1] After first having cooperated with Germany in partitioning Poland whilst remaining neutral in the Allied-Axis conflict, the Soviet Union joined the Allies

    Same reason I roll my eyes every time someone plays up the Red Army rapes of German women as such an unprecedented atrocity. Yeah, it’s horrible. But that’s called reaping what you sow.

    I call it justifying the Germans’ opinion of the Soviets, and their treatment of them, too.

    Vendetta says:
    May 26, 2015 at 9:44 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Wrong, Wrong, WRONG! Everything the Germans did was intented and deliberate. And bad. E.g., when they evacuated a prison camp to march it west to escape the Soviet onslaught, that’s a Death March™, with the explicit objective of walking people to death. When they couldn’t feed their own people, never mind prisoners and enemies of the state, it was a deliberate genocide by starvation. Get your terms straight, will you?

    Syon, tell us what Stalin told the Germans vis-a-vis prisoner exchanges.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Wrong, Wrong, WRONG! Everything the Germans did was intented and deliberate. And bad. E.g., when they evacuated a prison camp to march it west to escape the Soviet onslaught, that’s a Death March™, with the explicit objective of walking people to death. When they couldn’t feed their own people, never mind prisoners and enemies of the state, it was a deliberate genocide by starvation. Get your terms straight, will you?

    Syon, tell us what Stalin told the Germans vis-a-vis prisoner exchanges.
     
    And that justifies the way in which the Germans starved millions of Soviet POWs to death?:

    Some 3.1 million Soviet prisoners perished in German captivity: about 500,000 were shot; the remaining 2.6 million died of starvation and hunger-related disease. More Soviet prisoners died in German camps on a given day in autumn 1941 than American and British prisoners did during the entire war.
     

    When they couldn’t feed their own people, never mind prisoners and enemies of the state, it was a deliberate genocide by starvation. Get your terms straight, will you?
     
    The Germans had no trouble feeding their own people in the Winter of 1941 and the Spring of 1942.Yet it was during that timeframe that over 2 million Soviet POWs were systematically starved to death.

    So far as I know, the only Allied instance that comes anywhere near the Soviet example would be the Marocchinate, the mass rapes that were committed by Moroccan troops serving under Free French command

    The Allies

    The anti-German coalition at the start of the war (1 September 1939) consisted of France, Poland and Great Britain, soon to be joined by the British Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.)[1] After first having cooperated with Germany in partitioning Poland whilst remaining neutral in the Allied-Axis conflict, the Soviet Union joined the Allies

     

    Typo.The sentence should have read:"So far as I know, the only Western Allied instance that comes anywhere near the Soviet example would be the Marocchinate, the mass rapes that were committed by Moroccan troops serving under Free French command"
    , @Ronald Thomas West

    I usually scroll back up and check if a comment is especially good or bad. I am thankful for RTW’s psycho writing style that alerts me of my oversight almost immediately
     
    Problem with my pointing out Hillary's and the Bush family association with the Doug Coe mafia? Thinking people can read up for themselves, here's the short version:

    http://www.salon.com/2009/07/21/c_street/

    Or you can purchase the long version:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-American/dp/B001Q3KM4O

    Speaking of psychos...

    Or you can read up at my site's open source 'deep state' series for an alternative, condensed version:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/12/24/americas-deep-state-corporate-oligarchy/

    Yeah, it's too scary for a lot of people (like Svigor) to contemplate but heads in the sand won't make it go away
  70. The quality of this article is outstanding. Many of the comments are of great interest.

    For those who wish to explore the complexity of WWII even more, I would like to draw your attention to “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military” and its companion volume “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: Untold Tales of Men of Jewish Descent Who Fought for the Third Reich”, both by Bryan Mark Rigg.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    One of them was Admiral Gunther Lutjens. The commander of Operation Rhine--killed on board his flagship BISMARCK during her last, desperate action against the Home Fleet--was part Jewish.
  71. Wrong Svigor. Obama wanted to leave a small force in Iraq complete with military bases but the Iraqi government would not agree to a status of forces agreement (SOFA) governing its legal status.

    Oh, I guess his hands were tied then. I guess Not-President Bush must’ve done it all from his Texas ranch.

    Read More
  72. @syonredux

    That Wikipedia link explains another wartime myth – Japs never surrendered! This is mostly true, but not because they were all fanatics. GIs almost always killed Japanese soldiers who tried to surrender, discouraging the idea and resulting in very few prisoners.
     
    Push-pull.Early on, American marines and soldiers had to deal with quite a few " booby-trapped-fake surrender" instances involving Japanese troops.After that, US troops were somewhat less inclined to accept offers of surrender from the Japanese.

    And, of course, the Japanese record in the War is not very good:


    Manila, Philippines (massacre of civilians by Japanese: Nov. 1944-Feb. 1945): 100 000
    Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 100,000 Filipinos k.
    William Manchester, American Caesar (1978): "nearly 100,000 Filipinos were murdered by the Japanese"
    PBS: "100,000 of its citizens died."
    World War II Database: 100,000


    Nanking Massacre, 13 Dec. 1937-Feb. 38:
    Spence, The Search for Modern China: 42,000
    Gilbert: >200,000 civilians and 90,000 POWs
    Dict.Wars: 200,000
    Rummel: 200,000
    P. Johnson: 200-300,000
    27 Aug 2001 Newsweek, quoting Japanese textbook: "The number of dead is said to be over 100,000 and it is estimated to be over 300,000 in China."
    Palmowski, Dictionary of 20th Century World History: "perhaps as many as" 400,000
    Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking (1997) cites these:
    Liu Fang-chu: 430,000
    James Yin & Shi Young: 400,000
    Sun Zhaiwei: 377,400 corpses disposed of
    Wu Tien-wei: 340,000
    District Court of Nanking: 300,000
    International Military Tribunal of the Far East: 260,000
    Fujiwara Akira: 200,000
    John Rabe: 50,000-60,000
    Hata Ikuhiko: 38,000-42,000
    [Median: 260,000]
    Unit 731, Manchukuo (bio-warfare center: 1937-45)
    Discovery Channel: "as many as 200,000 people — Chinese soldiers, private citizens and prisoners of war — had died" [http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/spotlight/bioterror/history/history2.html]
    Global Security: Up to 3,000 died in this facility. Perhaps as many 200,000 Chinese died from germ war campaign in Yunnan Province, Ningbo, and Changde. [http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/japan/bw.htm]


    East Timor
    James Dunn, in Century of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997)): 70,000 died under Japanese occupation
    19 May 2002 San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "January 1942: Japan occupies the entire island. With support from the local people, Australian commandos in East Timor battle Japan. Japanese reprisals kill 60,000 civilians 13 percent of East Timor's population."
    Dutch East Indies: 25,000 Dutch d. out of 140,000 imprisoned (3 Feb. 1998 Agence France Presse)
    Singapore, citizens (mostly Chinese) massacred, 1942


    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Nanking

    I’m not defending the horrible actions of the Germans and Japanese during World War II. I just want Americans to understand the false homeland propaganda that America dispatches saints to save the world. So far as starving civilians as a strategy, the Allies killed almost a million Germans after the 1918 armistice by continuing the food blockade to force territorial concessions from the German government. Then there were the millions of Japanese civilians who starved during WW II because of unrestricted American submarine warfare that sunk merchant ships filled with food, and sometimes American POWs. There were also the tens of thousands of German POWs who died in allied Rhineland camps after the war ended. And other mass slaughter fun, like Dresden.

    A must see is “Fog of War” where MacNamara describes how our boys burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in one night, admitting that it was his idea. The strategy was to kill Japs and burn up cities, burning over a million civilians with fire bombs. All this occurred before the two atomic bombs were dropped. He says USAF General LeMay said that if we’d lost the war he’d be prosecuted as a war criminal, and rightly so he said!

    And then we had our former Secretary of State Albright saying the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions against non-existent WMDs was worth it. And they knew all the WMDs had been destroyed years before (in 1995) as confirmed by UN inspectors and the defecting General in charge, Kamel. The deaths were caused after our bombing of their water and sewer treatment plants, and then our refusal to allow repair parts to be imported.

    Even right now, our planes are killing dozens of civilians each day in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Your tax dollars at work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I’m not defending the horrible actions of the Germans and Japanese during World War II. I just want Americans to understand the false homeland propaganda that America dispatches saints to save the world.
     
    How many people are stupid enough to think that armed forces numbering in the millions are composed of "saints?"

    So far as starving civilians as a strategy, the Allies killed almost a million Germans after the 1918 armistice by continuing the food blockade to force territorial concessions from the German government.
     
    Standard estimate is that the blockade led to 763,000 deaths.Germany starved over 2 million POWs to death in late '41-'42.Then there are the 632,000+ civilians in Leningrad who starved to death during the German siege of the city.....

    Then there were the millions of Japanese civilians who starved during WW II because of unrestricted American submarine warfare that sunk merchant ships filled with food, and sometimes American POWs.
     
    "[M]illions " of Japanese starved during WW2, eh? Some figures on Japanese civilian deaths during the war:

    Civilian:
    Compton's: 250,000
    HarperCollins: 300,000
    Urlanis: 350,000
    Encarta: 380,000
    Ellis: 393,400
    Large, Showa Japan:
    Tokyo: 97,301
    HiroShima: 140,000
    Nagasaki: 70,000
    all other cities: 86,336
    [Total killed in cities: 393,637]
    Eckhardt: 500,000
    Clodfelter: 658,595 or 672,000 (incl. disease, malnutrition and 299,485 by bombing)
    Britannica: 672,000
    Rottman, Japanese Infantryman 1937-45: 672,000
    Wallechinsky: 700,000
    Davison, The Pacific War Day by Day: 900,000

     

    Probably not.

    And, of course, the Japanese caused quite a few civilian deaths in China:

    Civilian:
    Eckhardt: 1,150,000 (1937-41), 850,000 (1941-45)
    Ho Ping-to, Studies in the population of China, 1368-1953 (1967) pp. 250-252
    Ho cited a survey that estimated 335,934 Chinese civilians killed in air raids and 1,073,496 killed otherwise. That would come to some 1.4 million civilians killed directly by war, 1937-45, but his methodology specifically did not include the Nanjing Massacre and the Yellow River flood.
    Kinder: 4,500,000
    Wallechinsky: 2-10M (1937-45)
    Urlanis: 7,500,000
    Ellis: 8,000,000
    HarperCollins: up to 10,000,000
    Encarta: 10,000,000
    Tohmatsu & Willmott, A Gathering Darkness, p.144: 5,870,000 (China + Manchuria, 1931-41) + 6,530,000 (1942-45) [=12,400,000]
    Gruhl, Imperial Japan's World War Two: 15,554,000 (p.143)
    Rummel: 15,608,000
    Civilian, non-democidal: 3,252,000
    Famine: 2,250,000
    Democide:
    by Japanese: 3,949,000
    by Nationalists: 5,907,000
    by Communists: 250,000
    MEDIAN: 8,000,000

    There were also the tens of thousands of German POWs who died in allied Rhineland camps after the war ended.
     
    Glad to see that you said "tens of thousands." For a moment, I thought that you were going to cite James Bacque's ludicrous figures.However, as always, comparisons are telling:

    [T]he total number of German POWs who died from all causes in US hands was 56,000 out of some 5M held.
     
    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Second

    Which stands in contrast to the huge number of Soviet POWs who died in the hands of the Germans:

    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.
     

    And other mass slaughter fun, like Dresden.
     
    Dresden:

    Seeking to establish a definitive casualty figure, in part to address propagandisation of the bombing by far-right groups, the Dresden city council in 2005 authorized an independent Historian commission to conduct a new, thorough investigation, collecting and evaluating all possible sources by modern scientific methods. The results were published 2010 and stated that a minimum of 22,700[3] and a maximum of 25,000 people[4] were killed.
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Fatalities


    And we can compare this to deaths caused by German bombing raids during the war:

    Belgrade, Yugoslavia (German air raid: 6 April 1941): 17 000
    Gilbert: 17,000 civilians k.

    Stalingrad, USSR (German air raid: 23 Aug 1942): 40 000
    Edwin Hoyt, 199 Days: the battle for Stalingrad (1993): 40,000 civilians k. in German air raid.
    Anthony Beevor, Stalingrad: the fateful Siege: 1942-1943: 40,000
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): same
     
    Total estimate for deaths caused by German bombing on the USSR during the war:

    Air Raids
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): "an estimated 500,000 Soviet citizens died from German bomb attacks."
     
    , @JessicaR
    And then we had our former Secretary of State Albright saying the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions against non-existent WMDs was worth it. And they knew all the WMDs had been destroyed years before (in 1995) as confirmed by UN inspectors and the defecting General in charge, Kamel. The deaths were caused after our bombing of their water and sewer treatment plants, and then our refusal to allow repair parts to be imported.

    Thank you for this reminder. US sanctions against Iraq were criminal--and met with mostly silence by the media (after a few initial reports) while they concentrated on important stuff like OJ and Monica. If I remember correctly, two administrators overseeing the UN food for oil program resigned on protest, charging genocide.
  73. @Svigor

    Just a few observations Phil.

    Jeb or Hillary, makes no difference, same Doug Coe ‘family’ cult, protecting their Christian mafia
     
    I tend to read the comments without paying attention to who's making them. I usually scroll back up and check if a comment is especially good or bad. I am thankful for RTW's psycho writing style that alerts me of my oversight almost immediately.

    GIs shot Japanese attempting to surrender because the attempt at surrender was often a ruse. A lone Japanese might be carrying a grenade with the pin out, ready for blowing up his “captors.” A trio of Japanese might advance with a machine gun strapped to one man’s back and suddenly start firing at their would be captors. American soldiers quite wisely decided that the best way to get back home alive was to shoot any Japanese approaching them.

    Next time, tell the whole story.
     
    Then there's the small matter of what it was like to be captured and imprisoned by the Japs.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “fair share.” J. Robert Lilly, in Taken By Force, estimates that US forces committed approximately 14,000 rapes during the war in Europe, with the vast majority (11,040) taking place in Germany.In contrast, estimates on the number of rapes committed by Soviet forces are in the hundreds of thousands.Indeed, 100,000 women are estimated to have been raped by Soviet troops in Berlin alone.And Antony Beevor estimates that Soviet soldiers raped 1.4 million women in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia.

    So far as I know, the only Allied instance that comes anywhere near the Soviet example would be the Marocchinate, the mass rapes that were committed by Moroccan troops serving under Free French command
     
    The Allies

    The anti-German coalition at the start of the war (1 September 1939) consisted of France, Poland and Great Britain, soon to be joined by the British Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.)[1] After first having cooperated with Germany in partitioning Poland whilst remaining neutral in the Allied-Axis conflict, the Soviet Union joined the Allies
     

    Same reason I roll my eyes every time someone plays up the Red Army rapes of German women as such an unprecedented atrocity. Yeah, it’s horrible. But that’s called reaping what you sow.
     
    I call it justifying the Germans' opinion of the Soviets, and their treatment of them, too.

    Vendetta says:
    May 26, 2015 at 9:44 pm GMT • 200 Words

     

    Wrong, Wrong, WRONG! Everything the Germans did was intented and deliberate. And bad. E.g., when they evacuated a prison camp to march it west to escape the Soviet onslaught, that's a Death March™, with the explicit objective of walking people to death. When they couldn't feed their own people, never mind prisoners and enemies of the state, it was a deliberate genocide by starvation. Get your terms straight, will you?

    Syon, tell us what Stalin told the Germans vis-a-vis prisoner exchanges.

    Wrong, Wrong, WRONG! Everything the Germans did was intented and deliberate. And bad. E.g., when they evacuated a prison camp to march it west to escape the Soviet onslaught, that’s a Death March™, with the explicit objective of walking people to death. When they couldn’t feed their own people, never mind prisoners and enemies of the state, it was a deliberate genocide by starvation. Get your terms straight, will you?

    Syon, tell us what Stalin told the Germans vis-a-vis prisoner exchanges.

    And that justifies the way in which the Germans starved millions of Soviet POWs to death?:

    Some 3.1 million Soviet prisoners perished in German captivity: about 500,000 were shot; the remaining 2.6 million died of starvation and hunger-related disease. More Soviet prisoners died in German camps on a given day in autumn 1941 than American and British prisoners did during the entire war.

    When they couldn’t feed their own people, never mind prisoners and enemies of the state, it was a deliberate genocide by starvation. Get your terms straight, will you?

    The Germans had no trouble feeding their own people in the Winter of 1941 and the Spring of 1942.Yet it was during that timeframe that over 2 million Soviet POWs were systematically starved to death.

    So far as I know, the only Allied instance that comes anywhere near the Soviet example would be the Marocchinate, the mass rapes that were committed by Moroccan troops serving under Free French command

    The Allies

    The anti-German coalition at the start of the war (1 September 1939) consisted of France, Poland and Great Britain, soon to be joined by the British Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.)[1] After first having cooperated with Germany in partitioning Poland whilst remaining neutral in the Allied-Axis conflict, the Soviet Union joined the Allies

    Typo.The sentence should have read:”So far as I know, the only Western Allied instance that comes anywhere near the Soviet example would be the Marocchinate, the mass rapes that were committed by Moroccan troops serving under Free French command”

    Read More
  74. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    US-NATO MONSTERs DESTROYED, BOMBED LIBYA (2011), DESTROYED Ukraine (2014-15), BOMBED DESTROYED Syria (2012), BOMBED DESTROYED Iraq (1991-2002,2003), BOMBED DESTROYED Afghanistan (1998-2002), BOMBED and DESTROYED Yugoslavia (1999, 2002), BOMBED Sudan (1998), BOMBED
    Panama (1989), BOMBED Libya (1986), BOMBED Bosnia (1985), BOMBED Grenada (1983), BOMBED Lebanon (1983-84), BOMBED Nicaragua (1980s), BOMBED El Salvador (1980s), BOMBED Cambodia (1969-70), BOMBED Peru (1965), BOMBED Laos (1964-73) —>The United States Air Force dropped the equivalent of a planeload of bombs every eight minutes for nine years on the people of Laos — from 1965 to 1973. Over 2,000,000 tons.This was some of the heaviest aerial bombardment in world history.
    BOMBED Congo 1964), BOMBED Vietnam 1961-73 (5 million Vietnamese killed), BOMBED Indonesia (1958), BOMBED Guatemala in 1954, 1960,67-69, BOMBED Korea (1950-53), BOMBED China (1945-46) and again in 1950-53, BOMBED Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945) The two bombings, which killed at least 129,000 people. Since 2011, Obama has been pushing a plan to spend $85 billion over 10 years to rebuild thousands of H-bombs — bombs that should be retired and abolished. The president has also proposed pouring $125 billion over 10 years into a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines, new nuclear bombers and new land-based ICBMs. For 2014, the President plans a nuclear weapons spending increase over the current level of $7.227 billion.

    Since 2011, Obama has been pushing a plan to spend $85 billion over 10 years to rebuild thousands of H-bombs — bombs that should be retired and abolished. The president has also proposed pouring $125 billion over 10 years into a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines, new nuclear bombers and new land-based ICBMs.[4]

    One plan is to return 200 B61 gravity H-bombs from five U.S. bases in Europe, where they are unwanted, and to replace their warheads and tail fins. Today, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Turkey and Belgium are debating whether they want the U.S. bombs ousted permanently, yet the Pentagon plans to return them to European fighter bases with new “life extension.” Europeans by the millions are demanding that the B61s be withdrawn forever.

    The H-bomb program, known as the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), estimated last year that the B61 make-work plan would cost $7 billion and produce its first replacement bomb in 2019. The Pentagon countered that it would cost $10.4 billion and take until 2022. Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina reported April 11 in Arms Control Now that 400 new B61-12s are planned, at roughly $25 million-per bomb.[5] Boeing Corp. hopes to make hundreds of millions working on the 50-kiloton devices,[6] each one capable of a Hiroshima massacre times four.
    (J. LaForge, The Weapons Oligarchy.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West

    The H-bomb program, known as the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), estimated last year that the B61 make-work plan would cost $7 billion and produce its first replacement bomb in 2019. The Pentagon countered that it would cost $10.4 billion and take until 2022. Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina reported April 11 in Arms Control Now that 400 new B61-12s are planned, at roughly $25 million-per bomb.[5] Boeing Corp. hopes to make hundreds of millions working on the 50-kiloton devices,[6] each one capable of a Hiroshima massacre times four
     
    It could also be pointed out these refurbished devices are being reduced from 400 kiloton warheads (Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists) making their use as tactical nuclear weapons 'more acceptable' (in the Orwellian Pentagon mentality, as NATO up the tension with Russian, a.k.a. 'war games in your face.)
    , @Vendetta
    $25 million a bomb? That's cheap as shit. You can have an H-bomb for the price of what, five Abrams tanks?
  75. @Kat Grey
    Actually there was relatively little rape carried out by the British or Germans for that matter. The top prize goes to the Red Army who systemically violated German and Polish on a massive scale that often involved gang-rape leading to a large number of babies born in 1946 that were sired by unknown Russian fathers. The Americans and Free French did their fair share as well. It's about time the world was educated about this ugly stain on the Allied forces.

    Most likely, the Moroccans were followers of Islam. Regarding their fair shape of raping women they were only following in the example of their holy prophet, dating back from what he and his followers generally did post battle during the 620s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kat Grey
    French General Juin allegedly gave them the go-ahead to rape the Italian women assuring them that "for 50 hours you will be the absolute masters of what you will find beyond the enemy. Nobody will ask you about what you will get up to." Nice guy. Why wasn't he tried as a war criminal?
  76. @Vendetta
    Well the true story is, one guy in ten trying that fake surrender attack ruins it for the other nine. I'm willing to believe that it might have been only a small fraction of Japanese soldiers who attempted to surrender had a suicide attack in mind, but even so, you don't bet your life at those odds.

    Still brutal, still awful, probably quite a lot of men who honestly intended to surrender got bayoneted or shot. But how can you really blame the soldiers for putting their own lives above those of the enemy? They really did try to do those fake surrender tricks sometimes. Are you really going to risk throwing away you and your friends' lives on some godforsaken island if there's a statistically signficant chance of that happening.

    Terrible, but it's pretty much what had to happen. That's called war. Imperial Japanese Army encouraged that kind of bullshit as an institutional policy and it reaped what it sowed. They gave no quarter and so they got none.

    Same reason I roll my eyes every time someone plays up the Red Army rapes of German women as such an unprecedented atrocity. Yeah, it's horrible. But that's called reaping what you sow. They killed millions upon millions of Soviet people. They'd have all had to have been saints not to have taken some revenge at the first opportunity.

    And same reason I roll my eyes at all those who rail against dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being such an evil, unjustified act. You never see those people raising that kind of moral outrage about all the people the Japanese killed in China, the twenty or thirty or even fifty Hiroshimas' worth.

    You never see those people raising that kind of moral outrage about all the people the Japanese killed in China, the twenty or thirty or even fifty Hiroshimas’ worth.

    Japan isn’t my nation. They can have their own moral outrage over their actions. The United States is my nation. I will judge it’s actions.

    Read More
  77. Protip: to improve search results about WWII atrocities, include the term, “red cross,” in quotes.

    Read More
  78. And that justifies the way in which the Germans starved millions of Soviet POWs to death?

    No, but I’m still pretty sure the Soviets were worse than the Germans.

    Typo.

    No big, just making sure we’re all on the same page.

    You know your history, Sy; what do you make of the “fact” that any time the Germans marched the prisoners from one camp to another, it was a “Death March™”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    And that justifies the way in which the Germans starved millions of Soviet POWs to death?

    No, but I’m still pretty sure the Soviets were worse than the Germans.
     
    In terms of POWs? I'm not sure.Some numbers:

    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): official figures released under glasnost
    Germans: 2,388,000 POWs taken, of which 356,000 died
    Hungarians, Romanians, etc.: 1,097,000 taken, of which 162,000 died
    Japanese: 600,000 taken, of which 61,855 died
    [Total: 4,085,000 taken, of which ca. 580,000 died]
     

    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.
     
    POWs dying under Soviet control: Approx. 580,000

    POWs dying under German control: 3 million +

    You know your history, Sy; what do you make of the “fact” that any time the Germans marched the prisoners from one camp to another, it was a “Death March™”?
     
    Snappy sounding phrase? More seriously, a kind of mental laziness.Clearly not every German movement of prisoners was a death march, but people can't be bothered to specify which ones were and which were not.
  79. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I appreciate Mr. Giraldi dispelling this aspect of our country’s delusions of grandeur and righteousness.

    My questions are directed, I suppose, to some of the commenters, especially those who seem to have been annoyed by what he has done:

    Why, honestly, would you spend any of your time and money to watch any depiction of war, realistic or otherwise?

    Can you name a major studio film that has better informed you than would a leading book, or even blog, on the same topic?

    My experience is limited and increasingly remote, but movies have always seemed just as patronizing as TV. I miss neither.

    Read More
  80. @Rob
    For years I avoided Inglourious Basterds, feeling certain it would be yet more typical Hollywood propaganda. I finally saw it about a year ago and came away from it with profoundly mixed feelings. Most of the cinema/Goebbels plotline is fairly lightweight and doesn't interest me very much, but the opening scene in the farmhouse and the stand-off in the French pub are magisterial pieces of cinema and of drama. 10/10-rated stuff.

    Generally speaking, the portrayal of German soldiers in general and officers in particular as either honourable, resolute, defiant, intelligent or cultured was a welcome surprise. The Basterds are murderous thugs and bumbling ones at that.

    Overall, it is somewhat the propaganda piece I expected. But there's more to it and denizens Steveosphere (apologies to the author of this post) can probably take something away from it.

    (I've also been avoiding Django Unchained, successfully so far. Not sure I'll be persuaded to see that one.)

    but the opening scene in the farmhouse and the stand-off in the French pub are magisterial pieces of cinema and of drama. 10/10-rated stuff.

    These two scenes were what I was thinking about.

    Tarantino’s movies remind me of Mel Brooks. If you could take all of the really funny scenes from all of his movies and put them into one movie you would have the comedy masterpiece of the century.

    Read More
  81. @Carlton Meyer
    I'm not defending the horrible actions of the Germans and Japanese during World War II. I just want Americans to understand the false homeland propaganda that America dispatches saints to save the world. So far as starving civilians as a strategy, the Allies killed almost a million Germans after the 1918 armistice by continuing the food blockade to force territorial concessions from the German government. Then there were the millions of Japanese civilians who starved during WW II because of unrestricted American submarine warfare that sunk merchant ships filled with food, and sometimes American POWs. There were also the tens of thousands of German POWs who died in allied Rhineland camps after the war ended. And other mass slaughter fun, like Dresden.

    A must see is "Fog of War" where MacNamara describes how our boys burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in one night, admitting that it was his idea. The strategy was to kill Japs and burn up cities, burning over a million civilians with fire bombs. All this occurred before the two atomic bombs were dropped. He says USAF General LeMay said that if we'd lost the war he'd be prosecuted as a war criminal, and rightly so he said!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFw3HC-UBlc

    And then we had our former Secretary of State Albright saying the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions against non-existent WMDs was worth it. And they knew all the WMDs had been destroyed years before (in 1995) as confirmed by UN inspectors and the defecting General in charge, Kamel. The deaths were caused after our bombing of their water and sewer treatment plants, and then our refusal to allow repair parts to be imported.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

    Even right now, our planes are killing dozens of civilians each day in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Your tax dollars at work.

    I’m not defending the horrible actions of the Germans and Japanese during World War II. I just want Americans to understand the false homeland propaganda that America dispatches saints to save the world.

    How many people are stupid enough to think that armed forces numbering in the millions are composed of “saints?”

    So far as starving civilians as a strategy, the Allies killed almost a million Germans after the 1918 armistice by continuing the food blockade to force territorial concessions from the German government.

    Standard estimate is that the blockade led to 763,000 deaths.Germany starved over 2 million POWs to death in late ’41-’42.Then there are the 632,000+ civilians in Leningrad who starved to death during the German siege of the city…..

    Then there were the millions of Japanese civilians who starved during WW II because of unrestricted American submarine warfare that sunk merchant ships filled with food, and sometimes American POWs.

    “[M]illions ” of Japanese starved during WW2, eh? Some figures on Japanese civilian deaths during the war:

    Civilian:
    Compton’s: 250,000
    HarperCollins: 300,000
    Urlanis: 350,000
    Encarta: 380,000
    Ellis: 393,400
    Large, Showa Japan:
    Tokyo: 97,301
    HiroShima: 140,000
    Nagasaki: 70,000
    all other cities: 86,336
    [Total killed in cities: 393,637]
    Eckhardt: 500,000
    Clodfelter: 658,595 or 672,000 (incl. disease, malnutrition and 299,485 by bombing)
    Britannica: 672,000
    Rottman, Japanese Infantryman 1937-45: 672,000
    Wallechinsky: 700,000
    Davison, The Pacific War Day by Day: 900,000

    Probably not.

    And, of course, the Japanese caused quite a few civilian deaths in China:

    Civilian:
    Eckhardt: 1,150,000 (1937-41), 850,000 (1941-45)
    Ho Ping-to, Studies in the population of China, 1368-1953 (1967) pp. 250-252
    Ho cited a survey that estimated 335,934 Chinese civilians killed in air raids and 1,073,496 killed otherwise. That would come to some 1.4 million civilians killed directly by war, 1937-45, but his methodology specifically did not include the Nanjing Massacre and the Yellow River flood.
    Kinder: 4,500,000
    Wallechinsky: 2-10M (1937-45)
    Urlanis: 7,500,000
    Ellis: 8,000,000
    HarperCollins: up to 10,000,000
    Encarta: 10,000,000
    Tohmatsu & Willmott, A Gathering Darkness, p.144: 5,870,000 (China + Manchuria, 1931-41) + 6,530,000 (1942-45) [=12,400,000]
    Gruhl, Imperial Japan’s World War Two: 15,554,000 (p.143)
    Rummel: 15,608,000
    Civilian, non-democidal: 3,252,000
    Famine: 2,250,000
    Democide:
    by Japanese: 3,949,000
    by Nationalists: 5,907,000
    by Communists: 250,000
    MEDIAN: 8,000,000

    There were also the tens of thousands of German POWs who died in allied Rhineland camps after the war ended.

    Glad to see that you said “tens of thousands.” For a moment, I thought that you were going to cite James Bacque’s ludicrous figures.However, as always, comparisons are telling:

    [T]he total number of German POWs who died from all causes in US hands was 56,000 out of some 5M held.

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Second

    Which stands in contrast to the huge number of Soviet POWs who died in the hands of the Germans:

    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.

    And other mass slaughter fun, like Dresden.

    Dresden:

    Seeking to establish a definitive casualty figure, in part to address propagandisation of the bombing by far-right groups, the Dresden city council in 2005 authorized an independent Historian commission to conduct a new, thorough investigation, collecting and evaluating all possible sources by modern scientific methods. The results were published 2010 and stated that a minimum of 22,700[3] and a maximum of 25,000 people[4] were killed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Fatalities

    And we can compare this to deaths caused by German bombing raids during the war:

    Belgrade, Yugoslavia (German air raid: 6 April 1941): 17 000
    Gilbert: 17,000 civilians k.

    Stalingrad, USSR (German air raid: 23 Aug 1942): 40 000
    Edwin Hoyt, 199 Days: the battle for Stalingrad (1993): 40,000 civilians k. in German air raid.
    Anthony Beevor, Stalingrad: the fateful Siege: 1942-1943: 40,000
    Richard Overy, Russia’s War (1997): same

    Total estimate for deaths caused by German bombing on the USSR during the war:

    Air Raids
    Richard Overy, Russia’s War (1997): “an estimated 500,000 Soviet citizens died from German bomb attacks.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I'm not disputing your general argument (you're totally correct about how the Germans deliberately starved to death about 2-3 million Soviet pows in 1941/42), but the figures you cited for casualties of German air attacks (like 40 000 killed in Stalingrad alone) are probably severely inflated. As far as I know, this issue is discussed in Richard Overy's recent "The bombing war" (which I haven't yet gotten around to reading, so I'm basing this on reviews and a cursory glance at the book) where Overy debunks the higher estimates as being impossible.
    The reason of course wasn't any benevolence on the part of the Luftwaffe, just that Germany lacked heavy four-engined bombers and simply couldn't create the kind of firestorm the Western allies managed to produce regularly in 1944/1945.
  82. I don’t know where the author comes up with “a somber occasion, dedicated to reflection and remembrance of those killed in America’s wars.”

    When I was a child we (my state) did not celebrate Memorial day. Oh, the Post Office was closed, but that was about it. We celebrated Confederate Memorial Day with bands and parades and speeches about “hell no we ain’t fergetting”.

    It wasn’t until Memorial day was made to fall on a Monday that it began to be observed.

    Read More
  83. @Svigor

    And that justifies the way in which the Germans starved millions of Soviet POWs to death?
     
    No, but I'm still pretty sure the Soviets were worse than the Germans.

    Typo.
     
    No big, just making sure we're all on the same page.

    You know your history, Sy; what do you make of the "fact" that any time the Germans marched the prisoners from one camp to another, it was a "Death March™"?

    And that justifies the way in which the Germans starved millions of Soviet POWs to death?

    No, but I’m still pretty sure the Soviets were worse than the Germans.

    In terms of POWs? I’m not sure.Some numbers:

    Richard Overy, Russia’s War (1997): official figures released under glasnost
    Germans: 2,388,000 POWs taken, of which 356,000 died
    Hungarians, Romanians, etc.: 1,097,000 taken, of which 162,000 died
    Japanese: 600,000 taken, of which 61,855 died
    [Total: 4,085,000 taken, of which ca. 580,000 died]

    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.

    POWs dying under Soviet control: Approx. 580,000

    POWs dying under German control: 3 million +

    You know your history, Sy; what do you make of the “fact” that any time the Germans marched the prisoners from one camp to another, it was a “Death March™”?

    Snappy sounding phrase? More seriously, a kind of mental laziness.Clearly not every German movement of prisoners was a death march, but people can’t be bothered to specify which ones were and which were not.

    Read More
  84. @Anonymous
    US-NATO MONSTERs DESTROYED, BOMBED LIBYA (2011), DESTROYED Ukraine (2014-15), BOMBED DESTROYED Syria (2012), BOMBED DESTROYED Iraq (1991-2002,2003), BOMBED DESTROYED Afghanistan (1998-2002), BOMBED and DESTROYED Yugoslavia (1999, 2002), BOMBED Sudan (1998), BOMBED
    Panama (1989), BOMBED Libya (1986), BOMBED Bosnia (1985), BOMBED Grenada (1983), BOMBED Lebanon (1983-84), BOMBED Nicaragua (1980s), BOMBED El Salvador (1980s), BOMBED Cambodia (1969-70), BOMBED Peru (1965), BOMBED Laos (1964-73) --->The United States Air Force dropped the equivalent of a planeload of bombs every eight minutes for nine years on the people of Laos — from 1965 to 1973. Over 2,000,000 tons.This was some of the heaviest aerial bombardment in world history.
    BOMBED Congo 1964), BOMBED Vietnam 1961-73 (5 million Vietnamese killed), BOMBED Indonesia (1958), BOMBED Guatemala in 1954, 1960,67-69, BOMBED Korea (1950-53), BOMBED China (1945-46) and again in 1950-53, BOMBED Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945) The two bombings, which killed at least 129,000 people. Since 2011, Obama has been pushing a plan to spend $85 billion over 10 years to rebuild thousands of H-bombs — bombs that should be retired and abolished. The president has also proposed pouring $125 billion over 10 years into a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines, new nuclear bombers and new land-based ICBMs. For 2014, the President plans a nuclear weapons spending increase over the current level of $7.227 billion.

    Since 2011, Obama has been pushing a plan to spend $85 billion over 10 years to rebuild thousands of H-bombs — bombs that should be retired and abolished. The president has also proposed pouring $125 billion over 10 years into a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines, new nuclear bombers and new land-based ICBMs.[4]

    One plan is to return 200 B61 gravity H-bombs from five U.S. bases in Europe, where they are unwanted, and to replace their warheads and tail fins. Today, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Turkey and Belgium are debating whether they want the U.S. bombs ousted permanently, yet the Pentagon plans to return them to European fighter bases with new “life extension.” Europeans by the millions are demanding that the B61s be withdrawn forever.

    The H-bomb program, known as the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), estimated last year that the B61 make-work plan would cost $7 billion and produce its first replacement bomb in 2019. The Pentagon countered that it would cost $10.4 billion and take until 2022. Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina reported April 11 in Arms Control Now that 400 new B61-12s are planned, at roughly $25 million-per bomb.[5] Boeing Corp. hopes to make hundreds of millions working on the 50-kiloton devices,[6] each one capable of a Hiroshima massacre times four.
    (J. LaForge, The Weapons Oligarchy.)

    The H-bomb program, known as the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), estimated last year that the B61 make-work plan would cost $7 billion and produce its first replacement bomb in 2019. The Pentagon countered that it would cost $10.4 billion and take until 2022. Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina reported April 11 in Arms Control Now that 400 new B61-12s are planned, at roughly $25 million-per bomb.[5] Boeing Corp. hopes to make hundreds of millions working on the 50-kiloton devices,[6] each one capable of a Hiroshima massacre times four

    It could also be pointed out these refurbished devices are being reduced from 400 kiloton warheads (Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists) making their use as tactical nuclear weapons ‘more acceptable’ (in the Orwellian Pentagon mentality, as NATO up the tension with Russian, a.k.a. ‘war games in your face.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    It could also be pointed out these refurbished devices are being reduced from 400 kiloton warheads (Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists) making their use as tactical nuclear weapons ‘more acceptable’ (in the Orwellian Pentagon mentality, as NATO up the tension with Russian, a.k.a. ‘war games in your face.)
     
    That's a very unsettling thought now that you point it out. Calling smaller nuclear bombs "tactical" weapons makes it more likely that the threshold for their use would be lowered. The consequences are hard to imagine but seem likely to lead to a nightmare scenario. I really don't appreciate our so-called leaders dragging the entire world to the brink of disaster with their reckless policy of confrontation and aggression. Voting, what is it good for?
  85. @Svigor

    Just a few observations Phil.

    Jeb or Hillary, makes no difference, same Doug Coe ‘family’ cult, protecting their Christian mafia
     
    I tend to read the comments without paying attention to who's making them. I usually scroll back up and check if a comment is especially good or bad. I am thankful for RTW's psycho writing style that alerts me of my oversight almost immediately.

    GIs shot Japanese attempting to surrender because the attempt at surrender was often a ruse. A lone Japanese might be carrying a grenade with the pin out, ready for blowing up his “captors.” A trio of Japanese might advance with a machine gun strapped to one man’s back and suddenly start firing at their would be captors. American soldiers quite wisely decided that the best way to get back home alive was to shoot any Japanese approaching them.

    Next time, tell the whole story.
     
    Then there's the small matter of what it was like to be captured and imprisoned by the Japs.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “fair share.” J. Robert Lilly, in Taken By Force, estimates that US forces committed approximately 14,000 rapes during the war in Europe, with the vast majority (11,040) taking place in Germany.In contrast, estimates on the number of rapes committed by Soviet forces are in the hundreds of thousands.Indeed, 100,000 women are estimated to have been raped by Soviet troops in Berlin alone.And Antony Beevor estimates that Soviet soldiers raped 1.4 million women in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia.

    So far as I know, the only Allied instance that comes anywhere near the Soviet example would be the Marocchinate, the mass rapes that were committed by Moroccan troops serving under Free French command
     
    The Allies

    The anti-German coalition at the start of the war (1 September 1939) consisted of France, Poland and Great Britain, soon to be joined by the British Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.)[1] After first having cooperated with Germany in partitioning Poland whilst remaining neutral in the Allied-Axis conflict, the Soviet Union joined the Allies
     

    Same reason I roll my eyes every time someone plays up the Red Army rapes of German women as such an unprecedented atrocity. Yeah, it’s horrible. But that’s called reaping what you sow.
     
    I call it justifying the Germans' opinion of the Soviets, and their treatment of them, too.

    Vendetta says:
    May 26, 2015 at 9:44 pm GMT • 200 Words

     

    Wrong, Wrong, WRONG! Everything the Germans did was intented and deliberate. And bad. E.g., when they evacuated a prison camp to march it west to escape the Soviet onslaught, that's a Death March™, with the explicit objective of walking people to death. When they couldn't feed their own people, never mind prisoners and enemies of the state, it was a deliberate genocide by starvation. Get your terms straight, will you?

    Syon, tell us what Stalin told the Germans vis-a-vis prisoner exchanges.

    I usually scroll back up and check if a comment is especially good or bad. I am thankful for RTW’s psycho writing style that alerts me of my oversight almost immediately

    Problem with my pointing out Hillary’s and the Bush family association with the Doug Coe mafia? Thinking people can read up for themselves, here’s the short version:

    http://www.salon.com/2009/07/21/c_street/

    Or you can purchase the long version:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-American/dp/B001Q3KM4O

    Speaking of psychos…

    Or you can read up at my site’s open source ‘deep state’ series for an alternative, condensed version:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/12/24/americas-deep-state-corporate-oligarchy/

    Yeah, it’s too scary for a lot of people (like Svigor) to contemplate but heads in the sand won’t make it go away

    Read More
  86. @SF
    It's been many years since I saw Two Women, but I think the actual film did show the rapists being Moroccan.

    They just looked like a dark swarm. They were obviously “Africans” and as I recall, that’s how they were spoken of later on in the movie. The film didn’t show their faces, but I watched it on late night tv when I was only 12 and didn’t exactly know what was going in. I had to ask my mother, and she said they were being “molested” or something like that. But you had a sense of something dark and alien. Even then, I knew they weren’t “Germans.”

    Read More
  87. I am simply amazed that Americans still think WWII was a “good” war. Fighting to let Stalin capture half of Europe is hardly good by any stretch of the imagination. These Holocaust fanatics will probably claim that its better to have them in Stalin’s hands than Hitler’s. Burn in Hell liars. Sometime soon the real story of the war will be released, and your fake lying media will be crumpled and burned for the magnitudes of the crimes they hid for years.
    All your Durantys will be hated and reviled with you and your fabulist fantasies of Soviet paradise. May you get yours for perpetuating the lies too, all of you usual suspects on the web!

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Sometime soon the real story of the war will be released,
     
    It's been 70 years since it's end. Can you put a date on "sometime soon"? I'm rather impatient and don't like waiting. Perhaps you could speed things up by giving us the "real story" right here and now.
  88. @anonymous
    Hollywood tough guys like John Wayne made war propaganda movies that glorify war but of course they themselves never came close to any danger. The government has always tried to censor pictures of actual war that might create some cognitive dissonance such as photos of American soldiers laying dead in pools of water or of their mutilated corpses that might take some of the glamour out of it. Instead we get around the clock depictions of fake guts and glory.
    The reality is that America goes around the world searching for enemies; every conflict has been voluntary and optional. If one looks at the pattern it becomes clear that American policy is a predatory one. It always waits for a country to fall into a state of weakness before pouncing upon it or simply attacks smaller, weaker third world countries that it feels can't fight back. Vietnam came as a surprise since it was deemed to be a weaker third world country. The Spanish were weak and so were ripe to have their possessions taken away in 1898. In both world wars the US entered with it's troops at the very last minute after the Germans were already defeated so as to get in on the victory. Later on countries like Panama and Grenada were invaded as well as the more recent ones of Afghanistan and Iraq where they can blow up natives at long range with their fancy hi-tech weapons with impunity. This won't be shown in the movies.

    Oh, hell, give John Wayne a break. Remember, it was The Duke who took Normandy and Iwo Jima. That part of the historical record remains intact!

    Seriously, Wayne–for whatever reason–avoided service during WW2. I wonder how Wayne looked his fellow actors James Stewart (Army Air Force), Clark Gable (Army Air Force), Henry Fonda (Navy), George Montgomery (Navy), Robert Taylor (Navy), Tyrone Power (Marine Corps), Audie Murphy (Army) in the eye. . . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    This dead horse was already beaten to death a hundred times over in previous threads. Suffice it to say you're listing 7 men who served and none but Wayne who didn't serve, and not taking into account age, health, or family status. America in WW2 was not the South in the Civil War and many men including 2 of my uncles didn't serve in WW2 or any time afterwards, often for very good reasons, sometimes for borderline reasons, maybe in some cases because of conniving, cowardice, etc.
  89. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @syonredux

    That Wikipedia link explains another wartime myth – Japs never surrendered! This is mostly true, but not because they were all fanatics. GIs almost always killed Japanese soldiers who tried to surrender, discouraging the idea and resulting in very few prisoners.
     
    Push-pull.Early on, American marines and soldiers had to deal with quite a few " booby-trapped-fake surrender" instances involving Japanese troops.After that, US troops were somewhat less inclined to accept offers of surrender from the Japanese.

    And, of course, the Japanese record in the War is not very good:


    Manila, Philippines (massacre of civilians by Japanese: Nov. 1944-Feb. 1945): 100 000
    Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 100,000 Filipinos k.
    William Manchester, American Caesar (1978): "nearly 100,000 Filipinos were murdered by the Japanese"
    PBS: "100,000 of its citizens died."
    World War II Database: 100,000


    Nanking Massacre, 13 Dec. 1937-Feb. 38:
    Spence, The Search for Modern China: 42,000
    Gilbert: >200,000 civilians and 90,000 POWs
    Dict.Wars: 200,000
    Rummel: 200,000
    P. Johnson: 200-300,000
    27 Aug 2001 Newsweek, quoting Japanese textbook: "The number of dead is said to be over 100,000 and it is estimated to be over 300,000 in China."
    Palmowski, Dictionary of 20th Century World History: "perhaps as many as" 400,000
    Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking (1997) cites these:
    Liu Fang-chu: 430,000
    James Yin & Shi Young: 400,000
    Sun Zhaiwei: 377,400 corpses disposed of
    Wu Tien-wei: 340,000
    District Court of Nanking: 300,000
    International Military Tribunal of the Far East: 260,000
    Fujiwara Akira: 200,000
    John Rabe: 50,000-60,000
    Hata Ikuhiko: 38,000-42,000
    [Median: 260,000]
    Unit 731, Manchukuo (bio-warfare center: 1937-45)
    Discovery Channel: "as many as 200,000 people — Chinese soldiers, private citizens and prisoners of war — had died" [http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/spotlight/bioterror/history/history2.html]
    Global Security: Up to 3,000 died in this facility. Perhaps as many 200,000 Chinese died from germ war campaign in Yunnan Province, Ningbo, and Changde. [http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/japan/bw.htm]


    East Timor
    James Dunn, in Century of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997)): 70,000 died under Japanese occupation
    19 May 2002 San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "January 1942: Japan occupies the entire island. With support from the local people, Australian commandos in East Timor battle Japan. Japanese reprisals kill 60,000 civilians 13 percent of East Timor's population."
    Dutch East Indies: 25,000 Dutch d. out of 140,000 imprisoned (3 Feb. 1998 Agence France Presse)
    Singapore, citizens (mostly Chinese) massacred, 1942


    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Nanking

    The American history of killing civilians isn’t much better than that in Asia.

    America has killed and raped scores of civilians in Korea, Japan, Philippines, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eternal Vigilance
    Anonymous hates the USA until he needs us to protect his back side. I wonder what he would have to say if he lived under the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussein, etc. The list of dictators, despots, etc. is long. We get criticized by the likes of anonymous for not doing anything and indicted if we do. Maybe he would care to go and live under the likes of the current North Korea child dictator.
  90. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @syonredux

    “Saving Private Ryan” was very good, it misses being excellent by leaving out the significant British and Canadian contribution to the D Day landings.
     
    The film was hardly intended to be an examination of the D-Day landings.After all, The Longest Day already exists.

    Actually there was relatively little rape carried out by the British or Germans for that matter. The top prize goes to the Red Army who systemically violated German and Polish on a massive scale that often involved gang-rape leading to a large number of babies born in 1946 that were sired by unknown Russian fathers. The Americans and Free French did their fair share as well. It’s about time the world was educated about this ugly stain on the Allied forces.
     
    I'm not sure what you mean by "fair share." J. Robert Lilly, in Taken By Force, estimates that US forces committed approximately 14,000 rapes during the war in Europe, with the vast majority (11,040) taking place in Germany.In contrast, estimates on the number of rapes committed by Soviet forces are in the hundreds of thousands.Indeed, 100,000 women are estimated to have been raped by Soviet troops in Berlin alone.And Antony Beevor estimates that Soviet soldiers raped 1.4 million women in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia.


    So far as I know, the only Allied instance that comes anywhere near the Soviet example would be the Marocchinate, the mass rapes that were committed by Moroccan troops serving under Free French command:

    Monte Cassino was captured by the Allies on May 18, 1944. The next night, thousands of Goumiers and other colonial troops scoured the slopes of the hills surrounding the town and the villages of Ciociaria (in South Latium). Over 60,000 women, ranging in age from 11 to 86, suffered from violence, when village after village came under control of the Goumiers. Civilian men who tried to protect their wives and daughters were murdered. The number of men killed has been estimated at 800.[3]
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate

    But why limit yourself to analyzing American behavior during WW2. We already know that Americans raped and killed their way across America until the red man no longer existed.

    Today Germany is filled with Germans, what about the red man?

    Not to mention how many civilians were raped and killed in Asia since WW2. Of course the commentators here will try to explain these deaths and rapes away as somehow being less severe than the evil Russians.

    Read More
  91. @syonredux
    Of course, when compared to the Nazi record:

    The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union. Had things gone the way that Hitler, Himmler, and Göring expected, German forces would have implemented a Hunger Plan in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1941–1942. As Ukrainian and south Russian agricultural products were diverted to Germany, some 30 million people in Belarus, northern Russia, and Soviet cities were to be starved to death. The Hunger Plan was only a prelude to Generalplan Ost, the colonization plan for the western Soviet Union, which foresaw the elimination of some 50 million people.

    The Germans did manage to carry out policies that bore some resemblance to these plans. They expelled half a million non-Jewish Poles from lands annexed to the Reich. An impatient Himmler ordered a first stage of Generalplan Ost implemented in eastern Poland: ten thousand Polish children were killed and a hundred thousand adults expelled. The Wehrmacht purposefully starved about one million people in the siege of Leningrad, and about a hundred thousand more in planned famines in Ukrainian cities. Some three million captured Soviet soldiers died of starvation or disease in German prisoner-of-war camps. These people were purposefully killed: as with the siege of Leningrad, the knowledge and intention to starve people to death was present. Had the Holocaust not taken place, this would be recalled as the worst war crime in modern history.

    In the guise of anti-partisan actions, the Germans killed perhaps three quarters of a million people, about 350,000 in Belarus alone, and lower but comparable numbers in Poland and Yugoslavia. The Germans killed more than a hundred thousand Poles when suppressing the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. Had the Holocaust not happened, these “reprisals” too would be regarded as some of the greatest war crimes in history. In fact they, like the starvation of Soviet prisoners of war, are scarcely recalled at all beyond the countries directly concerned. German occupation policies killed non-Jewish civilians in other ways as well, for example by hard labor in prison camps. Again: these were chiefly people from Poland or the Soviet Union.

    The Germans killed somewhat more than ten million civilians in the major mass killing actions, about half of them Jews, about half of them non-Jews. The Jews and the non-Jews mostly came from the same part of Europe. The project to kill all Jews was substantially realized; the project to destroy Slavic populations was only very partially implemented.

     

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    From the article you linked to:

    “If we concentrate on Auschwitz and the Gulag, we fail to notice that over a period of twelve years, between 1933 and 1944, some 12 million victims of Nazi and Soviet mass killing policies perished in a particular region of Europe, one defined more or less by today’s Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia.”

    This “particular region of Europe” being the region controlled by the Austro-Hungarian empire pre WWI. And whom should we blame for the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire and the power vacuum that resulted? From John R. Schindler’s blog:

    http://20committee.com/2015/04/24/woodrow-wilsons-great-folly/

    Key quote:

    “None of Wilson’s Points would have more impact than the tenth, which advocated autonomy for the peoples of Austria-Hungary, which a month later Wilson expanded into full “self-determination.” In other words, Wilson wanted to break up the ancient Habsburg realm. . . .
    While multinational Austria-Hungary had many problems, it was a much more coherent and capable polity than the European Union of today, and none of the Allied powers save America wanted to see it disappear. Some sort of Habsburg realm was seen as a strategic necessity by the British and French, since without that dynasty, Southeastern Europe would fall into chaos, with a dozen ethnic groups fighting amongst themselves. Yet, following Wilson’s lead, the Allies in early 1918 began advocating for the dissolution of Austria-Hungary along ethnic lines, giving material support to exile groups, mainly Czechs, who sought the end of the Habsburg Monarchy. . . . They achieved that at the end of 1918, thanks to Allied accomplishments on the battlefield, and Europe has been living with the consequences ever since.”

    If Schindler is correct, Wilson’s decision to abolish the Habsburg Monarchy must rank among the very worst foreign policy decisions made by any American President, right up there with LBJ’s Vietnam folly and George W. Bush’s Iraq invasion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
    Thank you for providing context that is somehow overlooked when movie-makers purport to be historians.

    David Stockman and Martin Sieff were hosted by the Committee for the Republic to discuss their study of World War I ---


    Entangling alliances plunged the major European powers into war. Could England have stayed out of the Great War in August 1914? Committee member Martin Sieff will explain the key role of Winston Churchill and Edward Grey in the British intervention. In 1915, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryant resigned after President Woodrow Wilson broke his campaign pledge of neutrality by selling munitions and extending loans to England and France. Taking sides created pressures which led America to go to war against Germany in April 1917. David Stockman will argue the counterfactual on U.S. entry into WWI.

    American intervention in the Great War changed the course of history. American doughboys broke the stalemate and allowed the British and French armies to defeat Germany in France. American intervention in the First World War was the equivalent of a European power coming to the United States during the Civil War and saying South wins, North loses. The Treaty of Versailles repudiated Wilson’s Fourteen Points on which Germany relied in their surrender. John Maynard Keynes walked out of the peace conference denouncing Wilson’s ineptitude and hypocrisy. In the Economic Consquences of the Peace, Keynes described Wilson as an egotistical idealist without the “intellectual equipment” to negotiate effectively with David Lloyd George and George Clemenceau. In a war to “make the world safe for democracy”, the British empire acquired an additional 8.2 million people and 862,549 square miles and the French empire gained 5.6 million people and 238,168 square miles. The British and French were allowed to carve up the Middle East among themselves, assign war guilt to Germany, crush their economy with vengeful reparations, and redraw Germany’s borders leaving German populations outside their country. Congress rejected Wilson’s utopian League of Nations, declared a separate peace with Germany and the Democratic Party suffered the worst defeat in American history in the 1920 presidential election.

    Transforming a European conflict into a world war and losing the peace set the stage for World War II. The Versailles Treaty laid the ground for the rise of the Nazi Party. The prolongation of WWI encouraged the communist takeover of Russia. Wilson's war of choice created the Espionage Act and violated American civil liberties. Thirty million Russians killed in WWII set up the Cold War. A hundred years after WWI, Germany is the arbiter of Europe and America is entangled in alliances around the globe. Wilson bequeathed America a civil religion that replaced the founding narrative of self-restraint and limits on power. His militant idealism -- adopted by humanitarian interventionists, neoconservatives, and assertive nationalists -- animates our foreign policy debates today. We have to “do something” constantly because Americans are a chosen people indispensable to our conception of world order. Both political parties embrace the Wilsonian narrative of America as “a force for good in the world.”


    David Stockman and Martin Sieff are students of the Great War and its long shadow. David gained national recognition as Reagan’s Budget Director before going on to a career on Wall Street. Martin’s career in journalism included stints at United Press International as Managing Editor, International Affairs, and the Washington Times as Chief Foreign Correspondent.
     

     
    ___________________________

    The Committee for the Republic is a citizen-based, non-partisan, nonprofit organization founded in 2003. The Committee sponsors speakers monthly on challenges to the American Republic, including the military-industrial complex, too-big-to-fail banks, campaign finance, and U.S. competitiveness. For questions or requests email James@Committeefortherepublic.org

    see also http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Republic

  92. @Anonymous
    US-NATO MONSTERs DESTROYED, BOMBED LIBYA (2011), DESTROYED Ukraine (2014-15), BOMBED DESTROYED Syria (2012), BOMBED DESTROYED Iraq (1991-2002,2003), BOMBED DESTROYED Afghanistan (1998-2002), BOMBED and DESTROYED Yugoslavia (1999, 2002), BOMBED Sudan (1998), BOMBED
    Panama (1989), BOMBED Libya (1986), BOMBED Bosnia (1985), BOMBED Grenada (1983), BOMBED Lebanon (1983-84), BOMBED Nicaragua (1980s), BOMBED El Salvador (1980s), BOMBED Cambodia (1969-70), BOMBED Peru (1965), BOMBED Laos (1964-73) --->The United States Air Force dropped the equivalent of a planeload of bombs every eight minutes for nine years on the people of Laos — from 1965 to 1973. Over 2,000,000 tons.This was some of the heaviest aerial bombardment in world history.
    BOMBED Congo 1964), BOMBED Vietnam 1961-73 (5 million Vietnamese killed), BOMBED Indonesia (1958), BOMBED Guatemala in 1954, 1960,67-69, BOMBED Korea (1950-53), BOMBED China (1945-46) and again in 1950-53, BOMBED Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945) The two bombings, which killed at least 129,000 people. Since 2011, Obama has been pushing a plan to spend $85 billion over 10 years to rebuild thousands of H-bombs — bombs that should be retired and abolished. The president has also proposed pouring $125 billion over 10 years into a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines, new nuclear bombers and new land-based ICBMs. For 2014, the President plans a nuclear weapons spending increase over the current level of $7.227 billion.

    Since 2011, Obama has been pushing a plan to spend $85 billion over 10 years to rebuild thousands of H-bombs — bombs that should be retired and abolished. The president has also proposed pouring $125 billion over 10 years into a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines, new nuclear bombers and new land-based ICBMs.[4]

    One plan is to return 200 B61 gravity H-bombs from five U.S. bases in Europe, where they are unwanted, and to replace their warheads and tail fins. Today, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Turkey and Belgium are debating whether they want the U.S. bombs ousted permanently, yet the Pentagon plans to return them to European fighter bases with new “life extension.” Europeans by the millions are demanding that the B61s be withdrawn forever.

    The H-bomb program, known as the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), estimated last year that the B61 make-work plan would cost $7 billion and produce its first replacement bomb in 2019. The Pentagon countered that it would cost $10.4 billion and take until 2022. Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina reported April 11 in Arms Control Now that 400 new B61-12s are planned, at roughly $25 million-per bomb.[5] Boeing Corp. hopes to make hundreds of millions working on the 50-kiloton devices,[6] each one capable of a Hiroshima massacre times four.
    (J. LaForge, The Weapons Oligarchy.)

    $25 million a bomb? That’s cheap as shit. You can have an H-bomb for the price of what, five Abrams tanks?

    Read More
  93. Phil, for a real war movie, one that actually gets at the heart of what it’s really all about, I recommend “Grave Of The Fireflies.” I read somewhere about advice to people about to see that movie that went along the lines of, “prepare to be changed forever.” And I don’t think that was an overstatement.

    There’d be less war if more people saw that movie.

    Read More
  94. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Dr. Doom
    I am simply amazed that Americans still think WWII was a "good" war. Fighting to let Stalin capture half of Europe is hardly good by any stretch of the imagination. These Holocaust fanatics will probably claim that its better to have them in Stalin's hands than Hitler's. Burn in Hell liars. Sometime soon the real story of the war will be released, and your fake lying media will be crumpled and burned for the magnitudes of the crimes they hid for years.
    All your Durantys will be hated and reviled with you and your fabulist fantasies of Soviet paradise. May you get yours for perpetuating the lies too, all of you usual suspects on the web!

    Sometime soon the real story of the war will be released,

    It’s been 70 years since it’s end. Can you put a date on “sometime soon”? I’m rather impatient and don’t like waiting. Perhaps you could speed things up by giving us the “real story” right here and now.

    Read More
  95. @Carlton Meyer
    A similar myth is that American GIs are saints on a mission to save people. From the G2mil blog:

    Dec 26, 2014 - The Greatest Generation?

    I saw an article on a ceremony to remember the 84 American GI prisoners gunned down by German troops near Malmedy, Belgium on Dec 17, 1944. This is part a long standing propaganda effort to justify World War II and American worldwide domination. It seems the advancing Germans had taken so many prisoners they could not guard them all, so some were shot. Since 43 GIs managed to run away during this massacre, it wasn't a well planned event. There were many cases of GIs killing German prisoners too, but those are never mentioned. Here is a list of major incidents:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_States

    and this youtube video of an incident where an officer lined up 25 German prisoners and had them gunned down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD4bDHTHdpU

    That Wikipedia link explains another wartime myth - Japs never surrendered! This is mostly true, but not because they were all fanatics. GIs almost always killed Japanese soldiers who tried to surrender, discouraging the idea and resulting in very few prisoners.
    ____________________________

    And here is a History Channel program about American armored units with Sherman tanks slaughtered by the Germans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4

    My Uncle, who was an infantryman who fought against the Japanese, never mentioned or discussed his wartime service, except once, when he described an incident where some Japanese soldiers tried to surrender, and his company commander ordered my uncle to shoot them. My uncle said he refused, offered his M-1 rifle to his commander to do it himself, the commander declined and allowed the enemy soldiers to surrender.

    Read More
  96. @Diversity Heretic
    You make an excellent point--the U.S. could have the foreign policy of a large Switzerland and 95-98% of Americans would be better off if it did so. But the 2-5% that the activist foreign and military policy benefits are in control. Moreover, even ordinary Americans want a military "second to none," and revel in the victories of "their team."

    Once a nation, really any nation, grows large enough, the temptation to become an empire becomes almost overwhelming; the elites reap the benefits and the rest pay the price. George Kennan in Around the Cragged Hill, advocated breaking the U.S. up into 8-12 autonomous republics; each of which would be strong enough to defend itself, but no one of which could interfere in other countries' business. Interesting idea, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

    “… even ordinary Americans want a military ‘second to none,’ and revel in the victories of ‘their team’.”

    You put your finger on it, just like Giraldi did. For most US citizens war is a football game, entertainment. For the victims of US aggression it could not be any further. A bit of a silly comparison but just like in Hunger Games: one man’s dying is another man’s game. But when dying one day comes home to roost, then it will lose all entertainment value. Somehow, own suffering does not qualify as entertainment.

    This is Giraldi’s principal message.

    Read More
  97. @War for Blair Mountain
    Among the reasons why I hate IQ tests and IQ psychometrics:IQ Tests .....meaningless standardized tests....are a way of tracking who becomes canon fodder-limbless basket cases with a teenager screaming inside to be euthanized by the Walter Reed Army Hospital Phillipino Doctor......and who becomes the socially worthless Wall Street wheeler-dealer. This in itself should be good enough of a reason to abolish IQ tests....a pox on Robert Plomin..and Jared Taylor. I write this as a hard-core Native Born White American Racial Patriot....

    If you are antiwar....you must be in favor of abolishing IQ Testing of young children.

    You make an excellent point. One I hadn’t thought of before.

    Read More
  98. Sir the statement “world police” is as sanitized as those two movies you mentioned instead it should be “global Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the American mutant”.

    Read More
  99. @Carlton Meyer
    I'm not defending the horrible actions of the Germans and Japanese during World War II. I just want Americans to understand the false homeland propaganda that America dispatches saints to save the world. So far as starving civilians as a strategy, the Allies killed almost a million Germans after the 1918 armistice by continuing the food blockade to force territorial concessions from the German government. Then there were the millions of Japanese civilians who starved during WW II because of unrestricted American submarine warfare that sunk merchant ships filled with food, and sometimes American POWs. There were also the tens of thousands of German POWs who died in allied Rhineland camps after the war ended. And other mass slaughter fun, like Dresden.

    A must see is "Fog of War" where MacNamara describes how our boys burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in one night, admitting that it was his idea. The strategy was to kill Japs and burn up cities, burning over a million civilians with fire bombs. All this occurred before the two atomic bombs were dropped. He says USAF General LeMay said that if we'd lost the war he'd be prosecuted as a war criminal, and rightly so he said!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFw3HC-UBlc

    And then we had our former Secretary of State Albright saying the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions against non-existent WMDs was worth it. And they knew all the WMDs had been destroyed years before (in 1995) as confirmed by UN inspectors and the defecting General in charge, Kamel. The deaths were caused after our bombing of their water and sewer treatment plants, and then our refusal to allow repair parts to be imported.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

    Even right now, our planes are killing dozens of civilians each day in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Your tax dollars at work.

    And then we had our former Secretary of State Albright saying the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions against non-existent WMDs was worth it. And they knew all the WMDs had been destroyed years before (in 1995) as confirmed by UN inspectors and the defecting General in charge, Kamel. The deaths were caused after our bombing of their water and sewer treatment plants, and then our refusal to allow repair parts to be imported.

    Thank you for this reminder. US sanctions against Iraq were criminal–and met with mostly silence by the media (after a few initial reports) while they concentrated on important stuff like OJ and Monica. If I remember correctly, two administrators overseeing the UN food for oil program resigned on protest, charging genocide.

    Read More
  100. The US of Perception Is Everything.

    I predict in the near future Eddie Bernay’s likeness will be appearing on the neo-three dollar bill. (he beat out P.T. Barnum)

    Read More
  101. @FederalistForever
    From the article you linked to:

    "If we concentrate on Auschwitz and the Gulag, we fail to notice that over a period of twelve years, between 1933 and 1944, some 12 million victims of Nazi and Soviet mass killing policies perished in a particular region of Europe, one defined more or less by today’s Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia."

    This "particular region of Europe" being the region controlled by the Austro-Hungarian empire pre WWI. And whom should we blame for the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire and the power vacuum that resulted? From John R. Schindler's blog:

    http://20committee.com/2015/04/24/woodrow-wilsons-great-folly/

    Key quote:

    "None of Wilson’s Points would have more impact than the tenth, which advocated autonomy for the peoples of Austria-Hungary, which a month later Wilson expanded into full “self-determination.” In other words, Wilson wanted to break up the ancient Habsburg realm. . . .
    While multinational Austria-Hungary had many problems, it was a much more coherent and capable polity than the European Union of today, and none of the Allied powers save America wanted to see it disappear. Some sort of Habsburg realm was seen as a strategic necessity by the British and French, since without that dynasty, Southeastern Europe would fall into chaos, with a dozen ethnic groups fighting amongst themselves. Yet, following Wilson’s lead, the Allies in early 1918 began advocating for the dissolution of Austria-Hungary along ethnic lines, giving material support to exile groups, mainly Czechs, who sought the end of the Habsburg Monarchy. . . . They achieved that at the end of 1918, thanks to Allied accomplishments on the battlefield, and Europe has been living with the consequences ever since."

    If Schindler is correct, Wilson's decision to abolish the Habsburg Monarchy must rank among the very worst foreign policy decisions made by any American President, right up there with LBJ's Vietnam folly and George W. Bush's Iraq invasion.

    Thank you for providing context that is somehow overlooked when movie-makers purport to be historians.

    David Stockman and Martin Sieff were hosted by the Committee for the Republic to discuss their study of World War I —

    Entangling alliances plunged the major European powers into war. Could England have stayed out of the Great War in August 1914? Committee member Martin Sieff will explain the key role of Winston Churchill and Edward Grey in the British intervention. In 1915, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryant resigned after President Woodrow Wilson broke his campaign pledge of neutrality by selling munitions and extending loans to England and France. Taking sides created pressures which led America to go to war against Germany in April 1917. David Stockman will argue the counterfactual on U.S. entry into WWI.

    American intervention in the Great War changed the course of history. American doughboys broke the stalemate and allowed the British and French armies to defeat Germany in France. American intervention in the First World War was the equivalent of a European power coming to the United States during the Civil War and saying South wins, North loses. The Treaty of Versailles repudiated Wilson’s Fourteen Points on which Germany relied in their surrender. John Maynard Keynes walked out of the peace conference denouncing Wilson’s ineptitude and hypocrisy. In the Economic Consquences of the Peace, Keynes described Wilson as an egotistical idealist without the “intellectual equipment” to negotiate effectively with David Lloyd George and George Clemenceau. In a war to “make the world safe for democracy”, the British empire acquired an additional 8.2 million people and 862,549 square miles and the French empire gained 5.6 million people and 238,168 square miles. The British and French were allowed to carve up the Middle East among themselves, assign war guilt to Germany, crush their economy with vengeful reparations, and redraw Germany’s borders leaving German populations outside their country. Congress rejected Wilson’s utopian League of Nations, declared a separate peace with Germany and the Democratic Party suffered the worst defeat in American history in the 1920 presidential election.

    Transforming a European conflict into a world war and losing the peace set the stage for World War II. The Versailles Treaty laid the ground for the rise of the Nazi Party. The prolongation of WWI encouraged the communist takeover of Russia. Wilson’s war of choice created the Espionage Act and violated American civil liberties. Thirty million Russians killed in WWII set up the Cold War. A hundred years after WWI, Germany is the arbiter of Europe and America is entangled in alliances around the globe. Wilson bequeathed America a civil religion that replaced the founding narrative of self-restraint and limits on power. His militant idealism — adopted by humanitarian interventionists, neoconservatives, and assertive nationalists — animates our foreign policy debates today. We have to “do something” constantly because Americans are a chosen people indispensable to our conception of world order. Both political parties embrace the Wilsonian narrative of America as “a force for good in the world.”

    David Stockman and Martin Sieff are students of the Great War and its long shadow. David gained national recognition as Reagan’s Budget Director before going on to a career on Wall Street. Martin’s career in journalism included stints at United Press International as Managing Editor, International Affairs, and the Washington Times as Chief Foreign Correspondent.

    ___________________________

    The Committee for the Republic is a citizen-based, non-partisan, nonprofit organization founded in 2003. The Committee sponsors speakers monthly on challenges to the American Republic, including the military-industrial complex, too-big-to-fail banks, campaign finance, and U.S. competitiveness. For questions or requests email James@Committeefortherepublic.org

    see also http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Republic

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    "The Committee sponsors speakers monthly on challenges to the American Republic, including the military-industrial complex, too-big-to-fail banks, campaign finance, and U.S. competitiveness."

    Surprised not to see Big Zion receive top billing in your list of challenges to the American Republic!
  102. @John Jeremiah Smith
    Flower, how can you say

    No Phil, Hollywood has not changed our perception of war; however, it has changed our perception of history.
     
    then follow it up with directly-contradicting observation?

    Tell me, how many infants have you seen with their entrails and body parts spread over a square meter because it’s mother was carrying him and got caught by a 88mm mortar round?
     
    Of COURSE Hollywood has changed our perception of war. Some Americans have seen war, and know better, but most Americans have seen war as Hollywood depicts it, that is, as guns, glory, and patriotism.

    I’m not sure the purpose of your reply. If a motion picture production company were to be so stupid as to truthfully show what war is, would you go see it? If a television “drama” were to show the truth of war, would you watch it? Hollywood naturally has to sanitize their stuff, that is the nature (mechanics?) of fiction, otherwise the film is all a waste of time.

    “News” does not get the same option, or, at least, it shouldn’t have the option to sanitize it. Like I said, your “truthful news” won’t even show ISIS decapitating people. Is that for the sensitivities of the audience? Or is it just to continue a greater lie?

    It is curious to me that you complain about fiction sanitizing the truth, but stand there mute and with you wanger in your hand when the “News” sanitizes (read: lies) about the truth. May you bubble never burst.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Your reply contains no elements related to the contents of my post.

    Have a nice day.
  103. Apposing armies nearly always commit basically the same acts during combat, but the losing army produces war criminals while the winning army produces war heroes. Following World War 2, the Allies staged show trials after which scores of Nazis and Japanese “war criminals” were shot or hanged for committing the same acts Allied commanders committed on a routine basis and a much larger scale. US Gen. Curtis candidly admitted after the war that if the Allies had lost WW2 , that he and several other high ranking US and British officers would have undoubtedly been tried and executed as war due to having ordered the bombings of Tokyo and other large Japanese cities filled with civilians, Not to speak of US President Harry S. Truman who ordered the dropping of two atomic bombs on a defeated and defenseless Japan who was in the process of arranging surrender terms.

    Read More
  104. @Flower
    I'm not sure the purpose of your reply. If a motion picture production company were to be so stupid as to truthfully show what war is, would you go see it? If a television "drama" were to show the truth of war, would you watch it? Hollywood naturally has to sanitize their stuff, that is the nature (mechanics?) of fiction, otherwise the film is all a waste of time.

    "News" does not get the same option, or, at least, it shouldn't have the option to sanitize it. Like I said, your "truthful news" won't even show ISIS decapitating people. Is that for the sensitivities of the audience? Or is it just to continue a greater lie?

    It is curious to me that you complain about fiction sanitizing the truth, but stand there mute and with you wanger in your hand when the "News" sanitizes (read: lies) about the truth. May you bubble never burst.

    Your reply contains no elements related to the contents of my post.

    Have a nice day.

    Read More
  105. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    To the earlier commentator that had no problem with America firebombing Japanese civilians because of what their soldiers were doing in China and Korea:

    What do you think should happen to American citizens because of what our soldiers have done overseas? Is it ok for Arabs to firebomb American civilians because our our policy disregards what happens to Arab countries and our soldiers have acted so savagely?

    Read More
  106. @syonredux

    I’m not defending the horrible actions of the Germans and Japanese during World War II. I just want Americans to understand the false homeland propaganda that America dispatches saints to save the world.
     
    How many people are stupid enough to think that armed forces numbering in the millions are composed of "saints?"

    So far as starving civilians as a strategy, the Allies killed almost a million Germans after the 1918 armistice by continuing the food blockade to force territorial concessions from the German government.
     
    Standard estimate is that the blockade led to 763,000 deaths.Germany starved over 2 million POWs to death in late '41-'42.Then there are the 632,000+ civilians in Leningrad who starved to death during the German siege of the city.....

    Then there were the millions of Japanese civilians who starved during WW II because of unrestricted American submarine warfare that sunk merchant ships filled with food, and sometimes American POWs.
     
    "[M]illions " of Japanese starved during WW2, eh? Some figures on Japanese civilian deaths during the war:

    Civilian:
    Compton's: 250,000
    HarperCollins: 300,000
    Urlanis: 350,000
    Encarta: 380,000
    Ellis: 393,400
    Large, Showa Japan:
    Tokyo: 97,301
    HiroShima: 140,000
    Nagasaki: 70,000
    all other cities: 86,336
    [Total killed in cities: 393,637]
    Eckhardt: 500,000
    Clodfelter: 658,595 or 672,000 (incl. disease, malnutrition and 299,485 by bombing)
    Britannica: 672,000
    Rottman, Japanese Infantryman 1937-45: 672,000
    Wallechinsky: 700,000
    Davison, The Pacific War Day by Day: 900,000

     

    Probably not.

    And, of course, the Japanese caused quite a few civilian deaths in China:

    Civilian:
    Eckhardt: 1,150,000 (1937-41), 850,000 (1941-45)
    Ho Ping-to, Studies in the population of China, 1368-1953 (1967) pp. 250-252
    Ho cited a survey that estimated 335,934 Chinese civilians killed in air raids and 1,073,496 killed otherwise. That would come to some 1.4 million civilians killed directly by war, 1937-45, but his methodology specifically did not include the Nanjing Massacre and the Yellow River flood.
    Kinder: 4,500,000
    Wallechinsky: 2-10M (1937-45)
    Urlanis: 7,500,000
    Ellis: 8,000,000
    HarperCollins: up to 10,000,000
    Encarta: 10,000,000
    Tohmatsu & Willmott, A Gathering Darkness, p.144: 5,870,000 (China + Manchuria, 1931-41) + 6,530,000 (1942-45) [=12,400,000]
    Gruhl, Imperial Japan's World War Two: 15,554,000 (p.143)
    Rummel: 15,608,000
    Civilian, non-democidal: 3,252,000
    Famine: 2,250,000
    Democide:
    by Japanese: 3,949,000
    by Nationalists: 5,907,000
    by Communists: 250,000
    MEDIAN: 8,000,000

    There were also the tens of thousands of German POWs who died in allied Rhineland camps after the war ended.
     
    Glad to see that you said "tens of thousands." For a moment, I thought that you were going to cite James Bacque's ludicrous figures.However, as always, comparisons are telling:

    [T]he total number of German POWs who died from all causes in US hands was 56,000 out of some 5M held.
     
    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Second

    Which stands in contrast to the huge number of Soviet POWs who died in the hands of the Germans:

    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.
     

    And other mass slaughter fun, like Dresden.
     
    Dresden:

    Seeking to establish a definitive casualty figure, in part to address propagandisation of the bombing by far-right groups, the Dresden city council in 2005 authorized an independent Historian commission to conduct a new, thorough investigation, collecting and evaluating all possible sources by modern scientific methods. The results were published 2010 and stated that a minimum of 22,700[3] and a maximum of 25,000 people[4] were killed.
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Fatalities


    And we can compare this to deaths caused by German bombing raids during the war:

    Belgrade, Yugoslavia (German air raid: 6 April 1941): 17 000
    Gilbert: 17,000 civilians k.

    Stalingrad, USSR (German air raid: 23 Aug 1942): 40 000
    Edwin Hoyt, 199 Days: the battle for Stalingrad (1993): 40,000 civilians k. in German air raid.
    Anthony Beevor, Stalingrad: the fateful Siege: 1942-1943: 40,000
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): same
     
    Total estimate for deaths caused by German bombing on the USSR during the war:

    Air Raids
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): "an estimated 500,000 Soviet citizens died from German bomb attacks."
     

    I’m not disputing your general argument (you’re totally correct about how the Germans deliberately starved to death about 2-3 million Soviet pows in 1941/42), but the figures you cited for casualties of German air attacks (like 40 000 killed in Stalingrad alone) are probably severely inflated. As far as I know, this issue is discussed in Richard Overy’s recent “The bombing war” (which I haven’t yet gotten around to reading, so I’m basing this on reviews and a cursory glance at the book) where Overy debunks the higher estimates as being impossible.
    The reason of course wasn’t any benevolence on the part of the Luftwaffe, just that Germany lacked heavy four-engined bombers and simply couldn’t create the kind of firestorm the Western allies managed to produce regularly in 1944/1945.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dutch
    Accurate or not, this is a very relevant point. In all the time Germany spent building its war machine, the idea of a tactical bomber for bombing civilian populations was never a priority. For all their misdeeds (real or created by Hollywood and those writing the history books), this level of sadism just never even occurred to them.
    On the flip side the US entered the war already equipped with legions of them. This point alone puts a lot of thing into perspective that you'll rarely see in Hollywood films or even spoken out loud.
    , @fnn
    Mainstream historians quoted on the Soviet POW issue:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html

    At dawn on June 22, 1941, began the mightiest military offensive in history: the German-led Axis attack against the Soviet Union. During the first 18 months of the campaign, about three million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner. By the end of the conflict four years later, more than five million Soviet troops are estimated to have fallen into German hands. Most of these unfortunate men died in German captivity.

    A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year -- June 1941-June 1942 -- when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    "When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    "Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans'."

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.
     
  107. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Ronald Thomas West

    The H-bomb program, known as the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), estimated last year that the B61 make-work plan would cost $7 billion and produce its first replacement bomb in 2019. The Pentagon countered that it would cost $10.4 billion and take until 2022. Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina reported April 11 in Arms Control Now that 400 new B61-12s are planned, at roughly $25 million-per bomb.[5] Boeing Corp. hopes to make hundreds of millions working on the 50-kiloton devices,[6] each one capable of a Hiroshima massacre times four
     
    It could also be pointed out these refurbished devices are being reduced from 400 kiloton warheads (Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists) making their use as tactical nuclear weapons 'more acceptable' (in the Orwellian Pentagon mentality, as NATO up the tension with Russian, a.k.a. 'war games in your face.)

    It could also be pointed out these refurbished devices are being reduced from 400 kiloton warheads (Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists) making their use as tactical nuclear weapons ‘more acceptable’ (in the Orwellian Pentagon mentality, as NATO up the tension with Russian, a.k.a. ‘war games in your face.)

    That’s a very unsettling thought now that you point it out. Calling smaller nuclear bombs “tactical” weapons makes it more likely that the threshold for their use would be lowered. The consequences are hard to imagine but seem likely to lead to a nightmare scenario. I really don’t appreciate our so-called leaders dragging the entire world to the brink of disaster with their reckless policy of confrontation and aggression. Voting, what is it good for?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West

    Voting, what is it good for?
     
    Particularly if it were the Department of Defense counts your vote:

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/voting_machines_gone_wild

    It's an old article but very germane to what appears to be going on with voting:

    "More troubling, the backers of the act and the manufactures of e-voting machines are a rat’s nest of conflicts that includes Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and Accenture. Why are major defense contractors like Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin mucking about in the American electoral system? And who are Accenture and EDS?"
    , @Carroll Price
    Voting, what is it good for?

    Voting in the presidential Primaries is good for nothing because electronic voting machines are programmed to determine the winner of those contest. Don't think so? Then ask Ron Paul who, in Iowa was well ahead of every other candidate in every presidential poles taken only a few days prior to the primary election. As to the presidential General Election there's need for any cheating because, at that point the War/Bankster Complex owns both candidates. Which means that, in the General election, voting is good for allowing the American people to choose which of the two candidate will serve as figure-head and spokesman for the national war party.
  108. You want to see a realistic depiction of the reality of war, specifically WWII, Google the movie Hellstorm and watch it. It presents a point of view you’ve never seen (and probably won’t like), along with historical accounts and footage you’ll NEVER see elsewhere. But if you can even get all the way through it, this petty story and all the petty commentary about it will feel shamefully inane. You will see and know the true reality of war and will so detest war and war movies that anyone with a soul will commit themselves to never seeing another war or war movie for the next 100 lifetimes. The true reality of war and all of its outcomes has no entertainment value. Shame on anyone looking to be entertained in this way. But I assure you, Hellstorm will fix you good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
    Hellstorm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMCOKNCwHmQ

    Since it is not fiction by Tarentino or the master manipulator Spielberg it probably will not have a Hollywood premier followed by a 6-part TV series. But those who enjoyed Inglorious Basturds will surely find that same well-developed aesthetic sense stimulated by Hellstorm.




    The deaths of German civilians by firestorm was not collateral damage,
    or to avenge actions of the German army such as the bombing of British cities in 1940, check the timeline a little more carefully --

    -Henry Morgenthau, Jr. recorded in his diary that he met with FDR to begin implementation of production of bombers in the first weeks of October 1938. ( The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War, by Peter Moreira.

    -Early in 1939 FDR signed an executive order to carry out "chemical and biological research at Dugway" in the desert in Utah (incidentally, about 100 miles from the NSA spy collection center). By 1942 the US Air Force, Standard Oil Corp., Harvard architects including "the Jewish architect" Erich Mendelsohn, and Hollywood film studios began their collaboration to build German Village and Japanese Village in Dugway. The buildings were to be used to help devise the most efficient means of creating a firestorm.

    (The US has built a mock-up of Iranian nuclear facilities, in Tennessee http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-built-a-secret-replica-of-irans-nuclear-facilities-to-help-gain-an-edge-in-nuclear-talks-2015-4?op=1 A Los Angeles Times article suggested that information to build the German Village-style mock-up may have been leaked by IAEA -- LA Times Reports the IAEA is Unlawfully Sharing Safeguards Information with the U.S. Government Plus ça change, plus c'est la même. )


    They planned to kill babies. As documentation by the U S Department of the Interior records, furnishings of "German Village" included:

    In the bedroom, the single beds were placed together in pairs, with a crib adjacent, reflective of a young family with an infant. During preliminary penetration tests with dummy bombs all furnishings except the rugs were removed, with windows and doors closed (Standard Oil Development Company Specifications for Special Teat Furnishings April 1943; Standard Oil Development Company Inspection Report on Furnishings April 1943; T.D.M.R. No. 713 July 1943). http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf
     
    and

    Standard Oil hired two furniture makers who had learned their craft in Germany and the Authenticity Division of RKO Studios in Hollywood. In addition, several of the subcontractors supplying the stipulated furniture were of Eastern European extraction. The ex-German furniture makers are not explicitly named in any reviewed documentation. However, in Standard Oil's acknowledgments, three individuals are grouped between Mendelsohn and Wachsmann and RKO Studios: Dr. Paul Zucker, Hans Knoll, and George Hartmueller. Subcontractors to Ford J. Twaits Company included the George Jocknowitz Store, Brooklyn (sofa), J. Stefanik, Buffalo (chairs), and Mr. Bjerk of the Jamestown Mattress Company, Jamestown, New York. Most of the furniture construction was contracted with Union-National, Inc., of Jamestown,NewYork. The penultimate contributor to the furnishing of the German test structure at Dugway was RKO Studios.

    Just prior to providing professional advice on the furniture appropriate for German urban dwellings, RKO released Hitler's Children (1942). Directed by Edward Dmytryk, the film made more money for the studio than any movie it had produced up to that date. Its anti-Hitler plot was set domestically; it is unknown whether furniture appea ring in Hitler's Children also completed the theatrics at Dugway (N.D.R.C. Miscellaneous Publication 282 May 1943; Baum 1947; Neibaur 1994). http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf
     
    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même
    , @jay
    Unfortunately I could not get into the film since the female narrator seems unsuited to the task. Its doesn't seem appropriate for a woman to narrate such a film.
  109. @Kat Grey
    Actually there was relatively little rape carried out by the British or Germans for that matter. The top prize goes to the Red Army who systemically violated German and Polish on a massive scale that often involved gang-rape leading to a large number of babies born in 1946 that were sired by unknown Russian fathers. The Americans and Free French did their fair share as well. It's about time the world was educated about this ugly stain on the Allied forces.

    Are you serious? Better consult the Russians about German atrocities in Russia. Of course, the Germans were paid in-kind by the rape of 93,000 (reported) women in Berlin. Scripture says “you reap what you sow.”

    Read More
  110. @German_reader
    I'm not disputing your general argument (you're totally correct about how the Germans deliberately starved to death about 2-3 million Soviet pows in 1941/42), but the figures you cited for casualties of German air attacks (like 40 000 killed in Stalingrad alone) are probably severely inflated. As far as I know, this issue is discussed in Richard Overy's recent "The bombing war" (which I haven't yet gotten around to reading, so I'm basing this on reviews and a cursory glance at the book) where Overy debunks the higher estimates as being impossible.
    The reason of course wasn't any benevolence on the part of the Luftwaffe, just that Germany lacked heavy four-engined bombers and simply couldn't create the kind of firestorm the Western allies managed to produce regularly in 1944/1945.

    Accurate or not, this is a very relevant point. In all the time Germany spent building its war machine, the idea of a tactical bomber for bombing civilian populations was never a priority. For all their misdeeds (real or created by Hollywood and those writing the history books), this level of sadism just never even occurred to them.
    On the flip side the US entered the war already equipped with legions of them. This point alone puts a lot of thing into perspective that you’ll rarely see in Hollywood films or even spoken out loud.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    One of the lesson learned by the US from the misnamed American Civil War is that the best way to defeat a determined enemy is by making war on it's civilian population.
    , @syonredux

    Accurate or not, this is a very relevant point. In all the time Germany spent building its war machine, the idea of a tactical bomber for bombing civilian populations was never a priority. For all their misdeeds (real or created by Hollywood and those writing the history books), this level of sadism just never even occurred to them.
     
    As opposed to the levels of sadism that did occur to the Germans:

    Babi Yar, near Kiev, USSR (massacre of Jews by Germans: Sept. 1941): 33 000
    PBS Nova: 34,000
    Gilbert: 33,771 k. in 3 days
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 33,771 according to German records
    Michael Hamm, Kiev: 33,000 (29-30 Sept.)
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): >30,000 (29-30 Sept.)
     

    Belzec, Poland (German death camp: March 1942-July 1943): 600 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 600,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and www.ushmm.org: 600,000
     

    Auschwitz, Poland (German death camp: Jan. 1942-Jan. 1945): 1 200 000 [make link]
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and www.ushmm.org
    Jews: 1,100,000
    Poles: 75,000
    Roma: 21,000
    Soviet POWs: 15,000
     

    Treblinka, Poland (German death camp: July 1942-Fall 1943): 800 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 700,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and www.ushmm.org: 700,000-850,000
     

    Majdanek, Poland (German death camp: Oct. 1942-Nov. 1943): 360 000 [make link]
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum
    Historical Atlas of the Holocaust: 360,000
    Holocaust Ency.: 170-235,000
    CNN: 200,000-360,000
     

    Chelmno, Poland (German death camp: 8 Dec. 1941-April 1943): 320 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 360,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum
    Historical Atlas of the Holocaust: 320,000
     

    Leningrad, World War II (8 Sept. 1941-27 Jan. 1944) 850 000 [make link]
    David Glantz, The Siege of Leningrad 1941-44: 900 Days of Terror
    Total number of soldiers and civilians who perished: 1.6M-2.0M
    Soviet civilians: 642,000 d. in blockade (est. at Nuremburg trials), plus another 400,000 d. in evacuations, for a total of about a million.
    Soviet soldiers: 1,017,881 k/cap/mis + 2,418,185 wd/sick = 3,437,066 casualties [p.179]. (Based on statistics of Leningrad "Front", i.e. army group [p.220: 332,059 k. + 24,324 non-combat dead + 111,142 captured & missing = 467,525 "irrevocable"], it appears that KIA would be 71% of k/c/m, or ca. 725,000)
    Erickson, Barbarossa: The Axis and the Allies. Table 12.4 (USSR KIA)
    Defense (10 July-30 Sept. 1941): 214,078
    Operation ISKRA (12-30 Jan. 1943): 33,940
    L'grad-Novgorod Offensive (14 Jan.-1 March 1944): 76,686
    [Total: 324,704]
    Clodfelter
    USSR: at minimum 100,000 mil. + 800,000 civ.
    Germans: 500,000 casu. k/w/c
    Harrison E. Salisbury, The 900 days: the siege of Leningrad (2003) p.516
    Overall total of 1,300,000 to 1,500,000 deaths, military and civilian.

     


    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.
     

    Soviet civilians, generally:
    The Cambridge History of Russia by Dominic C. B. Lieven, Maureen Perrie, Ronald Grigor Suny, p.226
    Premature deaths under German occupation: 13.7M, including
    "killed in hot or cold blood": 7.4M, incl.
    "taken to Germany and worked to death": 2.2M
    "died of overwork, hunger and disease": 4.1M
     
  111. @Dutch
    Accurate or not, this is a very relevant point. In all the time Germany spent building its war machine, the idea of a tactical bomber for bombing civilian populations was never a priority. For all their misdeeds (real or created by Hollywood and those writing the history books), this level of sadism just never even occurred to them.
    On the flip side the US entered the war already equipped with legions of them. This point alone puts a lot of thing into perspective that you'll rarely see in Hollywood films or even spoken out loud.

    One of the lesson learned by the US from the misnamed American Civil War is that the best way to defeat a determined enemy is by making war on it’s civilian population.

    Read More
  112. @anonymous

    It could also be pointed out these refurbished devices are being reduced from 400 kiloton warheads (Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists) making their use as tactical nuclear weapons ‘more acceptable’ (in the Orwellian Pentagon mentality, as NATO up the tension with Russian, a.k.a. ‘war games in your face.)
     
    That's a very unsettling thought now that you point it out. Calling smaller nuclear bombs "tactical" weapons makes it more likely that the threshold for their use would be lowered. The consequences are hard to imagine but seem likely to lead to a nightmare scenario. I really don't appreciate our so-called leaders dragging the entire world to the brink of disaster with their reckless policy of confrontation and aggression. Voting, what is it good for?

    Voting, what is it good for?

    Particularly if it were the Department of Defense counts your vote:

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/voting_machines_gone_wild

    It’s an old article but very germane to what appears to be going on with voting:

    “More troubling, the backers of the act and the manufactures of e-voting machines are a rat’s nest of conflicts that includes Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and Accenture. Why are major defense contractors like Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin mucking about in the American electoral system? And who are Accenture and EDS?”

    Read More
  113. @Dutch
    You want to see a realistic depiction of the reality of war, specifically WWII, Google the movie Hellstorm and watch it. It presents a point of view you've never seen (and probably won't like), along with historical accounts and footage you'll NEVER see elsewhere. But if you can even get all the way through it, this petty story and all the petty commentary about it will feel shamefully inane. You will see and know the true reality of war and will so detest war and war movies that anyone with a soul will commit themselves to never seeing another war or war movie for the next 100 lifetimes. The true reality of war and all of its outcomes has no entertainment value. Shame on anyone looking to be entertained in this way. But I assure you, Hellstorm will fix you good.

    Hellstorm

    Since it is not fiction by Tarentino or the master manipulator Spielberg it probably will not have a Hollywood premier followed by a 6-part TV series. But those who enjoyed Inglorious Basturds will surely find that same well-developed aesthetic sense stimulated by Hellstorm.

    The deaths of German civilians by firestorm was not collateral damage,
    or to avenge actions of the German army such as the bombing of British cities in 1940, check the timeline a little more carefully —

    -Henry Morgenthau, Jr. recorded in his diary that he met with FDR to begin implementation of production of bombers in the first weeks of October 1938. ( The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War, by Peter Moreira.

    -Early in 1939 FDR signed an executive order to carry out “chemical and biological research at Dugway” in the desert in Utah (incidentally, about 100 miles from the NSA spy collection center). By 1942 the US Air Force, Standard Oil Corp., Harvard architects including “the Jewish architect” Erich Mendelsohn, and Hollywood film studios began their collaboration to build German Village and Japanese Village in Dugway. The buildings were to be used to help devise the most efficient means of creating a firestorm.

    (The US has built a mock-up of Iranian nuclear facilities, in Tennessee http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-built-a-secret-replica-of-irans-nuclear-facilities-to-help-gain-an-edge-in-nuclear-talks-2015-4?op=1 A Los Angeles Times article suggested that information to build the German Village-style mock-up may have been leaked by IAEA — LA Times Reports the IAEA is Unlawfully Sharing Safeguards Information with the U.S. Government Plus ça change, plus c’est la même. )

    They planned to kill babies. As documentation by the U S Department of the Interior records, furnishings of “German Village” included:

    In the bedroom, the single beds were placed together in pairs, with a crib adjacent, reflective of a young family with an infant. During preliminary penetration tests with dummy bombs all furnishings except the rugs were removed, with windows and doors closed (Standard Oil Development Company Specifications for Special Teat Furnishings April 1943; Standard Oil Development Company Inspection Report on Furnishings April 1943; T.D.M.R. No. 713 July 1943). http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    and

    Standard Oil hired two furniture makers who had learned their craft in Germany and the Authenticity Division of RKO Studios in Hollywood. In addition, several of the subcontractors supplying the stipulated furniture were of Eastern European extraction. The ex-German furniture makers are not explicitly named in any reviewed documentation. However, in Standard Oil’s acknowledgments, three individuals are grouped between Mendelsohn and Wachsmann and RKO Studios: Dr. Paul Zucker, Hans Knoll, and George Hartmueller. Subcontractors to Ford J. Twaits Company included the George Jocknowitz Store, Brooklyn (sofa), J. Stefanik, Buffalo (chairs), and Mr. Bjerk of the Jamestown Mattress Company, Jamestown, New York. Most of the furniture construction was contracted with Union-National, Inc., of Jamestown,NewYork. The penultimate contributor to the furnishing of the German test structure at Dugway was RKO Studios.

    Just prior to providing professional advice on the furniture appropriate for German urban dwellings, RKO released Hitler’s Children (1942). Directed by Edward Dmytryk, the film made more money for the studio than any movie it had produced up to that date. Its anti-Hitler plot was set domestically; it is unknown whether furniture appea ring in Hitler’s Children also completed the theatrics at Dugway (N.D.R.C. Miscellaneous Publication 282 May 1943; Baum 1947; Neibaur 1994). http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même

    Read More
  114. @German_reader
    I'm not disputing your general argument (you're totally correct about how the Germans deliberately starved to death about 2-3 million Soviet pows in 1941/42), but the figures you cited for casualties of German air attacks (like 40 000 killed in Stalingrad alone) are probably severely inflated. As far as I know, this issue is discussed in Richard Overy's recent "The bombing war" (which I haven't yet gotten around to reading, so I'm basing this on reviews and a cursory glance at the book) where Overy debunks the higher estimates as being impossible.
    The reason of course wasn't any benevolence on the part of the Luftwaffe, just that Germany lacked heavy four-engined bombers and simply couldn't create the kind of firestorm the Western allies managed to produce regularly in 1944/1945.

    Mainstream historians quoted on the Soviet POW issue:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html

    At dawn on June 22, 1941, began the mightiest military offensive in history: the German-led Axis attack against the Soviet Union. During the first 18 months of the campaign, about three million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner. By the end of the conflict four years later, more than five million Soviet troops are estimated to have fallen into German hands. Most of these unfortunate men died in German captivity.

    A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year — June 1941-June 1942 — when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    “When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other ‘Slav submen’ POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin’s own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot].”

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    “Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners’ postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: ‘There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans’.”

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    "Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity."

    That's an exaggeration, according to what I have read about 30% of German pows in the Soviet Union died during their captivity (compared to almost 60% of Soviet pows who died in German capitivity, mostly in 1941/1942). Numbers were higher among Germans captured by the Soviets in the early stages of the war (and certainly, the Soviets often tortured captured Germans for information, then killed them), but the very low survival rate for those captured at Stalingrad wasn't typical on the whole.
    It's true that the Soviets didn't regard themselves bound by the Geneva conventions and did some fairly brutal stuff themselves, but much as I'd like not to accept it, it seems certain beyond doubt to me that the Germans did indeed deliberately starve to death or kill outright 2-3 million Soviet pows. There's a general consensus about that among serious historians, and I see no reason to doubt it.

    , @syonredux

    Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity.
     
    That figure sounds inflated:

    Richard Overy, Russia’s War (1997): official figures released under glasnost
    Germans: 2,388,000 POWs taken, of which 356,000 died
    Hungarians, Romanians, etc.: 1,097,000 taken, of which 162,000 died
    Japanese: 600,000 taken, of which 61,855 died
    [Total: 4,085,000 taken, of which ca. 580,000 died]
     

    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.
     
    POWs dying under Soviet control: Approx. 580,000

    POWs dying under German control: 3 million +

    If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other ‘Slav submen’ POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes.
     
    The Nazi response to the Warsaw Rebellion was far from humanitarian:

    Warsaw, Poland (urban uprising: 1 Aug.-2 Oct. 1944): 200 000
    Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 200,000 Poles, mostly civilians
    Spartacus: 18,000 insurgents + 150,000 civilians k. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWwarsawU.htm]
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 225,000 "in the largest single atrocity of the war."
    John Erickson, Hitler Versus Stalin ("lost", implied to be KIA)
    Polish Home Army: 15,000
    Germans: 17,000
    Civilians: 200,000-250,000 k., incl. 40,000 shot in 5 days
     
  115. Sadly most Americans are delusional about war. Movies, TV shows & talk show hosts (Sean Hannity’s a perfect example) must continue the asinine idea that fighting in wars is patriotic, that those who fight in wars are fighting for their country, fighting for our freedoms, for liberty, & freedom isn’t free—it requires the sacrificing of millions of human lives. No one wants to believe that soldiers are dying and/or killing for the enrichment of politicians & the already rich war industries. Movies such as the ones mentioned help further the government’s agenda of continual war. Unfortunately, much of the population likes this noble rhetoric and clamors for ever-more war, death, & destruction. The ignorance and naïveté are tragic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eternal Vigilance
    History shows that some wars are necessary and some are the result of miscalculations! Hind sight is always very handy when it comes to the calculations as to necessary or not. Viet Nam was clearly a mistake on the part of Democrat President Lyndon Johnson. The Korean Conflict was not an error as our troops were under attack by North Korea. Our involvement in World War !! was necessary as Japan had already overrun much of the Pacific and clearly had designs on US territories including plans for a west coast invasion.

    The necessity for involvement in WW One, Iraq One and Iraq Two remains murky. I am troubled by the vision of a Saddam Hussein, immensely strengthened by his military takeover of the massive oil wealth of Kuwait to the point where his military would have dominated the entire Mideast. Since every Congressman save one voted for Iraq War Two, and the United Nations was clamoring for stopping Hussein's nuclear advances, it is not surprising that there was an overreaction. It is amazing the reactions that all of these two-bit dictators are able to create with their bluster and threats. If they did not have weapons of mass destruction, say like the child dictator of North Korea, they would be comic characters in a Porky Pig cartoon.
  116. @anonymous
    Hollywood tough guys like John Wayne made war propaganda movies that glorify war but of course they themselves never came close to any danger. The government has always tried to censor pictures of actual war that might create some cognitive dissonance such as photos of American soldiers laying dead in pools of water or of their mutilated corpses that might take some of the glamour out of it. Instead we get around the clock depictions of fake guts and glory.
    The reality is that America goes around the world searching for enemies; every conflict has been voluntary and optional. If one looks at the pattern it becomes clear that American policy is a predatory one. It always waits for a country to fall into a state of weakness before pouncing upon it or simply attacks smaller, weaker third world countries that it feels can't fight back. Vietnam came as a surprise since it was deemed to be a weaker third world country. The Spanish were weak and so were ripe to have their possessions taken away in 1898. In both world wars the US entered with it's troops at the very last minute after the Germans were already defeated so as to get in on the victory. Later on countries like Panama and Grenada were invaded as well as the more recent ones of Afghanistan and Iraq where they can blow up natives at long range with their fancy hi-tech weapons with impunity. This won't be shown in the movies.

    Not only did John Wayne not fight but he was a draft dodger. While some Hollywood actors actually did enlist in the military, Wayne ignored his draft notices and was able to sit out the war playing hero. I think that’s why he was so happy to play soldier (over compensation?) in the WWII films and was such a supporter of the Vietnam War. His “Green Berets” movie was a pure propaganda film supported by the warmongers in the Defense Dept.

    There is no better example of U.S. propaganda hypocrisy than the “hero” John Wayne.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    To this day, many Americans are firmly convinced that John Wayne actually participated in the battle of Iwo Jima and fought in the Vietnam War.
  117. @Kyle McKenna
    Thoroughly insulated from the death and destruction meted out daily in their name overseas, Americans nonetheless manage to affect a 15-year (and counting) national trauma upon having a couple buildings taken down. It's just another form of the outright treason practiced by our Hollywood Overlords that merkins celebrate something they know absolutely nothing about. And imagine that it's patriotism.

    The corrupt, US government purposefully keeps this crap alive in order to convince the American populace that wars are noble and necessary to protect our freedom.

    Read More
  118. @fnn
    Mainstream historians quoted on the Soviet POW issue:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html

    At dawn on June 22, 1941, began the mightiest military offensive in history: the German-led Axis attack against the Soviet Union. During the first 18 months of the campaign, about three million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner. By the end of the conflict four years later, more than five million Soviet troops are estimated to have fallen into German hands. Most of these unfortunate men died in German captivity.

    A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year -- June 1941-June 1942 -- when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    "When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    "Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans'."

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.
     

    “Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity.”

    That’s an exaggeration, according to what I have read about 30% of German pows in the Soviet Union died during their captivity (compared to almost 60% of Soviet pows who died in German capitivity, mostly in 1941/1942). Numbers were higher among Germans captured by the Soviets in the early stages of the war (and certainly, the Soviets often tortured captured Germans for information, then killed them), but the very low survival rate for those captured at Stalingrad wasn’t typical on the whole.
    It’s true that the Soviets didn’t regard themselves bound by the Geneva conventions and did some fairly brutal stuff themselves, but much as I’d like not to accept it, it seems certain beyond doubt to me that the Germans did indeed deliberately starve to death or kill outright 2-3 million Soviet pows. There’s a general consensus about that among serious historians, and I see no reason to doubt it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    The context was explained by Robert Conquest and Nikolai Tolstoy-both mainstream historians.
  119. @solontoCroesus
    Thank you for providing context that is somehow overlooked when movie-makers purport to be historians.

    David Stockman and Martin Sieff were hosted by the Committee for the Republic to discuss their study of World War I ---


    Entangling alliances plunged the major European powers into war. Could England have stayed out of the Great War in August 1914? Committee member Martin Sieff will explain the key role of Winston Churchill and Edward Grey in the British intervention. In 1915, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryant resigned after President Woodrow Wilson broke his campaign pledge of neutrality by selling munitions and extending loans to England and France. Taking sides created pressures which led America to go to war against Germany in April 1917. David Stockman will argue the counterfactual on U.S. entry into WWI.

    American intervention in the Great War changed the course of history. American doughboys broke the stalemate and allowed the British and French armies to defeat Germany in France. American intervention in the First World War was the equivalent of a European power coming to the United States during the Civil War and saying South wins, North loses. The Treaty of Versailles repudiated Wilson’s Fourteen Points on which Germany relied in their surrender. John Maynard Keynes walked out of the peace conference denouncing Wilson’s ineptitude and hypocrisy. In the Economic Consquences of the Peace, Keynes described Wilson as an egotistical idealist without the “intellectual equipment” to negotiate effectively with David Lloyd George and George Clemenceau. In a war to “make the world safe for democracy”, the British empire acquired an additional 8.2 million people and 862,549 square miles and the French empire gained 5.6 million people and 238,168 square miles. The British and French were allowed to carve up the Middle East among themselves, assign war guilt to Germany, crush their economy with vengeful reparations, and redraw Germany’s borders leaving German populations outside their country. Congress rejected Wilson’s utopian League of Nations, declared a separate peace with Germany and the Democratic Party suffered the worst defeat in American history in the 1920 presidential election.

    Transforming a European conflict into a world war and losing the peace set the stage for World War II. The Versailles Treaty laid the ground for the rise of the Nazi Party. The prolongation of WWI encouraged the communist takeover of Russia. Wilson's war of choice created the Espionage Act and violated American civil liberties. Thirty million Russians killed in WWII set up the Cold War. A hundred years after WWI, Germany is the arbiter of Europe and America is entangled in alliances around the globe. Wilson bequeathed America a civil religion that replaced the founding narrative of self-restraint and limits on power. His militant idealism -- adopted by humanitarian interventionists, neoconservatives, and assertive nationalists -- animates our foreign policy debates today. We have to “do something” constantly because Americans are a chosen people indispensable to our conception of world order. Both political parties embrace the Wilsonian narrative of America as “a force for good in the world.”


    David Stockman and Martin Sieff are students of the Great War and its long shadow. David gained national recognition as Reagan’s Budget Director before going on to a career on Wall Street. Martin’s career in journalism included stints at United Press International as Managing Editor, International Affairs, and the Washington Times as Chief Foreign Correspondent.
     

     
    ___________________________

    The Committee for the Republic is a citizen-based, non-partisan, nonprofit organization founded in 2003. The Committee sponsors speakers monthly on challenges to the American Republic, including the military-industrial complex, too-big-to-fail banks, campaign finance, and U.S. competitiveness. For questions or requests email James@Committeefortherepublic.org

    see also http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Republic

    “The Committee sponsors speakers monthly on challenges to the American Republic, including the military-industrial complex, too-big-to-fail banks, campaign finance, and U.S. competitiveness.”

    Surprised not to see Big Zion receive top billing in your list of challenges to the American Republic!

    Read More
  120. @Kyle McKenna
    Thoroughly insulated from the death and destruction meted out daily in their name overseas, Americans nonetheless manage to affect a 15-year (and counting) national trauma upon having a couple buildings taken down. It's just another form of the outright treason practiced by our Hollywood Overlords that merkins celebrate something they know absolutely nothing about. And imagine that it's patriotism.

    Well, there were 3000 people in those “couple of buildings” all of whom became nonexistent by fire, crushing, mangling and eventual disintegration. It was, indeed, a national trauma which you seek to trivialize.

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus

    It was, indeed, national trauma which you seek to trivialize.
     
    Which is worse,

    ---allegedly "trivializing" the destruction of three buildings with two planes (heh. sounds like a slogan one might see on an IDF T-shirt ),

    or

    not telling the whole truth about the event to the American people, then waging war on innocent people, killing untold tens of thousands of them, to avenge it?
  121. @foreigner
    "Then the US citizens will not need an article such as this to understand the most basic fact which almost all other people on planet Earth understand – there is no good war except fighting for your own home ."

    Indeed, I as a non-American find it difficult to understand the mindset of the American people. They maintain a gigantic and mind-boggingly costly military, they send their soldiers to die in large amounts and to kill in even greater amounts, in countries on the other side of the world... and their pubic somehow believes it is all necessary in order to defend their own freedom?

    The US is obviously a country that could get away with having a relatively small military and neutral foreign policy if it wanted.

    As a non-American, you are probably from a country that has directly solicited USA defensive aid against real or imagined enemies. After all, it is much cheaper in terms of treasury and lives to have the USA act as the World’s Policeman to protect your backside. It can be safely said that there are a few, very few, allies have remained loyal friends of the USA in these troubled times. The USA can indeed protect its shores if the libs will let us protect our borders and the hawks will eliminate military aid to “good times” allies.

    Does Obama’s ISIS Coalition stand the test of shared allied responsibilities for treasury, equipment, lives and limb? Hardly, it is a Presidential fiction fostered to keep the USA in a war that should be of greatest concern to members of the EU. Pull the plug on USA foreign aid and behind the scenes foreign subsidies by the military and the CIA and wait for the weeping and wailing that would emanate from our supposed allies. Time to wean the entire world off USA welfare!

    Read More
    • Replies: @foreigner
    "As a non-American, you are probably from a country that has directly solicited USA defensive aid against real or imagined enemies."

    As it happens, it's the other way around. Exclusively to curry American favor, my country took part in the unnecessary Iraq war.

    It remains true that if the US spent less in armaments, a few other countries would have to spend more.
  122. @Eternal Vigilance
    Well, there were 3000 people in those "couple of buildings" all of whom became nonexistent by fire, crushing, mangling and eventual disintegration. It was, indeed, a national trauma which you seek to trivialize.

    It was, indeed, national trauma which you seek to trivialize.

    Which is worse,

    —allegedly “trivializing” the destruction of three buildings with two planes (heh. sounds like a slogan one might see on an IDF T-shirt ),

    or

    not telling the whole truth about the event to the American people, then waging war on innocent people, killing untold tens of thousands of them, to avenge it?

    Read More
  123. Anonymous:

    But why limit yourself to analyzing American behavior during WW2. We already know that Americans raped and killed their way across America until the red man no longer existed.

    Some numbers:

    United States, eradication of the American Indians (1775-1890) 350,000
    Russel Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival (1987)
    Overall decline
    From 600,000 (in 1800) to 250,000 (in 1890s)
    Indian Wars, from a 1894 report by US Census, cited by Thornton. Includes men, woman and children killed, 1775-1890:
    Individual conflicts:
    Whites: 5,000
    Indians: 8,500
    Wars under the gov’t:
    Whites: 14,000
    Indians: 30-45,000
    TOTAL:
    Whites: 19,000
    Indians: 38,500 to 53,500
    TOTAL: 65,000 ± 7,500

    The overwhelming majority of Amerinds died due to disease, not violence

    Not to mention how many civilians were raped and killed in Asia since WW2. Of course the commentators here will try to explain these deaths and rapes away as somehow being less severe than the evil Russians.

    I have no figures on rape rates from the Korean War, Vietnam, etc.Do you have any data?

    Federalistforever:

    From the article you linked to:

    “If we concentrate on Auschwitz and the Gulag, we fail to notice that over a period of twelve years, between 1933 and 1944, some 12 million victims of Nazi and Soviet mass killing policies perished in a particular region of Europe, one defined more or less by today’s Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia.”

    This “particular region of Europe” being the region controlled by the Austro-Hungarian empire pre WWI.

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire did not control Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Belarus.They were part of the Russian Empire

    Germanreader:

    but the figures you cited for casualties of German air attacks (like 40 000 killed in Stalingrad alone) are probably severely inflated. As far as I know, this issue is discussed in Richard Overy’s recent “The bombing war” (which I haven’t yet gotten around to reading, so I’m basing this on reviews and a cursory glance at the book) where Overy debunks the higher estimates as being impossible.

    Thanks.I’ll check it out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    Philippine War was noted for US atrocities and mass killings of non-combatants.
  124. @fnn
    Mainstream historians quoted on the Soviet POW issue:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html

    At dawn on June 22, 1941, began the mightiest military offensive in history: the German-led Axis attack against the Soviet Union. During the first 18 months of the campaign, about three million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner. By the end of the conflict four years later, more than five million Soviet troops are estimated to have fallen into German hands. Most of these unfortunate men died in German captivity.

    A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year -- June 1941-June 1942 -- when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    "When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    "Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans'."

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.
     

    Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity.

    That figure sounds inflated:

    Richard Overy, Russia’s War (1997): official figures released under glasnost
    Germans: 2,388,000 POWs taken, of which 356,000 died
    Hungarians, Romanians, etc.: 1,097,000 taken, of which 162,000 died
    Japanese: 600,000 taken, of which 61,855 died
    [Total: 4,085,000 taken, of which ca. 580,000 died]

    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.

    POWs dying under Soviet control: Approx. 580,000

    POWs dying under German control: 3 million +

    If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other ‘Slav submen’ POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes.

    The Nazi response to the Warsaw Rebellion was far from humanitarian:

    Warsaw, Poland (urban uprising: 1 Aug.-2 Oct. 1944): 200 000
    Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 200,000 Poles, mostly civilians
    Spartacus: 18,000 insurgents + 150,000 civilians k. [Read More

  125. @Anonymous
    The American history of killing civilians isn't much better than that in Asia.

    America has killed and raped scores of civilians in Korea, Japan, Philippines, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc etc.

    Anonymous hates the USA until he needs us to protect his back side. I wonder what he would have to say if he lived under the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussein, etc. The list of dictators, despots, etc. is long. We get criticized by the likes of anonymous for not doing anything and indicted if we do. Maybe he would care to go and live under the likes of the current North Korea child dictator.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    You ignore the fact that the US created the despots you mention. As well as more recent ones like Al Qaeda and ISIS.
    , @Ronald Thomas West

    I wonder what he would have to say if he lived under the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussein, etc. The list of dictators, despots, etc. is long
     
    Our turn could be just around the corner:

    “Doug Coe offered Pol Pot and Osama bin Laden as men whose commitment to their causes is to be emulated. Preaching on the meaning of Christ’s words, he says, “You know Jesus said ‘You got to put Him before mother-father-brother sister? Hitler, Lenin, Mao, that’s what they taught the kids. Mao even had the kids killing their own mother and father. But it wasn’t murder. It was for building the new nation. The new kingdom”

    http://www.salon.com/2009/07/21/c_street/
     
    , @Anonymous
    Actually I loved America a great deal until I realized how curious it was that we were always at war. Then I realized that America was not what we thought it was, and I was wrong to believe the American fairy tails about freedom and democracy.

    The truth is, no one criticizes America for not going to war more. The whole world is growing tired of American adventurism and would welcome if America would just leave everyone else alone.

    A lot of those evil leaders we needed saving from were a product of our own meddling in past wars.
  126. @Dutch
    Accurate or not, this is a very relevant point. In all the time Germany spent building its war machine, the idea of a tactical bomber for bombing civilian populations was never a priority. For all their misdeeds (real or created by Hollywood and those writing the history books), this level of sadism just never even occurred to them.
    On the flip side the US entered the war already equipped with legions of them. This point alone puts a lot of thing into perspective that you'll rarely see in Hollywood films or even spoken out loud.

    Accurate or not, this is a very relevant point. In all the time Germany spent building its war machine, the idea of a tactical bomber for bombing civilian populations was never a priority. For all their misdeeds (real or created by Hollywood and those writing the history books), this level of sadism just never even occurred to them.

    As opposed to the levels of sadism that did occur to the Germans:

    Babi Yar, near Kiev, USSR (massacre of Jews by Germans: Sept. 1941): 33 000
    PBS Nova: 34,000
    Gilbert: 33,771 k. in 3 days
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 33,771 according to German records
    Michael Hamm, Kiev: 33,000 (29-30 Sept.)
    Richard Overy, Russia’s War (1997): >30,000 (29-30 Sept.)

    Belzec, Poland (German death camp: March 1942-July 1943): 600 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 600,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org: 600,000

    Auschwitz, Poland (German death camp: Jan. 1942-Jan. 1945): 1 200 000 [make link]
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org
    Jews: 1,100,000
    Poles: 75,000
    Roma: 21,000
    Soviet POWs: 15,000

    Treblinka, Poland (German death camp: July 1942-Fall 1943): 800 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 700,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org: 700,000-850,000

    Majdanek, Poland (German death camp: Oct. 1942-Nov. 1943): 360 000 [make link]
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum
    Historical Atlas of the Holocaust: 360,000
    Holocaust Ency.: 170-235,000
    CNN: 200,000-360,000

    Chelmno, Poland (German death camp: 8 Dec. 1941-April 1943): 320 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 360,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum
    Historical Atlas of the Holocaust: 320,000

    Leningrad, World War II (8 Sept. 1941-27 Jan. 1944) 850 000 [make link]
    David Glantz, The Siege of Leningrad 1941-44: 900 Days of Terror
    Total number of soldiers and civilians who perished: 1.6M-2.0M
    Soviet civilians: 642,000 d. in blockade (est. at Nuremburg trials), plus another 400,000 d. in evacuations, for a total of about a million.
    Soviet soldiers: 1,017,881 k/cap/mis + 2,418,185 wd/sick = 3,437,066 casualties [p.179]. (Based on statistics of Leningrad “Front”, i.e. army group [p.220: 332,059 k. + 24,324 non-combat dead + 111,142 captured & missing = 467,525 "irrevocable"], it appears that KIA would be 71% of k/c/m, or ca. 725,000)
    Erickson, Barbarossa: The Axis and the Allies. Table 12.4 (USSR KIA)
    Defense (10 July-30 Sept. 1941): 214,078
    Operation ISKRA (12-30 Jan. 1943): 33,940
    L’grad-Novgorod Offensive (14 Jan.-1 March 1944): 76,686
    [Total: 324,704]
    Clodfelter
    USSR: at minimum 100,000 mil. + 800,000 civ.
    Germans: 500,000 casu. k/w/c
    Harrison E. Salisbury, The 900 days: the siege of Leningrad (2003) p.516
    Overall total of 1,300,000 to 1,500,000 deaths, military and civilian.

    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.

    Soviet civilians, generally:
    The Cambridge History of Russia by Dominic C. B. Lieven, Maureen Perrie, Ronald Grigor Suny, p.226
    Premature deaths under German occupation: 13.7M, including
    “killed in hot or cold blood”: 7.4M, incl.
    “taken to Germany and worked to death”: 2.2M
    “died of overwork, hunger and disease”: 4.1M

    Read More
  127. @chet roman
    Not only did John Wayne not fight but he was a draft dodger. While some Hollywood actors actually did enlist in the military, Wayne ignored his draft notices and was able to sit out the war playing hero. I think that's why he was so happy to play soldier (over compensation?) in the WWII films and was such a supporter of the Vietnam War. His "Green Berets" movie was a pure propaganda film supported by the warmongers in the Defense Dept.

    There is no better example of U.S. propaganda hypocrisy than the "hero" John Wayne.

    To this day, many Americans are firmly convinced that John Wayne actually participated in the battle of Iwo Jima and fought in the Vietnam War.

    Read More
  128. @Eternal Vigilance
    Anonymous hates the USA until he needs us to protect his back side. I wonder what he would have to say if he lived under the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussein, etc. The list of dictators, despots, etc. is long. We get criticized by the likes of anonymous for not doing anything and indicted if we do. Maybe he would care to go and live under the likes of the current North Korea child dictator.

    You ignore the fact that the US created the despots you mention. As well as more recent ones like Al Qaeda and ISIS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FederalistForever
    You say the US "created" Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Do you also believe Abraham Lincoln "created" the Ku Kux Klan?
  129. @Eternal Vigilance
    Anonymous hates the USA until he needs us to protect his back side. I wonder what he would have to say if he lived under the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussein, etc. The list of dictators, despots, etc. is long. We get criticized by the likes of anonymous for not doing anything and indicted if we do. Maybe he would care to go and live under the likes of the current North Korea child dictator.

    I wonder what he would have to say if he lived under the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussein, etc. The list of dictators, despots, etc. is long

    Our turn could be just around the corner:

    “Doug Coe offered Pol Pot and Osama bin Laden as men whose commitment to their causes is to be emulated. Preaching on the meaning of Christ’s words, he says, “You know Jesus said ‘You got to put Him before mother-father-brother sister? Hitler, Lenin, Mao, that’s what they taught the kids. Mao even had the kids killing their own mother and father. But it wasn’t murder. It was for building the new nation. The new kingdom”

    http://www.salon.com/2009/07/21/c_street/

    Read More
  130. @Susan
    Sadly most Americans are delusional about war. Movies, TV shows & talk show hosts (Sean Hannity's a perfect example) must continue the asinine idea that fighting in wars is patriotic, that those who fight in wars are fighting for their country, fighting for our freedoms, for liberty, & freedom isn't free---it requires the sacrificing of millions of human lives. No one wants to believe that soldiers are dying and/or killing for the enrichment of politicians & the already rich war industries. Movies such as the ones mentioned help further the government's agenda of continual war. Unfortunately, much of the population likes this noble rhetoric and clamors for ever-more war, death, & destruction. The ignorance and naïveté are tragic.

    History shows that some wars are necessary and some are the result of miscalculations! Hind sight is always very handy when it comes to the calculations as to necessary or not. Viet Nam was clearly a mistake on the part of Democrat President Lyndon Johnson. The Korean Conflict was not an error as our troops were under attack by North Korea. Our involvement in World War !! was necessary as Japan had already overrun much of the Pacific and clearly had designs on US territories including plans for a west coast invasion.

    The necessity for involvement in WW One, Iraq One and Iraq Two remains murky. I am troubled by the vision of a Saddam Hussein, immensely strengthened by his military takeover of the massive oil wealth of Kuwait to the point where his military would have dominated the entire Mideast. Since every Congressman save one voted for Iraq War Two, and the United Nations was clamoring for stopping Hussein’s nuclear advances, it is not surprising that there was an overreaction. It is amazing the reactions that all of these two-bit dictators are able to create with their bluster and threats. If they did not have weapons of mass destruction, say like the child dictator of North Korea, they would be comic characters in a Porky Pig cartoon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Susan
    War is a racket, always has been, always will be. Read Marine General Smedley Butler's book, War is a Racket.
    , @solontoCroesus

    I am troubled by the vision of a Saddam Hussein, immensely strengthened by his military takeover of the massive oil wealth of Kuwait to the point where his military would have dominated the entire Mideast.
     
    With the assistance of former CIA station chief Jack O'Connell, King Hussein of Jordan had negotiated a resolution of the Kuwait conflict; Saddam Hussein was agreeable to the deal. George H W Bush and his team of advisors opposed a deal; Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Dennis Ross all saw the Iraq-Kuwait debacle as an opportunity for US to take advantage of the new unipolar world, the Berlin wall having fallen and the Cold War essentially ended.

    Gulf War I was a US power-grab; the imperial pivot.
    Bush II's Iraq War II followed on Bush I's Gulf War just as ineluctably as World War II followed on the Versailles treaty.

  131. @Eternal Vigilance
    History shows that some wars are necessary and some are the result of miscalculations! Hind sight is always very handy when it comes to the calculations as to necessary or not. Viet Nam was clearly a mistake on the part of Democrat President Lyndon Johnson. The Korean Conflict was not an error as our troops were under attack by North Korea. Our involvement in World War !! was necessary as Japan had already overrun much of the Pacific and clearly had designs on US territories including plans for a west coast invasion.

    The necessity for involvement in WW One, Iraq One and Iraq Two remains murky. I am troubled by the vision of a Saddam Hussein, immensely strengthened by his military takeover of the massive oil wealth of Kuwait to the point where his military would have dominated the entire Mideast. Since every Congressman save one voted for Iraq War Two, and the United Nations was clamoring for stopping Hussein's nuclear advances, it is not surprising that there was an overreaction. It is amazing the reactions that all of these two-bit dictators are able to create with their bluster and threats. If they did not have weapons of mass destruction, say like the child dictator of North Korea, they would be comic characters in a Porky Pig cartoon.

    War is a racket, always has been, always will be. Read Marine General Smedley Butler’s book, War is a Racket.

    Read More
  132. @Ronald Thomas West
    Just a few observations Phil.

    Jeb or Hillary, makes no difference, same Doug Coe 'family' cult, protecting their Christian mafia holdings in line with the organized crime the operational division of the CIA has historically been up to its neck in. Ted Cruz is the 'Batista' or Bush fallback candidate if Jeb can't overcome 'dubya's' legacy. There's your Nazis, my take.

    Nearly 40 comments in, I don't see a veteran speaking up (I waited) so here goes; when 122 rockets are dropping at 5am, you don't notice any pain when running for a bunker barefoot across sharp gravel. Anticipation is worse than action. When outside the wire driving, we came under RPG fire; at that moment you realize there's no control over what's coming down, so you don't worry and only do what needs doing, in this case keep driving (and give the warrant officer riding shotgun a verbal qualification in the use of my M16, he not touched a rifle since he'd qualified with a M14 in basic training.) I liked driving jeep, particularly after I'd been drafted for a mission as a backup LOH gunner on the Cambodia frontier (Tay Ninh.) My pilot had been enlisted infantry in a previous tour, he had to show me how an infantry style M60 operated from a hilltop landing pad. So, things can balance out. After, I understood why the regular gunner for that OH-58 would pause after breakfast, just at the point of walking from the chow hall to where the flight line came into view, to see if he would keep food down or vomit to start the day.

    We had a psycho killer who was a 50 Cal gunner the commanders loved, he was really good. A small time (White) hoodlum in 'the real world' you couldn't leave untended outside of combat. I stepped between him and a Vietnamese civilian who he'd have shot dead with his pocket 38 when he'd been short-changed at a roadside stand just outside of Saigon. Just part of the job, keeping a premium killer out of trouble and life uncomplicated with preventing a spurious murder.

    We were loading (American) bodies at Xuan Loc and rigor mortis stopped one of the body bags (on a stretcher) at the narrow door of the bunker he'd been temporarily kept in (a mid-point transfer.) I grabbed his arms (elbows) and pulled them up so we could get him out to the chopper. You don't think about it after. At least for a long while. But you can get caught off guard. Such as the time I went to walk the grounds of a Buddhist temple to get away from it all and instead was confronted with a beggar whose face had been pretty much entirely burned away with napalm, no nose, no lips, no ears, eyes just like large white cataracts, no iris or pupils.

    I can imagine those (many) with more graphic experience than mine would probably simply prefer not to recall, it could be the best remedy for some. Insofar as the veteran's service clubs, American Legion & Veterans of Foreign Wars, drinking and war stories just weren't my style. But my guess would be, as a general rule, those most immersed in combat would be the least likely to frequent these places.

    All that said, I tend to agree with Flower; television news is the greater liar and at the end of the day, I agree with Smedley Butler: "War is a Racket"

    Thank you for your service and your common sense. I value your comments because they come from EXPERIENCE! By extension, the wars you call a racket are directly attributable to politicians inside the DC beltway who are deeply indebted to major corporations, overseas interests and weapons/munitions manufacturing.

    Strange but all those leftist and Conservative media mongers never extol the VICES of big business and weapons manufacturers to the viewing and listening public. In fact, most USA citizens would find it difficult to name these conflict dependent parasites who feed off the US government. It seems axiomatic that to budget for weaponry, politicians must create an enemy or enemies.

    Politicians are like buzzards hanging around to pick the innards of hanging lobbyist fruit thrown their way by unprincipled major moguls. There exists only a few solutions to the hawkish mentality of the left and of the right. Decentralize outside of the DC beltway all federal agencies headquarters including the military. Two, term limitations and rollover of federal agency leadership every four years. Three, selection by lottery of citizen review panels to undertake budgetary reviews, purchases of weaponry, turnover of all federal personnel to insure that these so-called public servants do not gain too much power. Amen!

    Read More
  133. @anonymous

    It could also be pointed out these refurbished devices are being reduced from 400 kiloton warheads (Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists) making their use as tactical nuclear weapons ‘more acceptable’ (in the Orwellian Pentagon mentality, as NATO up the tension with Russian, a.k.a. ‘war games in your face.)
     
    That's a very unsettling thought now that you point it out. Calling smaller nuclear bombs "tactical" weapons makes it more likely that the threshold for their use would be lowered. The consequences are hard to imagine but seem likely to lead to a nightmare scenario. I really don't appreciate our so-called leaders dragging the entire world to the brink of disaster with their reckless policy of confrontation and aggression. Voting, what is it good for?

    Voting, what is it good for?

    Voting in the presidential Primaries is good for nothing because electronic voting machines are programmed to determine the winner of those contest. Don’t think so? Then ask Ron Paul who, in Iowa was well ahead of every other candidate in every presidential poles taken only a few days prior to the primary election. As to the presidential General Election there’s need for any cheating because, at that point the War/Bankster Complex owns both candidates. Which means that, in the General election, voting is good for allowing the American people to choose which of the two candidate will serve as figure-head and spokesman for the national war party.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    Some voting at the local level might be good for creating "foco" of resistance. Mostly in anticipation of the weakening of power at the center.
  134. @German_reader
    "Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity."

    That's an exaggeration, according to what I have read about 30% of German pows in the Soviet Union died during their captivity (compared to almost 60% of Soviet pows who died in German capitivity, mostly in 1941/1942). Numbers were higher among Germans captured by the Soviets in the early stages of the war (and certainly, the Soviets often tortured captured Germans for information, then killed them), but the very low survival rate for those captured at Stalingrad wasn't typical on the whole.
    It's true that the Soviets didn't regard themselves bound by the Geneva conventions and did some fairly brutal stuff themselves, but much as I'd like not to accept it, it seems certain beyond doubt to me that the Germans did indeed deliberately starve to death or kill outright 2-3 million Soviet pows. There's a general consensus about that among serious historians, and I see no reason to doubt it.

    The context was explained by Robert Conquest and Nikolai Tolstoy-both mainstream historians.

    Read More
  135. @syonredux
    Anonymous:

    But why limit yourself to analyzing American behavior during WW2. We already know that Americans raped and killed their way across America until the red man no longer existed.
     
    Some numbers:

    United States, eradication of the American Indians (1775-1890) 350,000
    Russel Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival (1987)
    Overall decline
    From 600,000 (in 1800) to 250,000 (in 1890s)
    Indian Wars, from a 1894 report by US Census, cited by Thornton. Includes men, woman and children killed, 1775-1890:
    Individual conflicts:
    Whites: 5,000
    Indians: 8,500
    Wars under the gov't:
    Whites: 14,000
    Indians: 30-45,000
    TOTAL:
    Whites: 19,000
    Indians: 38,500 to 53,500
    TOTAL: 65,000 ± 7,500
     
    The overwhelming majority of Amerinds died due to disease, not violence

    Not to mention how many civilians were raped and killed in Asia since WW2. Of course the commentators here will try to explain these deaths and rapes away as somehow being less severe than the evil Russians.
     
    I have no figures on rape rates from the Korean War, Vietnam, etc.Do you have any data?


    Federalistforever:

    From the article you linked to:

    “If we concentrate on Auschwitz and the Gulag, we fail to notice that over a period of twelve years, between 1933 and 1944, some 12 million victims of Nazi and Soviet mass killing policies perished in a particular region of Europe, one defined more or less by today’s Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia.”

    This “particular region of Europe” being the region controlled by the Austro-Hungarian empire pre WWI.
     
    The Austro-Hungarian Empire did not control Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Belarus.They were part of the Russian Empire




    Germanreader:

    but the figures you cited for casualties of German air attacks (like 40 000 killed in Stalingrad alone) are probably severely inflated. As far as I know, this issue is discussed in Richard Overy’s recent “The bombing war” (which I haven’t yet gotten around to reading, so I’m basing this on reviews and a cursory glance at the book) where Overy debunks the higher estimates as being impossible.
     
    Thanks.I'll check it out.

    Philippine War was noted for US atrocities and mass killings of non-combatants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Philippine War was noted for US atrocities and mass killings of non-combatants.
     
    Some numbers:

    Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace (also FAS 2000)
    Combat
    US: 4,234
    Filipino: 16,000
    Filipino civilians: 200,000 of disease/famine
    Clodfelter
    US: 4,234 d, incl. 1,073 in combat
    Filipino battle: 16,000
    Filipino civilians: 200,000
    Leon Wolff Little Brown Brother (1961) p.360
    US, battle: 4,234
    Filipino, battle: 16,000 ("actually counted") to >20,000 ("true total")
    Filipino civilians: 200,000 of disease
     

    John Gates ("War-Related Deaths in the Philippines, 1898-1902", Pacific Historical Review 53:367 (1983)) estimates a demographic shortfall between 127,593 and 362,659. A 1902 cholera epidemic killed a recorded 137,505,
     
    Filipino deaths due to violence: approx 20,000


    Disease/famine: approx 200,000, with 137,505 dying from cholera
    , @syonredux

    Philippine War was noted for US atrocities and mass killings of non-combatants.
     
    And Imperial Germany in the same timeframe was engaging in some empire building in Africa:

    Herero War, German Southwest Africa (1904-07): 75,000
    1911 Britannica: 5,000 Germans, 20-30,000 Herero k
    Thomas Pakenham, The Scramble for Africa, p.615: The Nama population was reduced from 20,000 to 9,800 [-10,200], the Herero from 80,000 to 15,000 [-65,000].
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998): 75,000 Africans
    Eckhardt: 80,000 civilians
     

    Maji-Maji Revolt, German East Africa (1905-07): 175,000
    R. July, A History of the African People (1974): 70,000
    Rudolf von Albertini, European Colonial Rule, 1880-1940: official estimate of 75,000
    1911 Britannica: officially 120,000 men, women and children
    Eckhardt: 150,000
    Dict.Wars: 200,000
    Cambridge History of Africa: 200,000 total, 400 on the German side incl. 15 whites
    Robert Edgerton, The Fall of the Asante Empire: 250-300,000
    T. Packenham, The Scramble for Africa (1991): 250-300,000
     
  136. @Carroll Price
    Voting, what is it good for?

    Voting in the presidential Primaries is good for nothing because electronic voting machines are programmed to determine the winner of those contest. Don't think so? Then ask Ron Paul who, in Iowa was well ahead of every other candidate in every presidential poles taken only a few days prior to the primary election. As to the presidential General Election there's need for any cheating because, at that point the War/Bankster Complex owns both candidates. Which means that, in the General election, voting is good for allowing the American people to choose which of the two candidate will serve as figure-head and spokesman for the national war party.

    Some voting at the local level might be good for creating “foco” of resistance. Mostly in anticipation of the weakening of power at the center.

    Read More
  137. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Eternal Vigilance
    Anonymous hates the USA until he needs us to protect his back side. I wonder what he would have to say if he lived under the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussein, etc. The list of dictators, despots, etc. is long. We get criticized by the likes of anonymous for not doing anything and indicted if we do. Maybe he would care to go and live under the likes of the current North Korea child dictator.

    Actually I loved America a great deal until I realized how curious it was that we were always at war. Then I realized that America was not what we thought it was, and I was wrong to believe the American fairy tails about freedom and democracy.

    The truth is, no one criticizes America for not going to war more. The whole world is growing tired of American adventurism and would welcome if America would just leave everyone else alone.

    A lot of those evil leaders we needed saving from were a product of our own meddling in past wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Actually I loved America a great deal until I realized how curious it was that we were always at war. Then I realized that America was not what we thought it was, and I was wrong to believe the American fairy tails about freedom and democracy.
     
    Yes, at some point a person starts to look at what's actually being done rather than just blindly accepting what they've been told. That's when they realize that the US is a permanent warfare state. Any period of peace is really just a lull between conflicts.
  138. @Eternal Vigilance
    History shows that some wars are necessary and some are the result of miscalculations! Hind sight is always very handy when it comes to the calculations as to necessary or not. Viet Nam was clearly a mistake on the part of Democrat President Lyndon Johnson. The Korean Conflict was not an error as our troops were under attack by North Korea. Our involvement in World War !! was necessary as Japan had already overrun much of the Pacific and clearly had designs on US territories including plans for a west coast invasion.

    The necessity for involvement in WW One, Iraq One and Iraq Two remains murky. I am troubled by the vision of a Saddam Hussein, immensely strengthened by his military takeover of the massive oil wealth of Kuwait to the point where his military would have dominated the entire Mideast. Since every Congressman save one voted for Iraq War Two, and the United Nations was clamoring for stopping Hussein's nuclear advances, it is not surprising that there was an overreaction. It is amazing the reactions that all of these two-bit dictators are able to create with their bluster and threats. If they did not have weapons of mass destruction, say like the child dictator of North Korea, they would be comic characters in a Porky Pig cartoon.

    I am troubled by the vision of a Saddam Hussein, immensely strengthened by his military takeover of the massive oil wealth of Kuwait to the point where his military would have dominated the entire Mideast.

    With the assistance of former CIA station chief Jack O’Connell, King Hussein of Jordan had negotiated a resolution of the Kuwait conflict; Saddam Hussein was agreeable to the deal. George H W Bush and his team of advisors opposed a deal; Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Dennis Ross all saw the Iraq-Kuwait debacle as an opportunity for US to take advantage of the new unipolar world, the Berlin wall having fallen and the Cold War essentially ended.

    Gulf War I was a US power-grab; the imperial pivot.
    Bush II’s Iraq War II followed on Bush I’s Gulf War just as ineluctably as World War II followed on the Versailles treaty.

    Read More
  139. @Orville H. Larson
    Oh, hell, give John Wayne a break. Remember, it was The Duke who took Normandy and Iwo Jima. That part of the historical record remains intact!

    Seriously, Wayne--for whatever reason--avoided service during WW2. I wonder how Wayne looked his fellow actors James Stewart (Army Air Force), Clark Gable (Army Air Force), Henry Fonda (Navy), George Montgomery (Navy), Robert Taylor (Navy), Tyrone Power (Marine Corps), Audie Murphy (Army) in the eye. . . .

    This dead horse was already beaten to death a hundred times over in previous threads. Suffice it to say you’re listing 7 men who served and none but Wayne who didn’t serve, and not taking into account age, health, or family status. America in WW2 was not the South in the Civil War and many men including 2 of my uncles didn’t serve in WW2 or any time afterwards, often for very good reasons, sometimes for borderline reasons, maybe in some cases because of conniving, cowardice, etc.

    Read More
  140. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Actually I loved America a great deal until I realized how curious it was that we were always at war. Then I realized that America was not what we thought it was, and I was wrong to believe the American fairy tails about freedom and democracy.

    The truth is, no one criticizes America for not going to war more. The whole world is growing tired of American adventurism and would welcome if America would just leave everyone else alone.

    A lot of those evil leaders we needed saving from were a product of our own meddling in past wars.

    Actually I loved America a great deal until I realized how curious it was that we were always at war. Then I realized that America was not what we thought it was, and I was wrong to believe the American fairy tails about freedom and democracy.

    Yes, at some point a person starts to look at what’s actually being done rather than just blindly accepting what they’ve been told. That’s when they realize that the US is a permanent warfare state. Any period of peace is really just a lull between conflicts.

    Read More
  141. @fnn
    Philippine War was noted for US atrocities and mass killings of non-combatants.

    Philippine War was noted for US atrocities and mass killings of non-combatants.

    Some numbers:

    Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace (also FAS 2000)
    Combat
    US: 4,234
    Filipino: 16,000
    Filipino civilians: 200,000 of disease/famine
    Clodfelter
    US: 4,234 d, incl. 1,073 in combat
    Filipino battle: 16,000
    Filipino civilians: 200,000
    Leon Wolff Little Brown Brother (1961) p.360
    US, battle: 4,234
    Filipino, battle: 16,000 (“actually counted”) to >20,000 (“true total”)
    Filipino civilians: 200,000 of disease

    John Gates (“War-Related Deaths in the Philippines, 1898-1902″, Pacific Historical Review 53:367 (1983)) estimates a demographic shortfall between 127,593 and 362,659. A 1902 cholera epidemic killed a recorded 137,505,

    Filipino deaths due to violence: approx 20,000

    Disease/famine: approx 200,000, with 137,505 dying from cholera

    Read More
  142. @fnn
    Philippine War was noted for US atrocities and mass killings of non-combatants.

    Philippine War was noted for US atrocities and mass killings of non-combatants.

    And Imperial Germany in the same timeframe was engaging in some empire building in Africa:

    Herero War, German Southwest Africa (1904-07): 75,000
    1911 Britannica: 5,000 Germans, 20-30,000 Herero k
    Thomas Pakenham, The Scramble for Africa, p.615: The Nama population was reduced from 20,000 to 9,800 [-10,200], the Herero from 80,000 to 15,000 [-65,000].
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998): 75,000 Africans
    Eckhardt: 80,000 civilians

    Maji-Maji Revolt, German East Africa (1905-07): 175,000
    R. July, A History of the African People (1974): 70,000
    Rudolf von Albertini, European Colonial Rule, 1880-1940: official estimate of 75,000
    1911 Britannica: officially 120,000 men, women and children
    Eckhardt: 150,000
    Dict.Wars: 200,000
    Cambridge History of Africa: 200,000 total, 400 on the German side incl. 15 whites
    Robert Edgerton, The Fall of the Asante Empire: 250-300,000
    T. Packenham, The Scramble for Africa (1991): 250-300,000

    Read More
  143. Syon, you are a Team USA tool. You think the diseases those Phillipinos died from had nothing to do with US actions? And German actions are irrelevant in evaluating American actions, what a crock.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Syon, you are a Team USA tool.
     
    I prefer to think of myself as an Anglo blunt instrument

    You think the diseases those Phillipinos died from had nothing to do with US actions?
     
    Of course not, dear fellow.On the other hand, they were not gassed, shot, or bayoneted to death.....

    And German actions are irrelevant in evaluating American actions, what a crock.
     
    Actually, seeing as how American actions were brought up as a way to diminish/explain away German actions, I would argue otherwise.
  144. @Beefcake the Mighty
    Syon, you are a Team USA tool. You think the diseases those Phillipinos died from had nothing to do with US actions? And German actions are irrelevant in evaluating American actions, what a crock.

    Syon, you are a Team USA tool.

    I prefer to think of myself as an Anglo blunt instrument

    You think the diseases those Phillipinos died from had nothing to do with US actions?

    Of course not, dear fellow.On the other hand, they were not gassed, shot, or bayoneted to death…..

    And German actions are irrelevant in evaluating American actions, what a crock.

    Actually, seeing as how American actions were brought up as a way to diminish/explain away German actions, I would argue otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus

    Of course not, dear fellow.On the other hand, they were not gassed, shot, or bayoneted to death…..
     
    ... which we all know is ever so much more humane a way to die than to be boiled in hot asphalt or starved to death or raped to death after having had one's breasts mutilated.

    The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915 - 1919, by C. Paul Vincent.

    The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940 - 1945 by Jorg Friedrich

    Germany Must Perish! published 1941 by Theodore N. Kaufman (this booklet has been dismissed as a proposal that "shouldn't surprise anyone given the circumstances" ' a one-off by a rogue publisher who happened to be Jewish. But consider the board-based support for what this pamphlet proposed: the large-scale castration of German men:

    "A Sensational Idea" - Time Magazine
    "A Provocative Theory-Interestingly Presented" - Washington Post
    "A Plan for Permanent Peace among Civilized Nations" - New York Times **
    "Frankly Presents the Dread Background of the Nazi Soul" - Philadelphia Record **

    In other words, just as Benjamin Ginsberg narrates in "How the Jews Defeated Hitler," the combination of popular press and Hollywood movies, which Ginsberg reports were produced by Jewish directors and producers, reduced the American people to brutes braying for their brother's blood.

    Consider also that the "circumstances" implied, i.e. the holocaust of Jews, is not claimed to have been initiated until ~1942.

    ** had the plan been carried out -- more thoroughly than actually occurred as Allied forces starved or brutalized to death much of Germany's young men such that a 1956 American newspaper reported that only one in six German women of reproductive age could find a mate in Germany-- the thousands of German scientists impressed into labor for Soviet Russia would not have been alive to lend their exceptional skills to the industrialization of USSR. )

    The High Cost of Vengeance by Freda Utley 1949

    Hellstorm: The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany

    Orderly and Humane: The Expulsions of the Germans after the Second World War by R M Douglas, Yale University Press 2012
    , @solontoCroesus

    Actually, seeing as how American actions were brought up as a way to diminish/explain away German actions, I would argue otherwise.
     
    The calendar is your friend, dear fellow; rather, it is the friend of persons capable of critical thought.



    As Anthony Sutton discovered and narrated, The Roosevelts have been in league with big banks and socialist ideologues since as far back as the 1840s, when the served as go-betweens for Wall Street bankers and Tammany Hall.

    USA 1 Zionist Jews n/a Germany -- n/a

    By the 19-teens FDR had expanded the Wall Street bankers - political corruption racket to a national, then international scale.

    Woodrow Wilson held the realm and involved the US unnecessarily but very lucratively in a war in Europe that was a boon to the Wall Street bankers who bet and profited from both -- or rather, three sides of the conflict: while Britain lost the flower of its elite; much of France and Belgium were in ruins, and 800,000 German civilians died of starvation in WWI, zionist Jews returned from Versailles with a dual victory: a homeland for Jews on homeland of Arabs and Christians in Palestine, and dominance over political and social-cultural-economic affairs in Germany, while Anglo, American, and Jewish financiers manipulated the Russian, German, British and American financial systems in the favor of USA, which emerged from WWI with a corner on the world's gold.
    WWI and post-war era (1914 - 1933)

    USA 19 Zionist Jews 19 Germany 0

    As Sutton further records and Peter Moreira corroborates in "The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau, Jr. . .." , FDR and Jewish financiers further manipulated the economies of Russia and Germany to benefit the bankers and corporate interests. Ordinary Germans, British, and Americans experienced hyperinflation and depression. In contrast, Edwin Black reports in "The Transfer Agreement" that by ~1934 the Jewish zionist project in Palestine was the most prosperous enclave on the planet; by 1938 Erich Mendelsohn had built a luxury residence for Chaim Weizmann in Rehovoth, Arabs had been displaced from the major ports and agricultural lands.

    USA 5 Zionist Jews 5 Germany 0

    By early October 1938 zionist Jews got a major bug up their collective arses that coincided with FDR's scheme to simultaneously undermine the British empire to the benefit of USA; set Bolshevik Stalinism in hot conflict with Socialist Germany; and finance (invest in?) and arm both sides with the goal of ultimately controlling both sides. Control of Germany came about far more quickly than control of Communist Russia: as many as 9 million Germans were slaughtered or ethnically transferred between 1939 and 1948. Meanwhile, zionist Jews proceeded apace with the populating and arming of the zionist project in Palestine, even as Arab and Christian Palestinian natives were displaced -- yet another instance of ethnic cleansing.

    USA 10 Zionist Jews 8 Germany 0

    And the finally tally is:

    USA 35 Zionist Jews 32 Germany 0
  145. The late Anthony C Sutton had access to the tons of documents sequestered by Hoover Institute in California — until he started telling tales out of school.

    Sutton produced a trilogy exposing the complicity of FDR’s family and administrations, and major American corporations in simultaneously funding Bolshevik Russia, NSDAP Germany, and when the battle was done, providing more funding to USSR throughout the Cold War.

    Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The Remarkable True Story of the American Capitalists Who Financed the Russian Communists (First published 1974) new edition Jan 1, 2012
    by Anthony C. Sutton

    Wall Street and FDR: The true story of how Franklin D. Roosevelt colluded with Corporate America (first published 1975)

    Wall Street & the Rise of Hitler Jun 1976
    by Antony C. Sutton

    Wall Street and FDR: The true story of how Franklin D. Roosevelt colluded with Corporate America Feb 10, 2014

    Chances are your local public library does not have Sutton’s work on its shelves, likely because it spends most of its tax-payer provided funds on novels by Daniel Silva and Preston & Child and a score of other dismal fiction boilerplate impresarios, in league with failed novelists who now photocopy “creative nonfiction” — Erik Larson and Simon Winchester– and many many more of similar low-quality who have gotten rich by pandering to the holocaust industry which is, lo and behold, run by the same people who have a corner on the publishing industry who, mirabile dictu, find such favor in a brainwashed public that the manuscripts are turned over to screenwriters and Hollywood — run by the same people as the holocaust industry and the publishing industry — takes one more crack at wringing revenue out of propaganda, all the while financing the zionist project and emisseration of Palestinians and general mayhem in the Middle East.
    What’s not to like?

    Read More
  146. @syonredux

    Syon, you are a Team USA tool.
     
    I prefer to think of myself as an Anglo blunt instrument

    You think the diseases those Phillipinos died from had nothing to do with US actions?
     
    Of course not, dear fellow.On the other hand, they were not gassed, shot, or bayoneted to death.....

    And German actions are irrelevant in evaluating American actions, what a crock.
     
    Actually, seeing as how American actions were brought up as a way to diminish/explain away German actions, I would argue otherwise.

    Of course not, dear fellow.On the other hand, they were not gassed, shot, or bayoneted to death…..

    … which we all know is ever so much more humane a way to die than to be boiled in hot asphalt or starved to death or raped to death after having had one’s breasts mutilated.

    The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915 – 1919, by C. Paul Vincent.

    The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940 – 1945 by Jorg Friedrich

    Germany Must Perish! published 1941 by Theodore N. Kaufman (this booklet has been dismissed as a proposal that “shouldn’t surprise anyone given the circumstances” ‘ a one-off by a rogue publisher who happened to be Jewish. But consider the board-based support for what this pamphlet proposed: the large-scale castration of German men:

    “A Sensational Idea” – Time Magazine
    “A Provocative Theory-Interestingly Presented” – Washington Post
    “A Plan for Permanent Peace among Civilized Nations” – New York Times **
    “Frankly Presents the Dread Background of the Nazi Soul” – Philadelphia Record **

    In other words, just as Benjamin Ginsberg narrates in “How the Jews Defeated Hitler,” the combination of popular press and Hollywood movies, which Ginsberg reports were produced by Jewish directors and producers, reduced the American people to brutes braying for their brother’s blood.

    Consider also that the “circumstances” implied, i.e. the holocaust of Jews, is not claimed to have been initiated until ~1942.

    ** had the plan been carried out — more thoroughly than actually occurred as Allied forces starved or brutalized to death much of Germany’s young men such that a 1956 American newspaper reported that only one in six German women of reproductive age could find a mate in Germany– the thousands of German scientists impressed into labor for Soviet Russia would not have been alive to lend their exceptional skills to the industrialization of USSR. )

    The High Cost of Vengeance by Freda Utley 1949

    Hellstorm: The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany

    Orderly and Humane: The Expulsions of the Germans after the Second World War by R M Douglas, Yale University Press 2012

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    … which we all know is ever so much more humane a way to die than to be boiled in hot asphalt or starved to death or raped to death after having had one’s breasts mutilated.
     
    MMM, do you mean starved to death like the 632,000 plus civilian inhabitants of Leningrad during the German siege?Or do you mean starved to death like the 2 million plus Soviet POWs in late '41-early '42?

    As for boiled in hot asphalt, how about being subjected to terminal medical experiments?

    As for raped to death, how about the mass rapes committed by the Germans on the Eastern Front:

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/24/holocaust.rape/index.html

    Consider also that the “circumstances” implied, i.e. the holocaust of Jews, is not claimed to have been initiated until ~1942.
     
    Plenty of mass killings of Jews in the East had occurred before '42, dear fellow:

    Babi Yar, near Kiev, USSR (massacre of Jews by Germans: Sept. 1941): 33 000
    PBS Nova: 34,000
    Gilbert: 33,771 k. in 3 days
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 33,771 according to German records
    Michael Hamm, Kiev: 33,000 (29-30 Sept.)
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): >30,000 (29-30 Sept.)
     
    Rumbula massacre (November 30 and December 8, 1941): approx 25,000

    The Odessa massacre is the name given to the mass murder of Jewish and Romani population of Odessa and surrounding towns in Transnistria (now in Ukraine) during the autumn of 1941 and winter of 1942 while under Romanian control.

    Depending on the accepted terms of reference and scope, the Odessa massacre refers either to the events of October 22–24, 1941 in which some 25,000 to 34,000 Jews were shot or burned, or to the murder of well over 100,000 Ukrainian Jews in the town and the areas between the Dniester and Bug rivers, during the Romanian and German occupation. In the same days, Germans and Romanians killed about 15,000 Romani people.
     

    All in all, as many if not more Jews were killed by bullets as by gas, but they were killed by bullets in easterly locations that are blurred in painful remembrance. The second most important part of the Holocaust is the mass murder by bullets in eastern Poland and the Soviet Union. It began with SS Einsatzgruppen shootings of Jewish men in June 1941, expanded to the murder of Jewish women and children in July, and extended to the extermination of entire Jewish communities that August and September. By the end of 1941, the Germans (along with local auxiliaries and Romanian troops) had killed a million Jews in the Soviet Union and the Baltics. That is the equivalent of the total number of Jews killed at Auschwitz during the entire war. By the end of 1942, the Germans (again, with a great deal of local assistance) had shot another 700,000 Jews, and the Soviet Jewish populations under their control had ceased to exist.
     
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915 – 1919, by C. Paul Vincent.
     
    MMM, let's look at the numbers:

    The German Board of Public Health in December 1918 claimed that 763,000 German civilians died from starvation and disease caused by the blockade up until the end of December 1918.[2][3] An academic study done in 1928 put the death toll at 424,000.[4]
     
    424,000 to 763,000 Germans vs

    632,000 Soviet civilians plus 2 million plus Soviet POWs=2,632,000

    Hitler wins again.Gotta say, it's tough to beat that guy when it comes to killing en masse.

    In other words, just as Benjamin Ginsberg narrates in “How the Jews Defeated Hitler,” the combination of popular press and Hollywood movies, which Ginsberg reports were produced by Jewish directors and producers, reduced the American people to brutes braying for their brother’s blood.
     
    As opposed to the brutal behavior of the Germans towards the Jews:


    Belzec, Poland (German death camp: March 1942-July 1943): 600 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 600,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org: 600,000

    Auschwitz, Poland (German death camp: Jan. 1942-Jan. 1945): 1 200 000 [make link]
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org
    Jews: 1,100,000
    Poles: 75,000
    Roma: 21,000
    Soviet POWs: 15,000

    Treblinka, Poland (German death camp: July 1942-Fall 1943): 800 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 700,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org: 700,000-850,000

    Majdanek, Poland (German death camp: Oct. 1942-Nov. 1943): 360 000 [make link]
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum
    Historical Atlas of the Holocaust: 360,000
    Holocaust Ency.: 170-235,000
    CNN: 200,000-360,000


    Chelmno, Poland (German death camp: 8 Dec. 1941-April 1943): 320 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 360,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum
    Historical Atlas of the Holocaust: 320,000

    Or towards Soviet POWs:


    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.

    had the plan been carried out
     
    What if? Well, if you insist.Let's have a look again at the Hunger Plan and Generalplan Ost:

    Yet even this corrected image of the Holocaust conveys an unacceptably incomplete sense of the scope of German mass killing policies in Europe. The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union. Had things gone the way that Hitler, Himmler, and Göring expected, German forces would have implemented a Hunger Plan in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1941–1942. As Ukrainian and south Russian agricultural products were diverted to Germany, some 30 million people in Belarus, northern Russia, and Soviet cities were to be starved to death. The Hunger Plan was only a prelude to Generalplan Ost, the colonization plan for the western Soviet Union, which foresaw the elimination of some 50 million people.
     
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    — more thoroughly than actually occurred as Allied forces starved or brutalized to death much of Germany’s young men such that a 1956 American newspaper reported that only one in six German women of reproductive age could find a mate in Germany– the thousands of German scientists impressed into labor for Soviet Russia would not have been alive to lend their exceptional skills to the industrialization of USSR. )
     
    As compared to the losses that the USSR suffered:

    Soviet civilians, generally:
    The Cambridge History of Russia by Dominic C. B. Lieven, Maureen Perrie, Ronald Grigor Suny, p.226
    Premature deaths under German occupation: 13.7M, including
    “killed in hot or cold blood”: 7.4M, incl.
    “taken to Germany and worked to death”: 2.2M
    “died of overwork, hunger and disease”: 4.1M
     
  147. @syonredux

    Syon, you are a Team USA tool.
     
    I prefer to think of myself as an Anglo blunt instrument

    You think the diseases those Phillipinos died from had nothing to do with US actions?
     
    Of course not, dear fellow.On the other hand, they were not gassed, shot, or bayoneted to death.....

    And German actions are irrelevant in evaluating American actions, what a crock.
     
    Actually, seeing as how American actions were brought up as a way to diminish/explain away German actions, I would argue otherwise.

    Actually, seeing as how American actions were brought up as a way to diminish/explain away German actions, I would argue otherwise.

    The calendar is your friend, dear fellow; rather, it is the friend of persons capable of critical thought.

    As Anthony Sutton discovered and narrated, The Roosevelts have been in league with big banks and socialist ideologues since as far back as the 1840s, when the served as go-betweens for Wall Street bankers and Tammany Hall.

    USA 1 Zionist Jews n/a Germany — n/a

    By the 19-teens FDR had expanded the Wall Street bankers – political corruption racket to a national, then international scale.

    Woodrow Wilson held the realm and involved the US unnecessarily but very lucratively in a war in Europe that was a boon to the Wall Street bankers who bet and profited from both — or rather, three sides of the conflict: while Britain lost the flower of its elite; much of France and Belgium were in ruins, and 800,000 German civilians died of starvation in WWI, zionist Jews returned from Versailles with a dual victory: a homeland for Jews on homeland of Arabs and Christians in Palestine, and dominance over political and social-cultural-economic affairs in Germany, while Anglo, American, and Jewish financiers manipulated the Russian, German, British and American financial systems in the favor of USA, which emerged from WWI with a corner on the world’s gold.
    WWI and post-war era (1914 – 1933)

    USA 19 Zionist Jews 19 Germany 0

    As Sutton further records and Peter Moreira corroborates in “The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau, Jr. . ..” , FDR and Jewish financiers further manipulated the economies of Russia and Germany to benefit the bankers and corporate interests. Ordinary Germans, British, and Americans experienced hyperinflation and depression. In contrast, Edwin Black reports in “The Transfer Agreement” that by ~1934 the Jewish zionist project in Palestine was the most prosperous enclave on the planet; by 1938 Erich Mendelsohn had built a luxury residence for Chaim Weizmann in Rehovoth, Arabs had been displaced from the major ports and agricultural lands.

    USA 5 Zionist Jews 5 Germany 0

    By early October 1938 zionist Jews got a major bug up their collective arses that coincided with FDR’s scheme to simultaneously undermine the British empire to the benefit of USA; set Bolshevik Stalinism in hot conflict with Socialist Germany; and finance (invest in?) and arm both sides with the goal of ultimately controlling both sides. Control of Germany came about far more quickly than control of Communist Russia: as many as 9 million Germans were slaughtered or ethnically transferred between 1939 and 1948. Meanwhile, zionist Jews proceeded apace with the populating and arming of the zionist project in Palestine, even as Arab and Christian Palestinian natives were displaced — yet another instance of ethnic cleansing.

    USA 10 Zionist Jews 8 Germany 0

    And the finally tally is:

    USA 35 Zionist Jews 32 Germany 0

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    As Anthony Sutton discovered and narrated, The Roosevelts have been in league with big banks and socialist ideologues since as far back as the 1840s, when the served as go-betweens for Wall Street bankers and Tammany Hall.
     
    Only since the 1840s? And here I though that you were going to at least go all the way back to 1694 and the establishment of the Bank of England.....

    Control of Germany came about far more quickly than control of Communist Russia: as many as 9 million Germans were slaughtered or ethnically transferred between 1939 and 1948.
     
    Graceful way of phrasing WW2, dear fellow.I also enjoyed the way that you conflated "slaughtered" with "transferred." Let's take a look at the numbers, shall we?


    Via WIKIPEDIA:

    The German Red Cross in 2005 put the total combined German military and civilian war dead at 7,375,800, including ethnic Germans outside of Germany and Austrians. This figure includes 4.3 million military dead and missing, 500,000 killed by strategic bombing, 300,000 victims of Nazi political, racial and religious persecution, 2,251,500 civilian dead in expulsions and 24,300 Austrian civilians.[1] In addition 200,000 Germans were murdered in the Nazi euthanasia program.[2]
     
    So, 7,375,800.First off, let's eliminate the "300,000 victims of Nazi political, racial and religious persecution." After all, we're sticking to what was done to Germany by others, not what she did to herself.And, just to show how generous I am, I'll leave in the 200,000 victims of the euthanasia program.


    That leaves us with 7,075,800.Next order of business, the "2,251,500 civilian dead in expulsions." Modern scholarship argues for a lower figure:

    Recent research on German expulsion losses:

    The Deutsches Historisches Museum puts the number of dead at 600,000, they maintain the official figure of 2 million cannot be supported.[114]
    In his 2000 study of German military casualties Rüdiger Overmans found 344,000 additional military deaths of Germans from the Former eastern territories of Germany and conscripted ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe. Overmans believes this will reduce the number of civilians previously listed as missing in the expulsions. Overmans did not investigate civilian expulsion losses, only military casualties, he merely noted that other studies estimated of expulsion losses from about 500,000 to 2,000,000. Overmans maintains that there are more arguments for a lower figure of 500,000 rather than the higher figures of over 2.0 million. He believes new research on the number of expulsion deaths is needed since only 500,000 of the reported 2,000,00 deaths have been confirmed.[112][115]
    The German historian Ingo Haar maintains that civilian losses in the expulsions have been overstated for decades by the German government for political reasons. Haar argues that during the Cold War the West German government put political pressure on the Statistisches Bundesamt to push the figures upward to agree to the Search Service combined total of 2.3 million dead and missing. Haar maintains that the Search Service figure of 1.9 million missing persons is based on unreliable information and that the actual death toll in the expulsions is between 500-600,000 which is based on confirmed deaths.[116][117][118]
    The German historians Hans Henning Hahn and Eva Hahn have published a detailed study of the flight and expulsions that is sharply critical of official German accounts of the cold war era. The Hahn's believe that the official German figure of 2 million deaths is a historical myth that lacks foundation. The Hahn's point out that the figure of 473,013 confirmed deaths includes 80,522 in the post war period; they maintain that most of the deaths occurred during the Nazi organized flight and evacuation during the war, and the Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union.

     

    So, 600,000 dead instead of 2,251,500.But, I'm feeling really generous, so let's stick with the higher figure of 2,251,500.


    So, 7,075,800 vs:

    Soviet civilians, generally:
    The Cambridge History of Russia by Dominic C. B. Lieven, Maureen Perrie, Ronald Grigor Suny, p.226
    Premature deaths under German occupation: 13.7M, including
    “killed in hot or cold blood”: 7.4M, incl.
    “taken to Germany and worked to death”: 2.2M
    “died of overwork, hunger and disease”: 4.1M
     
    That's 13.7 million civilians.That's without even bothering to count military losses...


    Then there's the attempt to exterminate Europe's Jews:

    Holocaust
    Extermination of the Jews:
    Reitlinger, Gerald, The Final Solution (1953): between 4,194,200 and 4,851,200 (this number is accepted by Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World History (1978))
    Brzezinski: 5,000,000
    Chirot: 5,100,000
    3,000,000 in death camps.
    1,300,000 massacred.
    800,000 by dis./maln. in ghettos
    David E. Stannard, “The Politics of Genocide Scholarship,” in Alan S. Rosenbaum, ed., Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide (1996), p. 178. By one estimate, 2.4 million of the 5.1 million victims of the Holocaust died of disease in ghettos and concentration camps.
    Rummel: 5,291,000
    Grenville: 5-6M
    Davies, Europe A History (1998): avg. c. 5,571,300 (puts the minimum at 4,871,000 and the maximum at 6,271,500.)
    MEDIAN: ca. 5.6M
    Nuremberg indictment: 5,700,000 (accepted by Britannica)
    Gutman, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990): 5,596,029 to 5,860,129
    P. Johnson: 5,800,000
    Wallechinsky: "nearly" 6,000,000
    Urlanis: 6M

     

    The Gypsies:

    Roma (Gypsies):
    Hammond: 250,000.
    Rummel: 258,000.
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 200,000-500,000.
    Porter: 500,000
    Brzezinski: 800,000
    Ian Hancock, "Responses to the Romani Holocaust" in Is the Holocaust Unique? (A. Rosenbaum, ed.) cites these:
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum: 250,000
    "several published estimates": >1,000,000
    Pauwels and Bergier: 750,000
    Financial Times (London): 500-750,000 in death camps and another million shot outside.
     
    Of course, I'll be here all day if I just keep on listing losses by nation.Here's one man's attempt to provide an overall estimate of Hitler's death toll:

    HITLER TOTAL:
    Courtois: 25,000,000
    Rummel: 20,946,000 democides
    Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: 17,000,000 (p.6)
    Brzezinski: 17,000,000
    Urlanis: 15-16,000,000 (11-12M civilians + 3.9M POWs)
    MEDIAN: ca. 15.5M
    Our Times: 13,000,000 (6M Jews + 7M others)
    Compton's: 12,000,000
    Grenville: 10,000,000, including 2M children.
    NOTE: These numbers only include outright murders, but keep in mind that some 28M civilians and 14M soldiers died in the European War. That's 42,000,000 deaths which can probably be blamed on Hitler to one extent or another.
     
    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Second


    So, 7,075,800 vs a median of 15.5 million.....
  148. Understand that the Waffen SS were the most lethal soldiers in the European war. By 1945 they had been fighting for nearly six years and they surely understood that when coming upon a disabled tank all one had to do was either go around it and ignore it or flank it and destroy it from its lightly armored rear.

    My understanding is the Waffen SS, although it generally had the best equipment on the German side, was sometimes a little too gung-ho and suffered unnecessary casualties as a result. Of course they wouldn’t have done anything as stupid as portrayed in this movie.

    I assume by “fighting for six years” you’re referring to the Waffen SS in general. It’s not as if any unit of men who invaded Poland in 1939 would have been still alive and fighting together in the closing days of World War II. One of the sillier bits of Saving Private Ryan is that Tom Hanks & co. have all been together through the North Africa invasion, the Italian campaign, and now Normandy.

    Thanks for your posts in this thread, syon.

    Read More
  149. @solontoCroesus

    Of course not, dear fellow.On the other hand, they were not gassed, shot, or bayoneted to death…..
     
    ... which we all know is ever so much more humane a way to die than to be boiled in hot asphalt or starved to death or raped to death after having had one's breasts mutilated.

    The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915 - 1919, by C. Paul Vincent.

    The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940 - 1945 by Jorg Friedrich

    Germany Must Perish! published 1941 by Theodore N. Kaufman (this booklet has been dismissed as a proposal that "shouldn't surprise anyone given the circumstances" ' a one-off by a rogue publisher who happened to be Jewish. But consider the board-based support for what this pamphlet proposed: the large-scale castration of German men:

    "A Sensational Idea" - Time Magazine
    "A Provocative Theory-Interestingly Presented" - Washington Post
    "A Plan for Permanent Peace among Civilized Nations" - New York Times **
    "Frankly Presents the Dread Background of the Nazi Soul" - Philadelphia Record **

    In other words, just as Benjamin Ginsberg narrates in "How the Jews Defeated Hitler," the combination of popular press and Hollywood movies, which Ginsberg reports were produced by Jewish directors and producers, reduced the American people to brutes braying for their brother's blood.

    Consider also that the "circumstances" implied, i.e. the holocaust of Jews, is not claimed to have been initiated until ~1942.

    ** had the plan been carried out -- more thoroughly than actually occurred as Allied forces starved or brutalized to death much of Germany's young men such that a 1956 American newspaper reported that only one in six German women of reproductive age could find a mate in Germany-- the thousands of German scientists impressed into labor for Soviet Russia would not have been alive to lend their exceptional skills to the industrialization of USSR. )

    The High Cost of Vengeance by Freda Utley 1949

    Hellstorm: The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany

    Orderly and Humane: The Expulsions of the Germans after the Second World War by R M Douglas, Yale University Press 2012

    … which we all know is ever so much more humane a way to die than to be boiled in hot asphalt or starved to death or raped to death after having had one’s breasts mutilated.

    MMM, do you mean starved to death like the 632,000 plus civilian inhabitants of Leningrad during the German siege?Or do you mean starved to death like the 2 million plus Soviet POWs in late ’41-early ’42?

    As for boiled in hot asphalt, how about being subjected to terminal medical experiments?

    As for raped to death, how about the mass rapes committed by the Germans on the Eastern Front:

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/24/holocaust.rape/index.html

    Consider also that the “circumstances” implied, i.e. the holocaust of Jews, is not claimed to have been initiated until ~1942.

    Plenty of mass killings of Jews in the East had occurred before ’42, dear fellow:

    Babi Yar, near Kiev, USSR (massacre of Jews by Germans: Sept. 1941): 33 000
    PBS Nova: 34,000
    Gilbert: 33,771 k. in 3 days
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 33,771 according to German records
    Michael Hamm, Kiev: 33,000 (29-30 Sept.)
    Richard Overy, Russia’s War (1997): >30,000 (29-30 Sept.)

    Rumbula massacre (November 30 and December 8, 1941): approx 25,000

    The Odessa massacre is the name given to the mass murder of Jewish and Romani population of Odessa and surrounding towns in Transnistria (now in Ukraine) during the autumn of 1941 and winter of 1942 while under Romanian control.

    Depending on the accepted terms of reference and scope, the Odessa massacre refers either to the events of October 22–24, 1941 in which some 25,000 to 34,000 Jews were shot or burned, or to the murder of well over 100,000 Ukrainian Jews in the town and the areas between the Dniester and Bug rivers, during the Romanian and German occupation. In the same days, Germans and Romanians killed about 15,000 Romani people.

    All in all, as many if not more Jews were killed by bullets as by gas, but they were killed by bullets in easterly locations that are blurred in painful remembrance. The second most important part of the Holocaust is the mass murder by bullets in eastern Poland and the Soviet Union. It began with SS Einsatzgruppen shootings of Jewish men in June 1941, expanded to the murder of Jewish women and children in July, and extended to the extermination of entire Jewish communities that August and September. By the end of 1941, the Germans (along with local auxiliaries and Romanian troops) had killed a million Jews in the Soviet Union and the Baltics. That is the equivalent of the total number of Jews killed at Auschwitz during the entire war. By the end of 1942, the Germans (again, with a great deal of local assistance) had shot another 700,000 Jews, and the Soviet Jewish populations under their control had ceased to exist.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915 – 1919, by C. Paul Vincent.

    MMM, let’s look at the numbers:

    The German Board of Public Health in December 1918 claimed that 763,000 German civilians died from starvation and disease caused by the blockade up until the end of December 1918.[2][3] An academic study done in 1928 put the death toll at 424,000.[4]

    424,000 to 763,000 Germans vs

    632,000 Soviet civilians plus 2 million plus Soviet POWs=2,632,000

    Hitler wins again.Gotta say, it’s tough to beat that guy when it comes to killing en masse.

    In other words, just as Benjamin Ginsberg narrates in “How the Jews Defeated Hitler,” the combination of popular press and Hollywood movies, which Ginsberg reports were produced by Jewish directors and producers, reduced the American people to brutes braying for their brother’s blood.

    As opposed to the brutal behavior of the Germans towards the Jews:

    Belzec, Poland (German death camp: March 1942-July 1943): 600 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 600,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org: 600,000

    Auschwitz, Poland (German death camp: Jan. 1942-Jan. 1945): 1 200 000 [make link]
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org
    Jews: 1,100,000
    Poles: 75,000
    Roma: 21,000
    Soviet POWs: 15,000

    Treblinka, Poland (German death camp: July 1942-Fall 1943): 800 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 700,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org: 700,000-850,000

    Majdanek, Poland (German death camp: Oct. 1942-Nov. 1943): 360 000 [make link]
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum
    Historical Atlas of the Holocaust: 360,000
    Holocaust Ency.: 170-235,000
    CNN: 200,000-360,000

    Chelmno, Poland (German death camp: 8 Dec. 1941-April 1943): 320 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 360,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum
    Historical Atlas of the Holocaust: 320,000

    Or towards Soviet POWs:

    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.

    had the plan been carried out

    What if? Well, if you insist.Let’s have a look again at the Hunger Plan and Generalplan Ost:

    Yet even this corrected image of the Holocaust conveys an unacceptably incomplete sense of the scope of German mass killing policies in Europe. The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union. Had things gone the way that Hitler, Himmler, and Göring expected, German forces would have implemented a Hunger Plan in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1941–1942. As Ukrainian and south Russian agricultural products were diverted to Germany, some 30 million people in Belarus, northern Russia, and Soviet cities were to be starved to death. The Hunger Plan was only a prelude to Generalplan Ost, the colonization plan for the western Soviet Union, which foresaw the elimination of some 50 million people.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    — more thoroughly than actually occurred as Allied forces starved or brutalized to death much of Germany’s young men such that a 1956 American newspaper reported that only one in six German women of reproductive age could find a mate in Germany– the thousands of German scientists impressed into labor for Soviet Russia would not have been alive to lend their exceptional skills to the industrialization of USSR. )

    As compared to the losses that the USSR suffered:

    Soviet civilians, generally:
    The Cambridge History of Russia by Dominic C. B. Lieven, Maureen Perrie, Ronald Grigor Suny, p.226
    Premature deaths under German occupation: 13.7M, including
    “killed in hot or cold blood”: 7.4M, incl.
    “taken to Germany and worked to death”: 2.2M
    “died of overwork, hunger and disease”: 4.1M

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
    Your repeated recitations of numbers of persons killed by the German army in the context of a war that was provoked by FDR, Churchill, and Jews, impresses me not at all.

    Hitler and NSDAP did not seek war, they did not want war, they repeatedly warned "Jewish and other bankers" that if they continued to attack Germany's financial systems, as they were doing, then Jews would suffer the consequences.

    As Maj Gen Gerd Schultze-Rhon argued, based on evidence, Hitler attempted to negotiate a non-violent solution to the Danzig question, the proximate cause of the beginning of the war, until the very last minute and even beyond; Polish leaders, emboldened by the foolish pacts made by Britain and France, would not agree to a more-than-generous offer of peaceful settlement.

    Jews were at the forefront of provoking the war and of arousing the Poles to harass and even brutalize ethnic Germans in Polish territory. They were warned to stop, they did not stop.

    Hitler and NSDAP having been forced to wage war did so in the same fashion that Colin Powell stated the US should fight: to win.

    You can repeat your lists of echo-chamber statistics from now until the cows come home; I am not impressed.

    Jews, FDR, and Churchill had the last chance to prevent a war. They did exactly the opposite. If Jews, Americans or British were killed in the war, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, "stuff happens."

    The next time you haul out your whinging list of persons killed, be so kind as to assign dates to the events. It could be instructive to correlate the killing of Jews in Russia, etc. with the firebombing raids that killed so many German civilians. Tit for tat. War is not bean-bag. The NSDAP was well aware that Jews were significant players in the firebombing that was killing German citizens by the tens of thousands; rendering millions homeless -- "de-housed," in "Bomber" Harris's happy-talk and tens of thousands traumatized. Industrial facilities to fight the war were wrecked.

    Hitler's plan to take territory to the East was precisely to be able to protect German civilians from a repeat of the hunger blockade that had killed so many Germans in WWI. It was the NSDAP's calculation that eastern territory was beyond the ability of British or Americans to blockade, and that the land was fertile.
    Keep that in mind: the eastern reaches -- that Tim Snyder calls the Bloodlands -- were considered safe from British and American attack and/or blockade.
    Keep in mind also that 7 million Germans were rendered homeless.
    Take a leap of logic: do you find it at all plausible that German leaders would move GERMAN citizens to the "death camps", even at Auschwitz, where the homeless would not only be safe but could also assist in war production?
    Is there something unique about a Jewish corpse -- rendered lifeless through starvation or typhus -- as compared to a non-Jewish German corpse -- rendered lifeless through starvation or typhus?

    Is it at all plausible that homeless Germans were housed in the concentration camps/work camps?

    An interesting aspect is that Germany's death-dealing was carried out in war time. As I stated earlier, Germany/Hitler did not want war; Jews, FDR and Churchill wanted war.

    As Jeffrey Herf stated to Carla Cohen, No war, no final solution. No dead Jews.

    And no dead Germans.

    The chilling reality -- the fact,as Michael Ledeen reveals in this discussion, http://www.c-span.org/video/?123852-1/book-discussion-machiavelli-modern-leadership is that the Hebrew mythos validated mass killing of one's own people -- Jews killing Jews. Germans did not kill fellow Germans, but Russians -- General Zhukov and Stalin -- killed fellow Russians and even Russian officers and soldiers, and Jews willingly sacrificed their own fellow Jews.

    And as demonstrated below, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and his colleagues harbored such a hatred of Germany that their will to kill Germans was unbounded.

    If Hitler and NSDAP had wanted to "exterminate Jews," it's passing strange that Gestapo assisted zionist agents in Germany to smuggle German Jews out of the state. Francis Nicosia discusses the details of these actions in "Zionism and Antisemitism in Nazi Germany."

    Just a quick note regarding "subjected to terminal medical experiments."
    I have heard so much nonsense about the evils of "Nazis medical experiments" that nothing short of slam-dunk proof will convince me that such took place.

    Specifically, the other day I tuned in to an NPR station to check the traffic. Instead, an 80-ish year old "holocaust survivor" was being interviewed. She claimed to have been in Auschwitz with her family, including a twin sisten, as a ten year old. She recalled being in the camp hospital with a fever so severe that Dr. Mengele stood at her bedside and said, with a smirk, that "she will not survive two weeks."

    Obviously, she did survive.

    But, she continued, if she had not survived then Dr. Mengele would have killed her twin sister to do something-or-other.

    The woman went on to recite how a lawyer had encouraged her to go to Germany?? to give testimony at the trial of Oskar Groening, which she did.

    She then chattered for 3 or 4 minutes on forgiveness and guilt and not forgiving and how "every Nazi should be hunted down and prosecuted, even if they are 90 years old. They must be called to account."

    The entire scenario was so full of holes in logic that it was difficult not to either laugh or puke.

    I had just read a Preston & Child novel that was similarly puke-worthy and also involved twins who had been genetically engineered by "the Bund." It was so far-fetched, and so hatefully crafted to engender hate, that it functioned only to cast doubt on the credibility of any narrative that purports to treat of "medical experiments" performed by the evil Dr. Mengele.

    In short, so many bogus holocaust claims have been lodged that at least this confirmed skeptic is disinclined to accept any story without absolutely fool-proof evidence and documentation.

    ---

    Back to the question of who wanted war and who did not ---

    Hitler and the Nazis certainly did not want war in March 1933 when International Jewry declared an economic war on Germany, that was intended to destroy the export revenue that, as the Jewish designers of the boycott understood and intended, "Germany depended upon for its existence."

    Shortly before Jews imposed that existential threat to the German people, Louis Brandeis, referred to by Jewish sources as a hofjuden, court Jew or major leader of the Jewish people, instructed Rabbi Stephen Wise that "all Jews must leave Germany. . . .No Jew should remain in Germany."

    Most German Jews did not wish to leave Germany, and certainly not for the unsettled regions of zionist Palestine.

    So how do you explain Brandeis's directive?

    What's even more intriguing has to do with Rabbi Wise's response to Brandeis's directive. As he records in his autobiography, "The Challenging Years," Wise said to Brandeis, "How shall we get 587,000 people out of Germany?"

    For over thirty years Rabbi Wise had been claiming that "6 million Jews" in Russia and Poland are being persecuted; are being starved to death; and being crucified. In Russia and Poland, not Germany.

    So why did Brandeis instruct that 587,000 German Jews leave Germany? Why did he not direct that Russian Jews and Polish Jews whose lives, according to Wise, were threatened, be removed to safety?

    Arthur Ruppin offers one answer and Michael Ledeen offers an even more dreadful response to Why did Jewish leaders simultaneously provoke war with German; direct that GERMAN Jews leave Germany; but neglect to arrange for the security of Russian and Polish Jews whose wellbeing they had been saying since at least 1900 were in jeopardy? -- that's another conversation.

    Why did Jewish leaders deliberately provoke Germany where, according to Breitman & Lichtman in "FDR and the Jews," NSDAP had quelled violence against Jews, a status quo sustained until just after Grynszpan, a Polish Jew, deliberately and boldly shot and killed a German diplomat in Paris in the first week of November -- six or so weeks after the German agreement with Britain and France that was so objectionable to Harry Dexter White and about a month after Morgenthau met with FDR to urge him to take "decisive steps" to "go after" the "most potent aggressor states" who because they were not, in Morgenthau's view, "democracies," were a "threat to the United States and the entire world." (see below).



    As I have argued elsewhere, discussions of who did what to whom re Germany, Jews, and USA are of historical import but become especially critical when one takes seriously the comparisons of Iran to Germany in the 1933 - 1945 period, as Netanyahu and many neoconservatives are wont to do.
    If it is know that harming a nation's economy, leading to high unemployment, especially in the presence of a significant cohort of young men (and women), many of whom are well-educated, as was the case in Germany and is the case in Iran, causes serious destabilization which can erupt in violence, then why impose such measures deliberately?

    Why did Jews declare an economic war on Germany in 1933 and pursue that destabilizing action through 1940, while simultaneously calling for German Jews who did not want to leave Germany to leave the country where they had established lives and felt reasonably secure with NSDAP policies?

    For some reason, Hitler's nonviolent accession of Sudetenland, and more significantly, the British and French acquiescence to that arrangement in late September 1938, was deeply disturbing to Jews in the USA.

    Henry Morgenthau, Jr. compiled a million pages of notes on his actives as Secretary of Treasury; Peter Moreira researched them to produce "The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau, Jr. ..." Here's what Moreira reports about Morgenthau's -- and, more significantly, Harry Dexter White's activities in the two-week period following the Sept. 29, 1938 agreement among Germany, Britain and France re Sudetenland:

    Henry Morgenthau, Jr ws growing frustrated that his two most brilliant aides just didn't understand what he was hinting at. It was late on ... Oct. 11 , 1938, and the Treasury Dept's chief counsel Herman Oliphant and Harry Dexter White, the director of monetary research, had come to Morgenthau's ... office to persuade him to once again recommend that the president impose countervailing duties on Germany and Japan. They knew Morgenthau supported such a policy. All señor Treasury officials hated the rightist aggressors [German government, presumably -ed.], and nobody mores that the Treasury secretary himself. Even Morgenthau's secretary, Henrietta Klotz, who was silently taking notes at the meeting, hoped the department could do something to halt the extremists' steady advance. [toward what? -ed.] And yet as Oliphant and White outlined their plan, the secretary kept suggesting there was a problem, obviously hoping that they would pick up on what he wanted.

    Oliphant told the Treasury secretary that the president had the authority to impose a 50% duty if he found a country discriminated against the commerce of the United States. And under Section 338 of the Tariff Act, he reminded Morgenthau, the Treasury had already found eleven to thirteen instances of Germany discriminating against the United States. Morgenthau heard him out and focused on one question: Why? Why impose these duties on Germany and Japan and not on other countries? The two men across the desk from him fumbled for a response, even though they were widely considered to be intellectual heavyweights compared to the boss.

    ...
    Oliphant had been with Morgenthau longer than any of the other Treasury personnel ... so the lawyer was the one who now pushed the countervailing-duties issue. ... He suggested the president could draw a distinction between trade from Germany and Japan on one hand and the rest of the world on the other. He was supported by White, a Harvard trained economist . . .White had a gruff manner that offended many colleagues, but was known to have a profound intellect and was respected throughout Washington [but even more in Moscow, for which he spied] ...

    [After advancing arguments that had been tried and failed previously], Finally the counsel stated the real reason they were having the discussion. Oliphant said he would like duties to be imposed against Japan because it would be decisive in helping China in its escalating Asian war. "And I would do it in the case of Germany because it might very well be decisive in the struggle between the grisly thing in Europe and the sort of institutions we know about."

    Oliphant had said it. They were going after the two most potent aggressor states because the Treasury officials believed they threatened the entire world, including the United States. For the five years the Democrats had been in power, they had watched the right-wing dictatorships expand at a frightening rate. Just the day before, German troops had completed their occupation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, the result of the embarrassing acquiescence of Britain and France at the Munich summit in late September. In the two years before that, Germany had seized Austria and the Rhineland. . . .
     
    Moreira here inserts a list of other occupations and conflicts only tangentially related to Germany but that seem to present Germany in the same category as, for example, "the horrendous massacre in Nanking in December 1937." What's curious about this reference is that it does not include the deaths of millions at the hands of Bolshevik Communists, to whom Morgenthau funnels money and engineers Lend-Lease, and for whom the "gruff but well-known" Harry Dexter White spies.

    The narrative continues:

    Of all the members of Roosevelt's cabinet, Morgenthau was the most aware of the frightening advance of right-wing extremists. He hated the Nazis with an all-consuming passion. No doubt the fact that he was Jewish contributed to this hatred, though a more important factor was his abiding love of democracy and American liberty. As a minority who lived in considerable luxury, Morgenthau had always believed his family could enjoy such a station in life only in a country that guaranteed personal liberties as the United States did. He was consistent throughout his life in his admiration for democratic countries and contempt for totalitarianism, except for a blind spot to the evils of the Soviet Union. He had been warning about the perils of German, Japanese and Italian aggression in and out of cabinet for years, more so than any other secretary. On December 20, 1936, Morgenthau delivered a speech to the Federation of Brotherhoods of the Temples and Synagogues of Baltimore, calling for America to rededicate itself to the preservation of democracy and freedom . . .
     
    Have we heard this same tripe recently?

    ---

    In an much earlier comment I quoted a passage from an article by Robert Cohen. He said,

    "today’s school children are in danger of thinking that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews." http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/auschwitz-revisited#sthash.jiB0LHza.dpuf
     
    Henry Morgenthau's diaries have revealed a slightly different perspective: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler, setting in motion the deaths of several million Germans, Russians, Jews, and Italians because Henry Morgenthau, Jr.'s luxurious lifestyle was best protected by "freedom" and "democracy."

    And somehow, in Morgenthau's addled, and Harry Dexter White's "gruff" and Bolshevik-sympathizing mind, destroying Germany and killing millions of Germans and reducing that nation to rubble and raping its women and its culture would ensure that Henry Morgenthau, Jr. could carry on his luxurious lifestyle in the United States of America. In freedom.

    Neither Hitler nor the German government or army did anything to the United States or to Morgenthau, for that matter. He just hated Germans because --- because --- because why?

    Why haven't the united voices of the Jewish people risen up to denounce the hatefulness of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Harry Dexter White, Herman Oliphant, Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise and a legion of others that brought on such a catastrophe to the German people as well as Jews themselves?

    If 93-year old Oskar Groening should be prosecuted for standing guard over baggage at a concentration camp where a 10-year old Jewish girl was nursed back to health by Germans under the direction of "Dr. Mengele," why shouldn't any and every memory and associate and collaborator of the men mentioned above, who had the last chance to prevent war but instead pursued it, be likewise prosecuted to the ends of the earth?
  150. @solontoCroesus

    Actually, seeing as how American actions were brought up as a way to diminish/explain away German actions, I would argue otherwise.
     
    The calendar is your friend, dear fellow; rather, it is the friend of persons capable of critical thought.



    As Anthony Sutton discovered and narrated, The Roosevelts have been in league with big banks and socialist ideologues since as far back as the 1840s, when the served as go-betweens for Wall Street bankers and Tammany Hall.

    USA 1 Zionist Jews n/a Germany -- n/a

    By the 19-teens FDR had expanded the Wall Street bankers - political corruption racket to a national, then international scale.

    Woodrow Wilson held the realm and involved the US unnecessarily but very lucratively in a war in Europe that was a boon to the Wall Street bankers who bet and profited from both -- or rather, three sides of the conflict: while Britain lost the flower of its elite; much of France and Belgium were in ruins, and 800,000 German civilians died of starvation in WWI, zionist Jews returned from Versailles with a dual victory: a homeland for Jews on homeland of Arabs and Christians in Palestine, and dominance over political and social-cultural-economic affairs in Germany, while Anglo, American, and Jewish financiers manipulated the Russian, German, British and American financial systems in the favor of USA, which emerged from WWI with a corner on the world's gold.
    WWI and post-war era (1914 - 1933)

    USA 19 Zionist Jews 19 Germany 0

    As Sutton further records and Peter Moreira corroborates in "The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau, Jr. . .." , FDR and Jewish financiers further manipulated the economies of Russia and Germany to benefit the bankers and corporate interests. Ordinary Germans, British, and Americans experienced hyperinflation and depression. In contrast, Edwin Black reports in "The Transfer Agreement" that by ~1934 the Jewish zionist project in Palestine was the most prosperous enclave on the planet; by 1938 Erich Mendelsohn had built a luxury residence for Chaim Weizmann in Rehovoth, Arabs had been displaced from the major ports and agricultural lands.

    USA 5 Zionist Jews 5 Germany 0

    By early October 1938 zionist Jews got a major bug up their collective arses that coincided with FDR's scheme to simultaneously undermine the British empire to the benefit of USA; set Bolshevik Stalinism in hot conflict with Socialist Germany; and finance (invest in?) and arm both sides with the goal of ultimately controlling both sides. Control of Germany came about far more quickly than control of Communist Russia: as many as 9 million Germans were slaughtered or ethnically transferred between 1939 and 1948. Meanwhile, zionist Jews proceeded apace with the populating and arming of the zionist project in Palestine, even as Arab and Christian Palestinian natives were displaced -- yet another instance of ethnic cleansing.

    USA 10 Zionist Jews 8 Germany 0

    And the finally tally is:

    USA 35 Zionist Jews 32 Germany 0

    As Anthony Sutton discovered and narrated, The Roosevelts have been in league with big banks and socialist ideologues since as far back as the 1840s, when the served as go-betweens for Wall Street bankers and Tammany Hall.

    Only since the 1840s? And here I though that you were going to at least go all the way back to 1694 and the establishment of the Bank of England…..

    Control of Germany came about far more quickly than control of Communist Russia: as many as 9 million Germans were slaughtered or ethnically transferred between 1939 and 1948.

    Graceful way of phrasing WW2, dear fellow.I also enjoyed the way that you conflated “slaughtered” with “transferred.” Let’s take a look at the numbers, shall we?

    Via WIKIPEDIA:

    The German Red Cross in 2005 put the total combined German military and civilian war dead at 7,375,800, including ethnic Germans outside of Germany and Austrians. This figure includes 4.3 million military dead and missing, 500,000 killed by strategic bombing, 300,000 victims of Nazi political, racial and religious persecution, 2,251,500 civilian dead in expulsions and 24,300 Austrian civilians.[1] In addition 200,000 Germans were murdered in the Nazi euthanasia program.[2]

    So, 7,375,800.First off, let’s eliminate the “300,000 victims of Nazi political, racial and religious persecution.” After all, we’re sticking to what was done to Germany by others, not what she did to herself.And, just to show how generous I am, I’ll leave in the 200,000 victims of the euthanasia program.

    That leaves us with 7,075,800.Next order of business, the “2,251,500 civilian dead in expulsions.” Modern scholarship argues for a lower figure:

    Recent research on German expulsion losses:

    The Deutsches Historisches Museum puts the number of dead at 600,000, they maintain the official figure of 2 million cannot be supported.[114]
    In his 2000 study of German military casualties Rüdiger Overmans found 344,000 additional military deaths of Germans from the Former eastern territories of Germany and conscripted ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe. Overmans believes this will reduce the number of civilians previously listed as missing in the expulsions. Overmans did not investigate civilian expulsion losses, only military casualties, he merely noted that other studies estimated of expulsion losses from about 500,000 to 2,000,000. Overmans maintains that there are more arguments for a lower figure of 500,000 rather than the higher figures of over 2.0 million. He believes new research on the number of expulsion deaths is needed since only 500,000 of the reported 2,000,00 deaths have been confirmed.[112][115]
    The German historian Ingo Haar maintains that civilian losses in the expulsions have been overstated for decades by the German government for political reasons. Haar argues that during the Cold War the West German government put political pressure on the Statistisches Bundesamt to push the figures upward to agree to the Search Service combined total of 2.3 million dead and missing. Haar maintains that the Search Service figure of 1.9 million missing persons is based on unreliable information and that the actual death toll in the expulsions is between 500-600,000 which is based on confirmed deaths.[116][117][118]
    The German historians Hans Henning Hahn and Eva Hahn have published a detailed study of the flight and expulsions that is sharply critical of official German accounts of the cold war era. The Hahn’s believe that the official German figure of 2 million deaths is a historical myth that lacks foundation. The Hahn’s point out that the figure of 473,013 confirmed deaths includes 80,522 in the post war period; they maintain that most of the deaths occurred during the Nazi organized flight and evacuation during the war, and the Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union.

    So, 600,000 dead instead of 2,251,500.But, I’m feeling really generous, so let’s stick with the higher figure of 2,251,500.

    So, 7,075,800 vs:

    Soviet civilians, generally:
    The Cambridge History of Russia by Dominic C. B. Lieven, Maureen Perrie, Ronald Grigor Suny, p.226
    Premature deaths under German occupation: 13.7M, including
    “killed in hot or cold blood”: 7.4M, incl.
    “taken to Germany and worked to death”: 2.2M
    “died of overwork, hunger and disease”: 4.1M

    That’s 13.7 million civilians.That’s without even bothering to count military losses…

    Then there’s the attempt to exterminate Europe’s Jews:

    Holocaust
    Extermination of the Jews:
    Reitlinger, Gerald, The Final Solution (1953): between 4,194,200 and 4,851,200 (this number is accepted by Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World History (1978))
    Brzezinski: 5,000,000
    Chirot: 5,100,000
    3,000,000 in death camps.
    1,300,000 massacred.
    800,000 by dis./maln. in ghettos
    David E. Stannard, “The Politics of Genocide Scholarship,” in Alan S. Rosenbaum, ed., Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide (1996), p. 178. By one estimate, 2.4 million of the 5.1 million victims of the Holocaust died of disease in ghettos and concentration camps.
    Rummel: 5,291,000
    Grenville: 5-6M
    Davies, Europe A History (1998): avg. c. 5,571,300 (puts the minimum at 4,871,000 and the maximum at 6,271,500.)
    MEDIAN: ca. 5.6M
    Nuremberg indictment: 5,700,000 (accepted by Britannica)
    Gutman, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990): 5,596,029 to 5,860,129
    P. Johnson: 5,800,000
    Wallechinsky: “nearly” 6,000,000
    Urlanis: 6M

    The Gypsies:

    Roma (Gypsies):
    Hammond: 250,000.
    Rummel: 258,000.
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 200,000-500,000.
    Porter: 500,000
    Brzezinski: 800,000
    Ian Hancock, “Responses to the Romani Holocaust” in Is the Holocaust Unique? (A. Rosenbaum, ed.) cites these:
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum: 250,000
    “several published estimates”: >1,000,000
    Pauwels and Bergier: 750,000
    Financial Times (London): 500-750,000 in death camps and another million shot outside.

    Of course, I’ll be here all day if I just keep on listing losses by nation.Here’s one man’s attempt to provide an overall estimate of Hitler’s death toll:

    HITLER TOTAL:
    Courtois: 25,000,000
    Rummel: 20,946,000 democides
    Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: 17,000,000 (p.6)
    Brzezinski: 17,000,000
    Urlanis: 15-16,000,000 (11-12M civilians + 3.9M POWs)
    MEDIAN: ca. 15.5M
    Our Times: 13,000,000 (6M Jews + 7M others)
    Compton’s: 12,000,000
    Grenville: 10,000,000, including 2M children.
    NOTE: These numbers only include outright murders, but keep in mind that some 28M civilians and 14M soldiers died in the European War. That’s 42,000,000 deaths which can probably be blamed on Hitler to one extent or another.

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Second

    So, 7,075,800 vs a median of 15.5 million…..

    Read More
  151. @Carroll Price
    You ignore the fact that the US created the despots you mention. As well as more recent ones like Al Qaeda and ISIS.

    You say the US “created” Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Do you also believe Abraham Lincoln “created” the Ku Kux Klan?

    Read More
  152. To address but one example of Syon’s, it’s ludicrous to believe that 30,000+ people were machine-gunned at Babi Yar in a day and a half as the official account holds. At least Martin Gilbert seemed to recognize this and stretched it out to an even three days.

    Read More
  153. @syonredux

    … which we all know is ever so much more humane a way to die than to be boiled in hot asphalt or starved to death or raped to death after having had one’s breasts mutilated.
     
    MMM, do you mean starved to death like the 632,000 plus civilian inhabitants of Leningrad during the German siege?Or do you mean starved to death like the 2 million plus Soviet POWs in late '41-early '42?

    As for boiled in hot asphalt, how about being subjected to terminal medical experiments?

    As for raped to death, how about the mass rapes committed by the Germans on the Eastern Front:

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/24/holocaust.rape/index.html

    Consider also that the “circumstances” implied, i.e. the holocaust of Jews, is not claimed to have been initiated until ~1942.
     
    Plenty of mass killings of Jews in the East had occurred before '42, dear fellow:

    Babi Yar, near Kiev, USSR (massacre of Jews by Germans: Sept. 1941): 33 000
    PBS Nova: 34,000
    Gilbert: 33,771 k. in 3 days
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 33,771 according to German records
    Michael Hamm, Kiev: 33,000 (29-30 Sept.)
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): >30,000 (29-30 Sept.)
     
    Rumbula massacre (November 30 and December 8, 1941): approx 25,000

    The Odessa massacre is the name given to the mass murder of Jewish and Romani population of Odessa and surrounding towns in Transnistria (now in Ukraine) during the autumn of 1941 and winter of 1942 while under Romanian control.

    Depending on the accepted terms of reference and scope, the Odessa massacre refers either to the events of October 22–24, 1941 in which some 25,000 to 34,000 Jews were shot or burned, or to the murder of well over 100,000 Ukrainian Jews in the town and the areas between the Dniester and Bug rivers, during the Romanian and German occupation. In the same days, Germans and Romanians killed about 15,000 Romani people.
     

    All in all, as many if not more Jews were killed by bullets as by gas, but they were killed by bullets in easterly locations that are blurred in painful remembrance. The second most important part of the Holocaust is the mass murder by bullets in eastern Poland and the Soviet Union. It began with SS Einsatzgruppen shootings of Jewish men in June 1941, expanded to the murder of Jewish women and children in July, and extended to the extermination of entire Jewish communities that August and September. By the end of 1941, the Germans (along with local auxiliaries and Romanian troops) had killed a million Jews in the Soviet Union and the Baltics. That is the equivalent of the total number of Jews killed at Auschwitz during the entire war. By the end of 1942, the Germans (again, with a great deal of local assistance) had shot another 700,000 Jews, and the Soviet Jewish populations under their control had ceased to exist.
     
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915 – 1919, by C. Paul Vincent.
     
    MMM, let's look at the numbers:

    The German Board of Public Health in December 1918 claimed that 763,000 German civilians died from starvation and disease caused by the blockade up until the end of December 1918.[2][3] An academic study done in 1928 put the death toll at 424,000.[4]
     
    424,000 to 763,000 Germans vs

    632,000 Soviet civilians plus 2 million plus Soviet POWs=2,632,000

    Hitler wins again.Gotta say, it's tough to beat that guy when it comes to killing en masse.

    In other words, just as Benjamin Ginsberg narrates in “How the Jews Defeated Hitler,” the combination of popular press and Hollywood movies, which Ginsberg reports were produced by Jewish directors and producers, reduced the American people to brutes braying for their brother’s blood.
     
    As opposed to the brutal behavior of the Germans towards the Jews:


    Belzec, Poland (German death camp: March 1942-July 1943): 600 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 600,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org: 600,000

    Auschwitz, Poland (German death camp: Jan. 1942-Jan. 1945): 1 200 000 [make link]
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org
    Jews: 1,100,000
    Poles: 75,000
    Roma: 21,000
    Soviet POWs: 15,000

    Treblinka, Poland (German death camp: July 1942-Fall 1943): 800 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 700,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust and http://www.ushmm.org: 700,000-850,000

    Majdanek, Poland (German death camp: Oct. 1942-Nov. 1943): 360 000 [make link]
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum
    Historical Atlas of the Holocaust: 360,000
    Holocaust Ency.: 170-235,000
    CNN: 200,000-360,000


    Chelmno, Poland (German death camp: 8 Dec. 1941-April 1943): 320 000 [make link]
    PBS Nova: 360,000
    US Holocaust Memorial Museum
    Historical Atlas of the Holocaust: 320,000

    Or towards Soviet POWs:


    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.

    had the plan been carried out
     
    What if? Well, if you insist.Let's have a look again at the Hunger Plan and Generalplan Ost:

    Yet even this corrected image of the Holocaust conveys an unacceptably incomplete sense of the scope of German mass killing policies in Europe. The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union. Had things gone the way that Hitler, Himmler, and Göring expected, German forces would have implemented a Hunger Plan in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1941–1942. As Ukrainian and south Russian agricultural products were diverted to Germany, some 30 million people in Belarus, northern Russia, and Soviet cities were to be starved to death. The Hunger Plan was only a prelude to Generalplan Ost, the colonization plan for the western Soviet Union, which foresaw the elimination of some 50 million people.
     
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    — more thoroughly than actually occurred as Allied forces starved or brutalized to death much of Germany’s young men such that a 1956 American newspaper reported that only one in six German women of reproductive age could find a mate in Germany– the thousands of German scientists impressed into labor for Soviet Russia would not have been alive to lend their exceptional skills to the industrialization of USSR. )
     
    As compared to the losses that the USSR suffered:

    Soviet civilians, generally:
    The Cambridge History of Russia by Dominic C. B. Lieven, Maureen Perrie, Ronald Grigor Suny, p.226
    Premature deaths under German occupation: 13.7M, including
    “killed in hot or cold blood”: 7.4M, incl.
    “taken to Germany and worked to death”: 2.2M
    “died of overwork, hunger and disease”: 4.1M
     

    Your repeated recitations of numbers of persons killed by the German army in the context of a war that was provoked by FDR, Churchill, and Jews, impresses me not at all.

    Hitler and NSDAP did not seek war, they did not want war, they repeatedly warned “Jewish and other bankers” that if they continued to attack Germany’s financial systems, as they were doing, then Jews would suffer the consequences.

    As Maj Gen Gerd Schultze-Rhon argued, based on evidence, Hitler attempted to negotiate a non-violent solution to the Danzig question, the proximate cause of the beginning of the war, until the very last minute and even beyond; Polish leaders, emboldened by the foolish pacts made by Britain and France, would not agree to a more-than-generous offer of peaceful settlement.

    Jews were at the forefront of provoking the war and of arousing the Poles to harass and even brutalize ethnic Germans in Polish territory. They were warned to stop, they did not stop.

    Hitler and NSDAP having been forced to wage war did so in the same fashion that Colin Powell stated the US should fight: to win.

    You can repeat your lists of echo-chamber statistics from now until the cows come home; I am not impressed.

    Jews, FDR, and Churchill had the last chance to prevent a war. They did exactly the opposite. If Jews, Americans or British were killed in the war, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, “stuff happens.”

    The next time you haul out your whinging list of persons killed, be so kind as to assign dates to the events. It could be instructive to correlate the killing of Jews in Russia, etc. with the firebombing raids that killed so many German civilians. Tit for tat. War is not bean-bag. The NSDAP was well aware that Jews were significant players in the firebombing that was killing German citizens by the tens of thousands; rendering millions homeless — “de-housed,” in “Bomber” Harris’s happy-talk and tens of thousands traumatized. Industrial facilities to fight the war were wrecked.

    Hitler’s plan to take territory to the East was precisely to be able to protect German civilians from a repeat of the hunger blockade that had killed so many Germans in WWI. It was the NSDAP’s calculation that eastern territory was beyond the ability of British or Americans to blockade, and that the land was fertile.
    Keep that in mind: the eastern reaches — that Tim Snyder calls the Bloodlands — were considered safe from British and American attack and/or blockade.
    Keep in mind also that 7 million Germans were rendered homeless.
    Take a leap of logic: do you find it at all plausible that German leaders would move GERMAN citizens to the “death camps”, even at Auschwitz, where the homeless would not only be safe but could also assist in war production?
    Is there something unique about a Jewish corpse — rendered lifeless through starvation or typhus — as compared to a non-Jewish German corpse — rendered lifeless through starvation or typhus?

    Is it at all plausible that homeless Germans were housed in the concentration camps/work camps?

    An interesting aspect is that Germany’s death-dealing was carried out in war time. As I stated earlier, Germany/Hitler did not want war; Jews, FDR and Churchill wanted war.

    As Jeffrey Herf stated to Carla Cohen, No war, no final solution. No dead Jews.

    And no dead Germans.

    The chilling reality — the fact,as Michael Ledeen reveals in this discussion, http://www.c-span.org/video/?123852-1/book-discussion-machiavelli-modern-leadership is that the Hebrew mythos validated mass killing of one’s own people — Jews killing Jews. Germans did not kill fellow Germans, but Russians — General Zhukov and Stalin — killed fellow Russians and even Russian officers and soldiers, and Jews willingly sacrificed their own fellow Jews.

    And as demonstrated below, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and his colleagues harbored such a hatred of Germany that their will to kill Germans was unbounded.

    If Hitler and NSDAP had wanted to “exterminate Jews,” it’s passing strange that Gestapo assisted zionist agents in Germany to smuggle German Jews out of the state. Francis Nicosia discusses the details of these actions in “Zionism and Antisemitism in Nazi Germany.”

    Just a quick note regarding “subjected to terminal medical experiments.”
    I have heard so much nonsense about the evils of “Nazis medical experiments” that nothing short of slam-dunk proof will convince me that such took place.

    Specifically, the other day I tuned in to an NPR station to check the traffic. Instead, an 80-ish year old “holocaust survivor” was being interviewed. She claimed to have been in Auschwitz with her family, including a twin sisten, as a ten year old. She recalled being in the camp hospital with a fever so severe that Dr. Mengele stood at her bedside and said, with a smirk, that “she will not survive two weeks.”

    Obviously, she did survive.

    But, she continued, if she had not survived then Dr. Mengele would have killed her twin sister to do something-or-other.

    The woman went on to recite how a lawyer had encouraged her to go to Germany?? to give testimony at the trial of Oskar Groening, which she did.

    She then chattered for 3 or 4 minutes on forgiveness and guilt and not forgiving and how “every Nazi should be hunted down and prosecuted, even if they are 90 years old. They must be called to account.”

    The entire scenario was so full of holes in logic that it was difficult not to either laugh or puke.

    I had just read a Preston & Child novel that was similarly puke-worthy and also involved twins who had been genetically engineered by “the Bund.” It was so far-fetched, and so hatefully crafted to engender hate, that it functioned only to cast doubt on the credibility of any narrative that purports to treat of “medical experiments” performed by the evil Dr. Mengele.

    In short, so many bogus holocaust claims have been lodged that at least this confirmed skeptic is disinclined to accept any story without absolutely fool-proof evidence and documentation.

    Back to the question of who wanted war and who did not —

    Hitler and the Nazis certainly did not want war in March 1933 when International Jewry declared an economic war on Germany, that was intended to destroy the export revenue that, as the Jewish designers of the boycott understood and intended, “Germany depended upon for its existence.”

    Shortly before Jews imposed that existential threat to the German people, Louis Brandeis, referred to by Jewish sources as a hofjuden, court Jew or major leader of the Jewish people, instructed Rabbi Stephen Wise that “all Jews must leave Germany. . . .No Jew should remain in Germany.”

    Most German Jews did not wish to leave Germany, and certainly not for the unsettled regions of zionist Palestine.

    So how do you explain Brandeis’s directive?

    What’s even more intriguing has to do with Rabbi Wise’s response to Brandeis’s directive. As he records in his autobiography, “The Challenging Years,” Wise said to Brandeis, “How shall we get 587,000 people out of Germany?”

    For over thirty years Rabbi Wise had been claiming that “6 million Jews” in Russia and Poland are being persecuted; are being starved to death; and being crucified. In Russia and Poland, not Germany.

    So why did Brandeis instruct that 587,000 German Jews leave Germany? Why did he not direct that Russian Jews and Polish Jews whose lives, according to Wise, were threatened, be removed to safety?

    Arthur Ruppin offers one answer and Michael Ledeen offers an even more dreadful response to Why did Jewish leaders simultaneously provoke war with German; direct that GERMAN Jews leave Germany; but neglect to arrange for the security of Russian and Polish Jews whose wellbeing they had been saying since at least 1900 were in jeopardy? — that’s another conversation.

    Why did Jewish leaders deliberately provoke Germany where, according to Breitman & Lichtman in “FDR and the Jews,” NSDAP had quelled violence against Jews, a status quo sustained until just after Grynszpan, a Polish Jew, deliberately and boldly shot and killed a German diplomat in Paris in the first week of November — six or so weeks after the German agreement with Britain and France that was so objectionable to Harry Dexter White and about a month after Morgenthau met with FDR to urge him to take “decisive steps” to “go after” the “most potent aggressor states” who because they were not, in Morgenthau’s view, “democracies,” were a “threat to the United States and the entire world.” (see below).

    As I have argued elsewhere, discussions of who did what to whom re Germany, Jews, and USA are of historical import but become especially critical when one takes seriously the comparisons of Iran to Germany in the 1933 – 1945 period, as Netanyahu and many neoconservatives are wont to do.
    If it is know that harming a nation’s economy, leading to high unemployment, especially in the presence of a significant cohort of young men (and women), many of whom are well-educated, as was the case in Germany and is the case in Iran, causes serious destabilization which can erupt in violence, then why impose such measures deliberately?

    Why did Jews declare an economic war on Germany in 1933 and pursue that destabilizing action through 1940, while simultaneously calling for German Jews who did not want to leave Germany to leave the country where they had established lives and felt reasonably secure with NSDAP policies?

    For some reason, Hitler’s nonviolent accession of Sudetenland, and more significantly, the British and French acquiescence to that arrangement in late September 1938, was deeply disturbing to Jews in the USA.

    Henry Morgenthau, Jr. compiled a million pages of notes on his actives as Secretary of Treasury; Peter Moreira researched them to produce “The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau, Jr. …” Here’s what Moreira reports about Morgenthau’s — and, more significantly, Harry Dexter White’s activities in the two-week period following the Sept. 29, 1938 agreement among Germany, Britain and France re Sudetenland:

    Henry Morgenthau, Jr ws growing frustrated that his two most brilliant aides just didn’t understand what he was hinting at. It was late on … Oct. 11 , 1938, and the Treasury Dept’s chief counsel Herman Oliphant and Harry Dexter White, the director of monetary research, had come to Morgenthau’s … office to persuade him to once again recommend that the president impose countervailing duties on Germany and Japan. They knew Morgenthau supported such a policy. All señor Treasury officials hated the rightist aggressors [German government, presumably -ed.], and nobody mores that the Treasury secretary himself. Even Morgenthau’s secretary, Henrietta Klotz, who was silently taking notes at the meeting, hoped the department could do something to halt the extremists’ steady advance. [toward what? -ed.] And yet as Oliphant and White outlined their plan, the secretary kept suggesting there was a problem, obviously hoping that they would pick up on what he wanted.

    Oliphant told the Treasury secretary that the president had the authority to impose a 50% duty if he found a country discriminated against the commerce of the United States. And under Section 338 of the Tariff Act, he reminded Morgenthau, the Treasury had already found eleven to thirteen instances of Germany discriminating against the United States. Morgenthau heard him out and focused on one question: Why? Why impose these duties on Germany and Japan and not on other countries? The two men across the desk from him fumbled for a response, even though they were widely considered to be intellectual heavyweights compared to the boss.


    Oliphant had been with Morgenthau longer than any of the other Treasury personnel … so the lawyer was the one who now pushed the countervailing-duties issue. … He suggested the president could draw a distinction between trade from Germany and Japan on one hand and the rest of the world on the other. He was supported by White, a Harvard trained economist . . .White had a gruff manner that offended many colleagues, but was known to have a profound intellect and was respected throughout Washington [but even more in Moscow, for which he spied] …

    [After advancing arguments that had been tried and failed previously], Finally the counsel stated the real reason they were having the discussion. Oliphant said he would like duties to be imposed against Japan because it would be decisive in helping China in its escalating Asian war. “And I would do it in the case of Germany because it might very well be decisive in the struggle between the grisly thing in Europe and the sort of institutions we know about.”

    Oliphant had said it. They were going after the two most potent aggressor states because the Treasury officials believed they threatened the entire world, including the United States. For the five years the Democrats had been in power, they had watched the right-wing dictatorships expand at a frightening rate. Just the day before, German troops had completed their occupation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, the result of the embarrassing acquiescence of Britain and France at the Munich summit in late September. In the two years before that, Germany had seized Austria and the Rhineland. . . .

    Moreira here inserts a list of other occupations and conflicts only tangentially related to Germany but that seem to present Germany in the same category as, for example, “the horrendous massacre in Nanking in December 1937.” What’s curious about this reference is that it does not include the deaths of millions at the hands of Bolshevik Communists, to whom Morgenthau funnels money and engineers Lend-Lease, and for whom the “gruff but well-known” Harry Dexter White spies.

    The narrative continues:

    Of all the members of Roosevelt’s cabinet, Morgenthau was the most aware of the frightening advance of right-wing extremists. He hated the Nazis with an all-consuming passion. No doubt the fact that he was Jewish contributed to this hatred, though a more important factor was his abiding love of democracy and American liberty. As a minority who lived in considerable luxury, Morgenthau had always believed his family could enjoy such a station in life only in a country that guaranteed personal liberties as the United States did. He was consistent throughout his life in his admiration for democratic countries and contempt for totalitarianism, except for a blind spot to the evils of the Soviet Union. He had been warning about the perils of German, Japanese and Italian aggression in and out of cabinet for years, more so than any other secretary. On December 20, 1936, Morgenthau delivered a speech to the Federation of Brotherhoods of the Temples and Synagogues of Baltimore, calling for America to rededicate itself to the preservation of democracy and freedom . . .

    Have we heard this same tripe recently?

    In an much earlier comment I quoted a passage from an article by Robert Cohen. He said,

    “today’s school children are in danger of thinking that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews.” http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/auschwitz-revisited#sthash.jiB0LHza.dpuf

    Henry Morgenthau’s diaries have revealed a slightly different perspective: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler, setting in motion the deaths of several million Germans, Russians, Jews, and Italians because Henry Morgenthau, Jr.’s luxurious lifestyle was best protected by “freedom” and “democracy.”

    And somehow, in Morgenthau’s addled, and Harry Dexter White’s “gruff” and Bolshevik-sympathizing mind, destroying Germany and killing millions of Germans and reducing that nation to rubble and raping its women and its culture would ensure that Henry Morgenthau, Jr. could carry on his luxurious lifestyle in the United States of America. In freedom.

    Neither Hitler nor the German government or army did anything to the United States or to Morgenthau, for that matter. He just hated Germans because — because — because why?

    Why haven’t the united voices of the Jewish people risen up to denounce the hatefulness of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Harry Dexter White, Herman Oliphant, Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise and a legion of others that brought on such a catastrophe to the German people as well as Jews themselves?

    If 93-year old Oskar Groening should be prosecuted for standing guard over baggage at a concentration camp where a 10-year old Jewish girl was nursed back to health by Germans under the direction of “Dr. Mengele,” why shouldn’t any and every memory and associate and collaborator of the men mentioned above, who had the last chance to prevent war but instead pursued it, be likewise prosecuted to the ends of the earth?

    Read More
    • Replies: @keypusher
    The next time you haul out your whinging list of persons killed, be so kind as to assign dates to the events. It could be instructive to correlate the killing of Jews in Russia, etc. with the firebombing raids that killed so many German civilians. Tit for tat. War is not bean-bag. The NSDAP was well aware that Jews were significant players in the firebombing that was killing German citizens by the tens of thousands; rendering millions homeless — “de-housed,” in “Bomber” Harris’s happy-talk and tens of thousands traumatized. Industrial facilities to fight the war were wrecked.

    He did that already. The Nazis had massacred millions of Jews and starved and killed millions of Soviet Russians and Poles before the firebombing had gotten underway. You can scroll up the thread. Or you can read Christopher Browning's The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942 for a timeline.

    So why did Brandeis instruct that 587,000 German Jews leave Germany? Why did he not direct that Russian Jews and Polish Jews whose lives, according to Wise, were threatened, be removed to safety?

    Because the Jews in Germany were under the control of the Nazis, and the Russian and Polish Jews were not (at that time). And there was nothing worse for a Jew than being under the control of the Nazis.

    The NSDAP was aware that Jews were significant players in the fire-bombing>

    Only a Nazi or a sick, demented racist would blame Jews in Poland for the actions of Bomber Command. You are a sick, demented racist. Seek help.

    , @Anonymous

    Germans did not kill fellow Germans,
     
    Wrong.

    from Hitler's War, by David Irving, c 2007:

    "It was not until the end of 1938 that Hitler was directly involved in any euthanasia decisions, and the it was in 'mercy killing.' Bouhler's chancellery had repeatedly submitted to him appeals from patients in intolerable pain, or from their doctor, asking Hitler to exercise the Head of State's prerogative of mercy and permit the doctor to terminate the patient's life without fear of criminal proceedings. When Hitler received such an appeal from the parents of a malformed, blind, and imbecile boy born in Leipzig, he sent Dr. Brandt early in 1939 to examine the child, and he authorized the doctors to put him to sleep. A ministerial decree was eventually passed in August 1939 requiring all midwives to report the details of such deformed newborn babies; a panel of three assessors judged each case, and if all three agreed, the infant was procured from the parents either by deception or by compulsion and quietly put away.

    After the Zopport meeting in Sept. 1939, . . .Dr. Conti had become involved in lengthy discussions in which the legal and ethical bases of Hitler's proposals were explored. The consequence of this delay was that Hitler . . .wrote an order that considerably enlarged the scope of the euthanasia project:

    "Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M.D., are herewith given full responsibility to enlarge the powers of certain specified doctors so that they can grant those who are by all human standards incurably ill a merciful death, after the most critical assessment possible of their medical condition. (Signed) Adolf Hitler"
     
    . . .What had begun as the 'mercy killing' of the few was now followed by the programmed elimination of the burdensome tens of thousand of insane.

     
  154. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Most likely, the Moroccans were followers of Islam. Regarding their fair shape of raping women they were only following in the example of their holy prophet, dating back from what he and his followers generally did post battle during the 620s.

    French General Juin allegedly gave them the go-ahead to rape the Italian women assuring them that “for 50 hours you will be the absolute masters of what you will find beyond the enemy. Nobody will ask you about what you will get up to.” Nice guy. Why wasn’t he tried as a war criminal?

    Read More
  155. @solontoCroesus
    Your repeated recitations of numbers of persons killed by the German army in the context of a war that was provoked by FDR, Churchill, and Jews, impresses me not at all.

    Hitler and NSDAP did not seek war, they did not want war, they repeatedly warned "Jewish and other bankers" that if they continued to attack Germany's financial systems, as they were doing, then Jews would suffer the consequences.

    As Maj Gen Gerd Schultze-Rhon argued, based on evidence, Hitler attempted to negotiate a non-violent solution to the Danzig question, the proximate cause of the beginning of the war, until the very last minute and even beyond; Polish leaders, emboldened by the foolish pacts made by Britain and France, would not agree to a more-than-generous offer of peaceful settlement.

    Jews were at the forefront of provoking the war and of arousing the Poles to harass and even brutalize ethnic Germans in Polish territory. They were warned to stop, they did not stop.

    Hitler and NSDAP having been forced to wage war did so in the same fashion that Colin Powell stated the US should fight: to win.

    You can repeat your lists of echo-chamber statistics from now until the cows come home; I am not impressed.

    Jews, FDR, and Churchill had the last chance to prevent a war. They did exactly the opposite. If Jews, Americans or British were killed in the war, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, "stuff happens."

    The next time you haul out your whinging list of persons killed, be so kind as to assign dates to the events. It could be instructive to correlate the killing of Jews in Russia, etc. with the firebombing raids that killed so many German civilians. Tit for tat. War is not bean-bag. The NSDAP was well aware that Jews were significant players in the firebombing that was killing German citizens by the tens of thousands; rendering millions homeless -- "de-housed," in "Bomber" Harris's happy-talk and tens of thousands traumatized. Industrial facilities to fight the war were wrecked.

    Hitler's plan to take territory to the East was precisely to be able to protect German civilians from a repeat of the hunger blockade that had killed so many Germans in WWI. It was the NSDAP's calculation that eastern territory was beyond the ability of British or Americans to blockade, and that the land was fertile.
    Keep that in mind: the eastern reaches -- that Tim Snyder calls the Bloodlands -- were considered safe from British and American attack and/or blockade.
    Keep in mind also that 7 million Germans were rendered homeless.
    Take a leap of logic: do you find it at all plausible that German leaders would move GERMAN citizens to the "death camps", even at Auschwitz, where the homeless would not only be safe but could also assist in war production?
    Is there something unique about a Jewish corpse -- rendered lifeless through starvation or typhus -- as compared to a non-Jewish German corpse -- rendered lifeless through starvation or typhus?

    Is it at all plausible that homeless Germans were housed in the concentration camps/work camps?

    An interesting aspect is that Germany's death-dealing was carried out in war time. As I stated earlier, Germany/Hitler did not want war; Jews, FDR and Churchill wanted war.

    As Jeffrey Herf stated to Carla Cohen, No war, no final solution. No dead Jews.

    And no dead Germans.

    The chilling reality -- the fact,as Michael Ledeen reveals in this discussion, http://www.c-span.org/video/?123852-1/book-discussion-machiavelli-modern-leadership is that the Hebrew mythos validated mass killing of one's own people -- Jews killing Jews. Germans did not kill fellow Germans, but Russians -- General Zhukov and Stalin -- killed fellow Russians and even Russian officers and soldiers, and Jews willingly sacrificed their own fellow Jews.

    And as demonstrated below, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and his colleagues harbored such a hatred of Germany that their will to kill Germans was unbounded.

    If Hitler and NSDAP had wanted to "exterminate Jews," it's passing strange that Gestapo assisted zionist agents in Germany to smuggle German Jews out of the state. Francis Nicosia discusses the details of these actions in "Zionism and Antisemitism in Nazi Germany."

    Just a quick note regarding "subjected to terminal medical experiments."
    I have heard so much nonsense about the evils of "Nazis medical experiments" that nothing short of slam-dunk proof will convince me that such took place.

    Specifically, the other day I tuned in to an NPR station to check the traffic. Instead, an 80-ish year old "holocaust survivor" was being interviewed. She claimed to have been in Auschwitz with her family, including a twin sisten, as a ten year old. She recalled being in the camp hospital with a fever so severe that Dr. Mengele stood at her bedside and said, with a smirk, that "she will not survive two weeks."

    Obviously, she did survive.

    But, she continued, if she had not survived then Dr. Mengele would have killed her twin sister to do something-or-other.

    The woman went on to recite how a lawyer had encouraged her to go to Germany?? to give testimony at the trial of Oskar Groening, which she did.

    She then chattered for 3 or 4 minutes on forgiveness and guilt and not forgiving and how "every Nazi should be hunted down and prosecuted, even if they are 90 years old. They must be called to account."

    The entire scenario was so full of holes in logic that it was difficult not to either laugh or puke.

    I had just read a Preston & Child novel that was similarly puke-worthy and also involved twins who had been genetically engineered by "the Bund." It was so far-fetched, and so hatefully crafted to engender hate, that it functioned only to cast doubt on the credibility of any narrative that purports to treat of "medical experiments" performed by the evil Dr. Mengele.

    In short, so many bogus holocaust claims have been lodged that at least this confirmed skeptic is disinclined to accept any story without absolutely fool-proof evidence and documentation.

    ---

    Back to the question of who wanted war and who did not ---

    Hitler and the Nazis certainly did not want war in March 1933 when International Jewry declared an economic war on Germany, that was intended to destroy the export revenue that, as the Jewish designers of the boycott understood and intended, "Germany depended upon for its existence."

    Shortly before Jews imposed that existential threat to the German people, Louis Brandeis, referred to by Jewish sources as a hofjuden, court Jew or major leader of the Jewish people, instructed Rabbi Stephen Wise that "all Jews must leave Germany. . . .No Jew should remain in Germany."

    Most German Jews did not wish to leave Germany, and certainly not for the unsettled regions of zionist Palestine.

    So how do you explain Brandeis's directive?

    What's even more intriguing has to do with Rabbi Wise's response to Brandeis's directive. As he records in his autobiography, "The Challenging Years," Wise said to Brandeis, "How shall we get 587,000 people out of Germany?"

    For over thirty years Rabbi Wise had been claiming that "6 million Jews" in Russia and Poland are being persecuted; are being starved to death; and being crucified. In Russia and Poland, not Germany.

    So why did Brandeis instruct that 587,000 German Jews leave Germany? Why did he not direct that Russian Jews and Polish Jews whose lives, according to Wise, were threatened, be removed to safety?

    Arthur Ruppin offers one answer and Michael Ledeen offers an even more dreadful response to Why did Jewish leaders simultaneously provoke war with German; direct that GERMAN Jews leave Germany; but neglect to arrange for the security of Russian and Polish Jews whose wellbeing they had been saying since at least 1900 were in jeopardy? -- that's another conversation.

    Why did Jewish leaders deliberately provoke Germany where, according to Breitman & Lichtman in "FDR and the Jews," NSDAP had quelled violence against Jews, a status quo sustained until just after Grynszpan, a Polish Jew, deliberately and boldly shot and killed a German diplomat in Paris in the first week of November -- six or so weeks after the German agreement with Britain and France that was so objectionable to Harry Dexter White and about a month after Morgenthau met with FDR to urge him to take "decisive steps" to "go after" the "most potent aggressor states" who because they were not, in Morgenthau's view, "democracies," were a "threat to the United States and the entire world." (see below).



    As I have argued elsewhere, discussions of who did what to whom re Germany, Jews, and USA are of historical import but become especially critical when one takes seriously the comparisons of Iran to Germany in the 1933 - 1945 period, as Netanyahu and many neoconservatives are wont to do.
    If it is know that harming a nation's economy, leading to high unemployment, especially in the presence of a significant cohort of young men (and women), many of whom are well-educated, as was the case in Germany and is the case in Iran, causes serious destabilization which can erupt in violence, then why impose such measures deliberately?

    Why did Jews declare an economic war on Germany in 1933 and pursue that destabilizing action through 1940, while simultaneously calling for German Jews who did not want to leave Germany to leave the country where they had established lives and felt reasonably secure with NSDAP policies?

    For some reason, Hitler's nonviolent accession of Sudetenland, and more significantly, the British and French acquiescence to that arrangement in late September 1938, was deeply disturbing to Jews in the USA.

    Henry Morgenthau, Jr. compiled a million pages of notes on his actives as Secretary of Treasury; Peter Moreira researched them to produce "The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau, Jr. ..." Here's what Moreira reports about Morgenthau's -- and, more significantly, Harry Dexter White's activities in the two-week period following the Sept. 29, 1938 agreement among Germany, Britain and France re Sudetenland:

    Henry Morgenthau, Jr ws growing frustrated that his two most brilliant aides just didn't understand what he was hinting at. It was late on ... Oct. 11 , 1938, and the Treasury Dept's chief counsel Herman Oliphant and Harry Dexter White, the director of monetary research, had come to Morgenthau's ... office to persuade him to once again recommend that the president impose countervailing duties on Germany and Japan. They knew Morgenthau supported such a policy. All señor Treasury officials hated the rightist aggressors [German government, presumably -ed.], and nobody mores that the Treasury secretary himself. Even Morgenthau's secretary, Henrietta Klotz, who was silently taking notes at the meeting, hoped the department could do something to halt the extremists' steady advance. [toward what? -ed.] And yet as Oliphant and White outlined their plan, the secretary kept suggesting there was a problem, obviously hoping that they would pick up on what he wanted.

    Oliphant told the Treasury secretary that the president had the authority to impose a 50% duty if he found a country discriminated against the commerce of the United States. And under Section 338 of the Tariff Act, he reminded Morgenthau, the Treasury had already found eleven to thirteen instances of Germany discriminating against the United States. Morgenthau heard him out and focused on one question: Why? Why impose these duties on Germany and Japan and not on other countries? The two men across the desk from him fumbled for a response, even though they were widely considered to be intellectual heavyweights compared to the boss.

    ...
    Oliphant had been with Morgenthau longer than any of the other Treasury personnel ... so the lawyer was the one who now pushed the countervailing-duties issue. ... He suggested the president could draw a distinction between trade from Germany and Japan on one hand and the rest of the world on the other. He was supported by White, a Harvard trained economist . . .White had a gruff manner that offended many colleagues, but was known to have a profound intellect and was respected throughout Washington [but even more in Moscow, for which he spied] ...

    [After advancing arguments that had been tried and failed previously], Finally the counsel stated the real reason they were having the discussion. Oliphant said he would like duties to be imposed against Japan because it would be decisive in helping China in its escalating Asian war. "And I would do it in the case of Germany because it might very well be decisive in the struggle between the grisly thing in Europe and the sort of institutions we know about."

    Oliphant had said it. They were going after the two most potent aggressor states because the Treasury officials believed they threatened the entire world, including the United States. For the five years the Democrats had been in power, they had watched the right-wing dictatorships expand at a frightening rate. Just the day before, German troops had completed their occupation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, the result of the embarrassing acquiescence of Britain and France at the Munich summit in late September. In the two years before that, Germany had seized Austria and the Rhineland. . . .
     
    Moreira here inserts a list of other occupations and conflicts only tangentially related to Germany but that seem to present Germany in the same category as, for example, "the horrendous massacre in Nanking in December 1937." What's curious about this reference is that it does not include the deaths of millions at the hands of Bolshevik Communists, to whom Morgenthau funnels money and engineers Lend-Lease, and for whom the "gruff but well-known" Harry Dexter White spies.

    The narrative continues:

    Of all the members of Roosevelt's cabinet, Morgenthau was the most aware of the frightening advance of right-wing extremists. He hated the Nazis with an all-consuming passion. No doubt the fact that he was Jewish contributed to this hatred, though a more important factor was his abiding love of democracy and American liberty. As a minority who lived in considerable luxury, Morgenthau had always believed his family could enjoy such a station in life only in a country that guaranteed personal liberties as the United States did. He was consistent throughout his life in his admiration for democratic countries and contempt for totalitarianism, except for a blind spot to the evils of the Soviet Union. He had been warning about the perils of German, Japanese and Italian aggression in and out of cabinet for years, more so than any other secretary. On December 20, 1936, Morgenthau delivered a speech to the Federation of Brotherhoods of the Temples and Synagogues of Baltimore, calling for America to rededicate itself to the preservation of democracy and freedom . . .
     
    Have we heard this same tripe recently?

    ---

    In an much earlier comment I quoted a passage from an article by Robert Cohen. He said,

    "today’s school children are in danger of thinking that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews." http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/auschwitz-revisited#sthash.jiB0LHza.dpuf
     
    Henry Morgenthau's diaries have revealed a slightly different perspective: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler, setting in motion the deaths of several million Germans, Russians, Jews, and Italians because Henry Morgenthau, Jr.'s luxurious lifestyle was best protected by "freedom" and "democracy."

    And somehow, in Morgenthau's addled, and Harry Dexter White's "gruff" and Bolshevik-sympathizing mind, destroying Germany and killing millions of Germans and reducing that nation to rubble and raping its women and its culture would ensure that Henry Morgenthau, Jr. could carry on his luxurious lifestyle in the United States of America. In freedom.

    Neither Hitler nor the German government or army did anything to the United States or to Morgenthau, for that matter. He just hated Germans because --- because --- because why?

    Why haven't the united voices of the Jewish people risen up to denounce the hatefulness of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Harry Dexter White, Herman Oliphant, Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise and a legion of others that brought on such a catastrophe to the German people as well as Jews themselves?

    If 93-year old Oskar Groening should be prosecuted for standing guard over baggage at a concentration camp where a 10-year old Jewish girl was nursed back to health by Germans under the direction of "Dr. Mengele," why shouldn't any and every memory and associate and collaborator of the men mentioned above, who had the last chance to prevent war but instead pursued it, be likewise prosecuted to the ends of the earth?

    The next time you haul out your whinging list of persons killed, be so kind as to assign dates to the events. It could be instructive to correlate the killing of Jews in Russia, etc. with the firebombing raids that killed so many German civilians. Tit for tat. War is not bean-bag. The NSDAP was well aware that Jews were significant players in the firebombing that was killing German citizens by the tens of thousands; rendering millions homeless — “de-housed,” in “Bomber” Harris’s happy-talk and tens of thousands traumatized. Industrial facilities to fight the war were wrecked.

    He did that already. The Nazis had massacred millions of Jews and starved and killed millions of Soviet Russians and Poles before the firebombing had gotten underway. You can scroll up the thread. Or you can read Christopher Browning’s The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942 for a timeline.

    So why did Brandeis instruct that 587,000 German Jews leave Germany? Why did he not direct that Russian Jews and Polish Jews whose lives, according to Wise, were threatened, be removed to safety?

    Because the Jews in Germany were under the control of the Nazis, and the Russian and Polish Jews were not (at that time). And there was nothing worse for a Jew than being under the control of the Nazis.

    The NSDAP was aware that Jews were significant players in the fire-bombing>

    Only a Nazi or a sick, demented racist would blame Jews in Poland for the actions of Bomber Command. You are a sick, demented racist. Seek help.

    Read More
  156. Hitler and NSDAP having been forced to wage war did so in the same fashion that Colin Powell stated the US should fight: to win.

    This comment is so extraordinarily clueless, it really captures you up perfectly. In the East, the Nazis did not fight to win so much as to exterminate. Had they just concentrated on winning the war, they might have succeeded.

    But of course, if they’d been rational, they wouldn’t have started the war in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
    The barebones framework of my argument is this:

    1. No war, no deaths -- not of Jews nor of Germans, Russians, Italians, etc.

    2. Germany did not want a global war (curiously, several of Hitler's aims coalesce with those of USA under Wilson 1918-1919, and under every US president from FDR to G H W Bush -- vanquish Bolshevism-Communism).

    Note carefully the reasoning underlying David Stockman's thesis on WWI:


    "American intervention in the First World War was the equivalent of a European power coming to the United States during the Civil War and saying South wins, North loses. . . .

    Transforming a European conflict into a world war and losing the peace set the stage for World War II. . . .

    Wilson bequeathed America a civil religion that replaced the founding narrative of self-restraint and limits on power. His militant idealism -- adopted by humanitarian interventionists, neoconservatives, and assertive nationalists -- animates our foreign policy debates today "

    D. Stockman & M. Sieff, presentation at Committee of the Republic, Jan. 2015
     

    The last point is the most crucial: the same entities are operating under the same ideology and the same, albeit enhanced methods of engendering hatred as were implemented in WWI and WWII.

    3. Jews did want war. So did FDR and Churchill. This is irrefutable (then and now, with Israel's current behavior opening to scrutiny the behavior of Jewish leaders in the 20th century wars).
    Charles Lindbergh stated as much in as measured tones as were possible.
    For this he was subjected to systematic character assassination because --->
    See 3., above: Jews, FDR and Churchill wanted war.

    WHY each of those three -- Jews, FDR and Churchill -- wanted war requires individual assessment of each participant's activities to expose particular motives and goals. That assessment reveals that Jews worked actively behind and within FDR's and Churchill's governments as well as in and through their own organizations including the nascent Jewish state to promote and benefit from war.

  157. Anonymous says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @solontoCroesus
    Your repeated recitations of numbers of persons killed by the German army in the context of a war that was provoked by FDR, Churchill, and Jews, impresses me not at all.

    Hitler and NSDAP did not seek war, they did not want war, they repeatedly warned "Jewish and other bankers" that if they continued to attack Germany's financial systems, as they were doing, then Jews would suffer the consequences.

    As Maj Gen Gerd Schultze-Rhon argued, based on evidence, Hitler attempted to negotiate a non-violent solution to the Danzig question, the proximate cause of the beginning of the war, until the very last minute and even beyond; Polish leaders, emboldened by the foolish pacts made by Britain and France, would not agree to a more-than-generous offer of peaceful settlement.

    Jews were at the forefront of provoking the war and of arousing the Poles to harass and even brutalize ethnic Germans in Polish territory. They were warned to stop, they did not stop.

    Hitler and NSDAP having been forced to wage war did so in the same fashion that Colin Powell stated the US should fight: to win.

    You can repeat your lists of echo-chamber statistics from now until the cows come home; I am not impressed.

    Jews, FDR, and Churchill had the last chance to prevent a war. They did exactly the opposite. If Jews, Americans or British were killed in the war, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, "stuff happens."

    The next time you haul out your whinging list of persons killed, be so kind as to assign dates to the events. It could be instructive to correlate the killing of Jews in Russia, etc. with the firebombing raids that killed so many German civilians. Tit for tat. War is not bean-bag. The NSDAP was well aware that Jews were significant players in the firebombing that was killing German citizens by the tens of thousands; rendering millions homeless -- "de-housed," in "Bomber" Harris's happy-talk and tens of thousands traumatized. Industrial facilities to fight the war were wrecked.

    Hitler's plan to take territory to the East was precisely to be able to protect German civilians from a repeat of the hunger blockade that had killed so many Germans in WWI. It was the NSDAP's calculation that eastern territory was beyond the ability of British or Americans to blockade, and that the land was fertile.
    Keep that in mind: the eastern reaches -- that Tim Snyder calls the Bloodlands -- were considered safe from British and American attack and/or blockade.
    Keep in mind also that 7 million Germans were rendered homeless.
    Take a leap of logic: do you find it at all plausible that German leaders would move GERMAN citizens to the "death camps", even at Auschwitz, where the homeless would not only be safe but could also assist in war production?
    Is there something unique about a Jewish corpse -- rendered lifeless through starvation or typhus -- as compared to a non-Jewish German corpse -- rendered lifeless through starvation or typhus?

    Is it at all plausible that homeless Germans were housed in the concentration camps/work camps?

    An interesting aspect is that Germany's death-dealing was carried out in war time. As I stated earlier, Germany/Hitler did not want war; Jews, FDR and Churchill wanted war.

    As Jeffrey Herf stated to Carla Cohen, No war, no final solution. No dead Jews.

    And no dead Germans.

    The chilling reality -- the fact,as Michael Ledeen reveals in this discussion, http://www.c-span.org/video/?123852-1/book-discussion-machiavelli-modern-leadership is that the Hebrew mythos validated mass killing of one's own people -- Jews killing Jews. Germans did not kill fellow Germans, but Russians -- General Zhukov and Stalin -- killed fellow Russians and even Russian officers and soldiers, and Jews willingly sacrificed their own fellow Jews.

    And as demonstrated below, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and his colleagues harbored such a hatred of Germany that their will to kill Germans was unbounded.

    If Hitler and NSDAP had wanted to "exterminate Jews," it's passing strange that Gestapo assisted zionist agents in Germany to smuggle German Jews out of the state. Francis Nicosia discusses the details of these actions in "Zionism and Antisemitism in Nazi Germany."

    Just a quick note regarding "subjected to terminal medical experiments."
    I have heard so much nonsense about the evils of "Nazis medical experiments" that nothing short of slam-dunk proof will convince me that such took place.

    Specifically, the other day I tuned in to an NPR station to check the traffic. Instead, an 80-ish year old "holocaust survivor" was being interviewed. She claimed to have been in Auschwitz with her family, including a twin sisten, as a ten year old. She recalled being in the camp hospital with a fever so severe that Dr. Mengele stood at her bedside and said, with a smirk, that "she will not survive two weeks."

    Obviously, she did survive.

    But, she continued, if she had not survived then Dr. Mengele would have killed her twin sister to do something-or-other.

    The woman went on to recite how a lawyer had encouraged her to go to Germany?? to give testimony at the trial of Oskar Groening, which she did.

    She then chattered for 3 or 4 minutes on forgiveness and guilt and not forgiving and how "every Nazi should be hunted down and prosecuted, even if they are 90 years old. They must be called to account."

    The entire scenario was so full of holes in logic that it was difficult not to either laugh or puke.

    I had just read a Preston & Child novel that was similarly puke-worthy and also involved twins who had been genetically engineered by "the Bund." It was so far-fetched, and so hatefully crafted to engender hate, that it functioned only to cast doubt on the credibility of any narrative that purports to treat of "medical experiments" performed by the evil Dr. Mengele.

    In short, so many bogus holocaust claims have been lodged that at least this confirmed skeptic is disinclined to accept any story without absolutely fool-proof evidence and documentation.

    ---

    Back to the question of who wanted war and who did not ---

    Hitler and the Nazis certainly did not want war in March 1933 when International Jewry declared an economic war on Germany, that was intended to destroy the export revenue that, as the Jewish designers of the boycott understood and intended, "Germany depended upon for its existence."

    Shortly before Jews imposed that existential threat to the German people, Louis Brandeis, referred to by Jewish sources as a hofjuden, court Jew or major leader of the Jewish people, instructed Rabbi Stephen Wise that "all Jews must leave Germany. . . .No Jew should remain in Germany."

    Most German Jews did not wish to leave Germany, and certainly not for the unsettled regions of zionist Palestine.

    So how do you explain Brandeis's directive?

    What's even more intriguing has to do with Rabbi Wise's response to Brandeis's directive. As he records in his autobiography, "The Challenging Years," Wise said to Brandeis, "How shall we get 587,000 people out of Germany?"

    For over thirty years Rabbi Wise had been claiming that "6 million Jews" in Russia and Poland are being persecuted; are being starved to death; and being crucified. In Russia and Poland, not Germany.

    So why did Brandeis instruct that 587,000 German Jews leave Germany? Why did he not direct that Russian Jews and Polish Jews whose lives, according to Wise, were threatened, be removed to safety?

    Arthur Ruppin offers one answer and Michael Ledeen offers an even more dreadful response to Why did Jewish leaders simultaneously provoke war with German; direct that GERMAN Jews leave Germany; but neglect to arrange for the security of Russian and Polish Jews whose wellbeing they had been saying since at least 1900 were in jeopardy? -- that's another conversation.

    Why did Jewish leaders deliberately provoke Germany where, according to Breitman & Lichtman in "FDR and the Jews," NSDAP had quelled violence against Jews, a status quo sustained until just after Grynszpan, a Polish Jew, deliberately and boldly shot and killed a German diplomat in Paris in the first week of November -- six or so weeks after the German agreement with Britain and France that was so objectionable to Harry Dexter White and about a month after Morgenthau met with FDR to urge him to take "decisive steps" to "go after" the "most potent aggressor states" who because they were not, in Morgenthau's view, "democracies," were a "threat to the United States and the entire world." (see below).



    As I have argued elsewhere, discussions of who did what to whom re Germany, Jews, and USA are of historical import but become especially critical when one takes seriously the comparisons of Iran to Germany in the 1933 - 1945 period, as Netanyahu and many neoconservatives are wont to do.
    If it is know that harming a nation's economy, leading to high unemployment, especially in the presence of a significant cohort of young men (and women), many of whom are well-educated, as was the case in Germany and is the case in Iran, causes serious destabilization which can erupt in violence, then why impose such measures deliberately?

    Why did Jews declare an economic war on Germany in 1933 and pursue that destabilizing action through 1940, while simultaneously calling for German Jews who did not want to leave Germany to leave the country where they had established lives and felt reasonably secure with NSDAP policies?

    For some reason, Hitler's nonviolent accession of Sudetenland, and more significantly, the British and French acquiescence to that arrangement in late September 1938, was deeply disturbing to Jews in the USA.

    Henry Morgenthau, Jr. compiled a million pages of notes on his actives as Secretary of Treasury; Peter Moreira researched them to produce "The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau, Jr. ..." Here's what Moreira reports about Morgenthau's -- and, more significantly, Harry Dexter White's activities in the two-week period following the Sept. 29, 1938 agreement among Germany, Britain and France re Sudetenland:

    Henry Morgenthau, Jr ws growing frustrated that his two most brilliant aides just didn't understand what he was hinting at. It was late on ... Oct. 11 , 1938, and the Treasury Dept's chief counsel Herman Oliphant and Harry Dexter White, the director of monetary research, had come to Morgenthau's ... office to persuade him to once again recommend that the president impose countervailing duties on Germany and Japan. They knew Morgenthau supported such a policy. All señor Treasury officials hated the rightist aggressors [German government, presumably -ed.], and nobody mores that the Treasury secretary himself. Even Morgenthau's secretary, Henrietta Klotz, who was silently taking notes at the meeting, hoped the department could do something to halt the extremists' steady advance. [toward what? -ed.] And yet as Oliphant and White outlined their plan, the secretary kept suggesting there was a problem, obviously hoping that they would pick up on what he wanted.

    Oliphant told the Treasury secretary that the president had the authority to impose a 50% duty if he found a country discriminated against the commerce of the United States. And under Section 338 of the Tariff Act, he reminded Morgenthau, the Treasury had already found eleven to thirteen instances of Germany discriminating against the United States. Morgenthau heard him out and focused on one question: Why? Why impose these duties on Germany and Japan and not on other countries? The two men across the desk from him fumbled for a response, even though they were widely considered to be intellectual heavyweights compared to the boss.

    ...
    Oliphant had been with Morgenthau longer than any of the other Treasury personnel ... so the lawyer was the one who now pushed the countervailing-duties issue. ... He suggested the president could draw a distinction between trade from Germany and Japan on one hand and the rest of the world on the other. He was supported by White, a Harvard trained economist . . .White had a gruff manner that offended many colleagues, but was known to have a profound intellect and was respected throughout Washington [but even more in Moscow, for which he spied] ...

    [After advancing arguments that had been tried and failed previously], Finally the counsel stated the real reason they were having the discussion. Oliphant said he would like duties to be imposed against Japan because it would be decisive in helping China in its escalating Asian war. "And I would do it in the case of Germany because it might very well be decisive in the struggle between the grisly thing in Europe and the sort of institutions we know about."

    Oliphant had said it. They were going after the two most potent aggressor states because the Treasury officials believed they threatened the entire world, including the United States. For the five years the Democrats had been in power, they had watched the right-wing dictatorships expand at a frightening rate. Just the day before, German troops had completed their occupation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, the result of the embarrassing acquiescence of Britain and France at the Munich summit in late September. In the two years before that, Germany had seized Austria and the Rhineland. . . .
     
    Moreira here inserts a list of other occupations and conflicts only tangentially related to Germany but that seem to present Germany in the same category as, for example, "the horrendous massacre in Nanking in December 1937." What's curious about this reference is that it does not include the deaths of millions at the hands of Bolshevik Communists, to whom Morgenthau funnels money and engineers Lend-Lease, and for whom the "gruff but well-known" Harry Dexter White spies.

    The narrative continues:

    Of all the members of Roosevelt's cabinet, Morgenthau was the most aware of the frightening advance of right-wing extremists. He hated the Nazis with an all-consuming passion. No doubt the fact that he was Jewish contributed to this hatred, though a more important factor was his abiding love of democracy and American liberty. As a minority who lived in considerable luxury, Morgenthau had always believed his family could enjoy such a station in life only in a country that guaranteed personal liberties as the United States did. He was consistent throughout his life in his admiration for democratic countries and contempt for totalitarianism, except for a blind spot to the evils of the Soviet Union. He had been warning about the perils of German, Japanese and Italian aggression in and out of cabinet for years, more so than any other secretary. On December 20, 1936, Morgenthau delivered a speech to the Federation of Brotherhoods of the Temples and Synagogues of Baltimore, calling for America to rededicate itself to the preservation of democracy and freedom . . .
     
    Have we heard this same tripe recently?

    ---

    In an much earlier comment I quoted a passage from an article by Robert Cohen. He said,

    "today’s school children are in danger of thinking that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews." http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/auschwitz-revisited#sthash.jiB0LHza.dpuf
     
    Henry Morgenthau's diaries have revealed a slightly different perspective: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler, setting in motion the deaths of several million Germans, Russians, Jews, and Italians because Henry Morgenthau, Jr.'s luxurious lifestyle was best protected by "freedom" and "democracy."

    And somehow, in Morgenthau's addled, and Harry Dexter White's "gruff" and Bolshevik-sympathizing mind, destroying Germany and killing millions of Germans and reducing that nation to rubble and raping its women and its culture would ensure that Henry Morgenthau, Jr. could carry on his luxurious lifestyle in the United States of America. In freedom.

    Neither Hitler nor the German government or army did anything to the United States or to Morgenthau, for that matter. He just hated Germans because --- because --- because why?

    Why haven't the united voices of the Jewish people risen up to denounce the hatefulness of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Harry Dexter White, Herman Oliphant, Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise and a legion of others that brought on such a catastrophe to the German people as well as Jews themselves?

    If 93-year old Oskar Groening should be prosecuted for standing guard over baggage at a concentration camp where a 10-year old Jewish girl was nursed back to health by Germans under the direction of "Dr. Mengele," why shouldn't any and every memory and associate and collaborator of the men mentioned above, who had the last chance to prevent war but instead pursued it, be likewise prosecuted to the ends of the earth?

    Germans did not kill fellow Germans,

    Wrong.

    from Hitler’s War, by David Irving, c 2007:

    “It was not until the end of 1938 that Hitler was directly involved in any euthanasia decisions, and the it was in ‘mercy killing.’ Bouhler’s chancellery had repeatedly submitted to him appeals from patients in intolerable pain, or from their doctor, asking Hitler to exercise the Head of State’s prerogative of mercy and permit the doctor to terminate the patient’s life without fear of criminal proceedings. When Hitler received such an appeal from the parents of a malformed, blind, and imbecile boy born in Leipzig, he sent Dr. Brandt early in 1939 to examine the child, and he authorized the doctors to put him to sleep. A ministerial decree was eventually passed in August 1939 requiring all midwives to report the details of such deformed newborn babies; a panel of three assessors judged each case, and if all three agreed, the infant was procured from the parents either by deception or by compulsion and quietly put away.

    After the Zopport meeting in Sept. 1939, . . .Dr. Conti had become involved in lengthy discussions in which the legal and ethical bases of Hitler’s proposals were explored. The consequence of this delay was that Hitler . . .wrote an order that considerably enlarged the scope of the euthanasia project:

    “Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M.D., are herewith given full responsibility to enlarge the powers of certain specified doctors so that they can grant those who are by all human standards incurably ill a merciful death, after the most critical assessment possible of their medical condition. (Signed) Adolf Hitler”

    . . .What had begun as the ‘mercy killing’ of the few was now followed by the programmed elimination of the burdensome tens of thousand of insane.

    Read More
  158. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    @Syon

    All the deaths you publish here, there is no discussion at all on what and whom is responsible for setting these wars in motion. It was mainly US, British, and Jewish interests that led to these deaths including the deaths in Asia at the hands of Japan.

    Playing divide and conquer and punishing Germany for not kowtowing to the Anglo Elite was the origin of all this suffering. How different the world would be today if America, Britian, and the Jews had an ounce or morals.

    If you do want to deny this, just look at the world today and you will see the same thing. American, British, and Jewish bankers fermenting civil war in the Middle East to control the oil, color revolutions in Eastern Europe to control Russia, divide and conquer again with Japan poised as an Anglo pawn to destroy China.

    All the horrors we talk about that happened in the past, do we not see that they will happen again in the near future?

    Read More
  159. Quite tragic war being equally deception and atrocity, that it is the falling star that the west has hitched its economic wagon to.

    Read More
  160. @keypusher
    Hitler and NSDAP having been forced to wage war did so in the same fashion that Colin Powell stated the US should fight: to win.

    This comment is so extraordinarily clueless, it really captures you up perfectly. In the East, the Nazis did not fight to win so much as to exterminate. Had they just concentrated on winning the war, they might have succeeded.

    But of course, if they'd been rational, they wouldn't have started the war in the first place.

    The barebones framework of my argument is this:

    1. No war, no deaths – not of Jews nor of Germans, Russians, Italians, etc.

    2. Germany did not want a global war (curiously, several of Hitler’s aims coalesce with those of USA under Wilson 1918-1919, and under every US president from FDR to G H W Bush — vanquish Bolshevism-Communism).

    Note carefully the reasoning underlying David Stockman’s thesis on WWI:

    “American intervention in the First World War was the equivalent of a European power coming to the United States during the Civil War and saying South wins, North loses. . . .

    Transforming a European conflict into a world war and losing the peace set the stage for World War II. . . .

    Wilson bequeathed America a civil religion that replaced the founding narrative of self-restraint and limits on power. His militant idealism — adopted by humanitarian interventionists, neoconservatives, and assertive nationalists — animates our foreign policy debates today

    D. Stockman & M. Sieff, presentation at Committee of the Republic, Jan. 2015

    The last point is the most crucial: the same entities are operating under the same ideology and the same, albeit enhanced methods of engendering hatred as were implemented in WWI and WWII.

    3. Jews did want war. So did FDR and Churchill. This is irrefutable (then and now, with Israel’s current behavior opening to scrutiny the behavior of Jewish leaders in the 20th century wars).
    Charles Lindbergh stated as much in as measured tones as were possible.
    For this he was subjected to systematic character assassination because —>
    See 3., above: Jews, FDR and Churchill wanted war.

    WHY each of those three — Jews, FDR and Churchill — wanted war requires individual assessment of each participant’s activities to expose particular motives and goals. That assessment reveals that Jews worked actively behind and within FDR’s and Churchill’s governments as well as in and through their own organizations including the nascent Jewish state to promote and benefit from war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @keypusher
    1. No war, no deaths – not of Jews nor of Germans, Russians, Italians, etc.

    We don't know what would have happened had there been no war. But it doesn't matter, because there was no way there WOULDN'T be a war, with Hitler pursuing his program.

    2. Germany did not want a global war (curiously, several of Hitler’s aims coalesce with those of USA under Wilson 1918-1919, and under every US president from FDR to G H W Bush — vanquish Bolshevism-Communism).

    Hitler wanted a Judenfrei Europe and he also wanted the East cleaned out so he could resettled millions of Germans there. Hard to accomplish those goals without a war.

    He got his war, alright.
  161. Just to be clear, there’s no disputing the mass shootings of Jews on the Eastern front or the terrible treatment of Soviet POWs. But the actual numbers have doubtless been exaggerated.

    But a different point to Syon: who here is bringing attention to American actions as a means of minimizing or excusing German actions? Sounds like a straw man to me.

    Read More
  162. @Eternal Vigilance
    As a non-American, you are probably from a country that has directly solicited USA defensive aid against real or imagined enemies. After all, it is much cheaper in terms of treasury and lives to have the USA act as the World's Policeman to protect your backside. It can be safely said that there are a few, very few, allies have remained loyal friends of the USA in these troubled times. The USA can indeed protect its shores if the libs will let us protect our borders and the hawks will eliminate military aid to "good times" allies.

    Does Obama's ISIS Coalition stand the test of shared allied responsibilities for treasury, equipment, lives and limb? Hardly, it is a Presidential fiction fostered to keep the USA in a war that should be of greatest concern to members of the EU. Pull the plug on USA foreign aid and behind the scenes foreign subsidies by the military and the CIA and wait for the weeping and wailing that would emanate from our supposed allies. Time to wean the entire world off USA welfare!

    “As a non-American, you are probably from a country that has directly solicited USA defensive aid against real or imagined enemies.”

    As it happens, it’s the other way around. Exclusively to curry American favor, my country took part in the unnecessary Iraq war.

    It remains true that if the US spent less in armaments, a few other countries would have to spend more.

    Read More
  163. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    The quality of this article is outstanding. Many of the comments are of great interest.

    For those who wish to explore the complexity of WWII even more, I would like to draw your attention to "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military" and its companion volume "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: Untold Tales of Men of Jewish Descent Who Fought for the Third Reich", both by Bryan Mark Rigg.

    One of them was Admiral Gunther Lutjens. The commander of Operation Rhine–killed on board his flagship BISMARCK during her last, desperate action against the Home Fleet–was part Jewish.

    Read More
  164. So much stuff to comment on:

    Is there something unique about a Jewish corpse — rendered lifeless through starvation or typhus — as compared to a non-Jewish German corpse — rendered lifeless through starvation or typhus?

    The corpse itself?No.What separates and differentiates are things like:

    The Einsatzgruppen

    Death camps

    And the sheer number of people who were killed by the Nazis:

    Holocaust
    Extermination of the Jews:
    Reitlinger, Gerald, The Final Solution (1953): between 4,194,200 and 4,851,200 (this number is accepted by Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World History (1978))
    Brzezinski: 5,000,000
    Chirot: 5,100,000
    3,000,000 in death camps.
    1,300,000 massacred.
    800,000 by dis./maln. in ghettos
    David E. Stannard, “The Politics of Genocide Scholarship,” in Alan S. Rosenbaum, ed., Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide (1996), p. 178. By one estimate, 2.4 million of the 5.1 million victims of the Holocaust died of disease in ghettos and concentration camps.
    Rummel: 5,291,000
    Grenville: 5-6M
    Davies, Europe A History (1998): avg. c. 5,571,300 (puts the minimum at 4,871,000 and the maximum at 6,271,500.)
    MEDIAN: ca. 5.6M
    Nuremberg indictment: 5,700,000 (accepted by Britannica)
    Gutman, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990): 5,596,029 to 5,860,129
    P. Johnson: 5,800,000
    Wallechinsky: “nearly” 6,000,000
    Urlanis: 6M

    Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
    Urlanis: 3,912,000
    12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
    Our Times: 3,300,000
    Rummel: 3,100,000
    MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
    Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
    Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.

    solonto-Croesus:

    2. Germany did not want a global war

    Of course Germany didn’t. Hitler wanted a war with the Soviet Union.He wanted to subjugate the Eastern Slavs and establish a German Empire in the East.The Anglo powers decided not to go along with it.

    silento-Croesus:

    The next time you haul out your whinging list of persons killed, be so kind as to assign dates to the events. It could be instructive to correlate the killing of Jews in Russia, etc. with the firebombing raids that killed so many German civilians. Tit for tat. War is not bean-bag. The NSDAP was well aware that Jews were significant players in the firebombing that was killing German citizens by the tens of thousands; rendering millions homeless — “de-housed,” in “Bomber” Harris’s happy-talk and tens of thousands traumatized. Industrial facilities to fight the war were wrecked.

    I did assign dates to events, dear fellow.Here’s what I said:

    Babi Yar, near Kiev, USSR (massacre of Jews by Germans: Sept. 1941): 33 000
    PBS Nova: 34,000
    Gilbert: 33,771 k. in 3 days
    Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 33,771 according to German records
    Michael Hamm, Kiev: 33,000 (29-30 Sept.)
    Richard Overy, Russia’s War (1997): >30,000 (29-30 Sept.)

    Rumbula massacre (November 30 and December 8, 1941): approx 25,000

    The Odessa massacre is the name given to the mass murder of Jewish and Romani population of Odessa and surrounding towns in Transnistria (now in Ukraine) during the autumn of 1941 and winter of 1942 while under Romanian control.

    Depending on the accepted terms of reference and scope, the Odessa massacre refers either to the events of October 22–24, 1941 in which some 25,000 to 34,000 Jews were shot or burned, or to the murder of well over 100,000 Ukrainian Jews in the town and the areas between the Dniester and Bug rivers, during the Romanian and German occupation. In the same days, Germans and Romanians killed about 15,000 Romani people.

    And here’s what I quoted from Snyder:

    All in all, as many if not more Jews were killed by bullets as by gas, but they were killed by bullets in easterly locations that are blurred in painful remembrance. The second most important part of the Holocaust is the mass murder by bullets in eastern Poland and the Soviet Union. It began with SS Einsatzgruppen shootings of Jewish men in June 1941, expanded to the murder of Jewish women and children in July, and extended to the extermination of entire Jewish communities that August and September. By the end of 1941, the Germans (along with local auxiliaries and Romanian troops) had killed a million Jews in the Soviet Union and the Baltics. That is the equivalent of the total number of Jews killed at Auschwitz during the entire war. By the end of 1942, the Germans (again, with a great deal of local assistance) had shot another 700,000 Jews, and the Soviet Jewish populations under their control had ceased to exist.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    So, the Nazis and their allies had killed approximately 1 million Jews by the end of 1941.

    silento:”Germans did not kill fellow Germans, ”

    Actually, they did.Look up the Nazi Euthanasia program:

    Action T4 (German: Aktion T4, pronounced [akˈtsi̯oːn teː fiːɐ]) was the postwar designation[2] for a programme of forced euthanasia in wartime Nazi Germany. Under the programme physicians were directed to judge patients “incurably sick, by critical medical examination” and then administer to these patients a “mercy death” (German: Gnadentod).[3] In October 1939 Adolf Hitler signed a “euthanasia decree” backdated to 1 September 1939 that authorized Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler, chief of Hitler’s private chancellery[4] and Dr. Karl Brandt, Hitler’s personal physician, to carry out the programme of euthanasia (translated into English as follows):

    Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. med. Brandt are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the competence of certain physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen], are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death [Gnadentod] after a discerning diagnosis. — Adolf Hitler [5][6]

    Various other rationales for the programme have been offered, including eugenics, natural selection, racial hygiene, cost effectiveness and pressure on the welfare budget.[7][8]

    The programme officially ran from September 1939[9][10] to August 1941, during which 70,273 people were killed at various extermination centres located at psychiatric hospitals in Germany and Austria.[1] Even after the official termination of the programme, physicians in German and Austrian facilities continued many of the practices that had been instituted under the programme until the defeat of Germany in 1945.[11][12] This unofficial continuation of the Action T4 policies led to more than 200,000 additional deaths. In addition, technology that was developed under Action T4, particularly the use of lethal gas to perform mass murder, was transferred to the medical division of the Reich Interior Ministry, along with transfers of personnel who had participated in the development of the technology.[13] This technology, the personnel and the techniques developed to deceive victims were used in the implementation of industrial killings in mobile death vans, and in established extermination camps with stationary facilities for mass murder.[14]

    Any further bits of business?

    silento:

    Hitler’s plan to take territory to the East was precisely to be able to protect German civilians from a repeat of the hunger blockade that had killed so many Germans in WWI. It was the NSDAP’s calculation that eastern territory was beyond the ability of British or Americans to blockade, and that the land was fertile.

    Why yes, dear fellow, that’s what I’ve been saying.The point of Hitler’s war on the Soviet Union was an attempt to gain control of the “black earth” regions.Once that was done, the food resources of that region could be directed back to Germany:

    Yet even this corrected image of the Holocaust conveys an unacceptably incomplete sense of the scope of German mass killing policies in Europe. The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union. Had things gone the way that Hitler, Himmler, and Göring expected, German forces would have implemented a Hunger Plan in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1941–1942. As Ukrainian and south Russian agricultural products were diverted to Germany, some 30 million people in Belarus, northern Russia, and Soviet cities were to be starved to death. The Hunger Plan was only a prelude to Generalplan Ost, the colonization plan for the western Soviet Union, which foresaw the elimination of some 50 million people.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    beefcake:

    To address but one example of Syon’s, it’s ludicrous to believe that 30,000+ people were machine-gunned at Babi Yar in a day and a half as the official account holds. At least Martin Gilbert seemed to recognize this and stretched it out to an even three days.

    So, taking three days makes it less heinous?

    Just to be clear, there’s no disputing the mass shootings of Jews on the Eastern front or the terrible treatment of Soviet POWs. But the actual numbers have doubtless been exaggerated.

    People have been studying these numbers for over 60 years now.We have a pretty solid estimate on the numbers of people that the Nazis killed.

    But a different point to Syon: who here is bringing attention to American actions as a means of minimizing or excusing German actions? Sounds like a straw man to me.

    Silento for one.

    Anonymous:

    All the deaths you publish here, there is no discussion at all on what and whom is responsible for setting these wars in motion. It was mainly US, British, and Jewish interests that led to these deaths including the deaths in Asia at the hands of Japan.

    Well, in the case of Nazi Germany, I would place the blame on Hitler’s racial views and on his desire to create a German Empire in the East.

    Meanwhile, let’s end with some atrocities:

    The Warsaw Revolt in 1944

    Norman Davies:No Simple Victory: World War II In Europe, 1939-1945, p. 316:

    The killings that took place in August 1944 in the first week of the Warsaw Rising in the suburbs of Wola and Ochota are equally hard to understand, especially since they were nearly a hundred times more extensive than Oradour. The suburbs in question, on the western side of the city, had no military importance. They were filled with a mixture of factories, public buildings, hospitals and low-cost housing. But they happened to be in the path of the SS Storm Group as it made its first drive from the German-controlled outskirts towards the insurgent-controlled centre. The two SS brigades concerned, those of Dirlewanger and Kaminski, can hardly have been surprised to be fired on. But their reaction was surprising. Instead of engaging the Home Army units that were harassing them, they turned their fury on civilian non-combatants. In an orgy lasting five or six days, every manner of atrocity was perpetrated. A large crowd of men and women was driven into a churchyard and machine-gunned. Householders were dragged into the street to be butchered with sabres and bayonets. Pregnant women were drawn and quartered. Hospitals were invaded, and patients were mown down in their beds. Doctors and nurses who pleaded for relief were mutilated. Children were chopped to pieces. Streets and houses flowing with blood were then set alight. The number of victims is put at a figure between 40,000 and 50,000.

    .

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Yeah.

    Predictably you would not want to touch on the role the west played in creating Hitler. Such as the Bush family and other bankers bankrolling Nazi Germany. Or how the west punished Germany after WW1 and how this led to the circumstance of Hitler coming to power.

    Post all the tables you want to, but you are still avoiding the root cause of this misery.

    When people look back at the Middle East today they may look at it as primarily Arabs killing other Arabs, but it is infact the west that is behind all the chaos. The west is the origin for the misery.

    That is the point.
  165. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @syonredux
    So much stuff to comment on:

    Is there something unique about a Jewish corpse — rendered lifeless through starvation or typhus — as compared to a non-Jewish German corpse — rendered lifeless through starvation or typhus?
     
    The corpse itself?No.What se