So you don't like Viktor Suvorov. So be it.

But why not point out, with verifiable proof, where Suvorov is wrong, or made errors, in his book "Icebreaker". Or errors/omissions in his follow-up book?

Replies: @Incitatus

You write: "You celebrate Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun (aka Viktor Suvorov, a GRU defector who identifies as Ukrainian, born on Hitler’s birthday 1947) as the definitive source on Barbarossa. Disagree, though your loyalty is admirable. Be honest. Isn’t it because Vlad whistles the right tune?"

My response: I was wondering if you would get back to me on this subject. For people new to this discussion thread, I have already written extensively on this subject in my comments #184, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, and 193. If anyone has an interest, you can go back and read these comments before proceeding to my next comments.

I think Viktor Suvorov provides massive and well-documented support for his conclusion that Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was preemptive in nature. This is why I use Viktor Suvorov's documentation in Chapter One of my book "Germany's War."

You write: "Whatever Stalin may or may not have been planning, Hitler pulled the trigger. What reason did he give?"

My response: I will provide some historical background to answer your question.

On August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement which led to the destruction and division of Poland and the beginning of World War II. The nations of Western Europe became mired in a destructive war while the Soviet Union remained neutral. Stalin’s role in unleashing World War II was quickly and thoroughly forgotten. Stalin even received substantial aid from the United States and Great Britain after Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Ultimately, at the end of the war, Poland did not gain her independence, but was given over to the Soviet Union along with all of Central Europe and part of Germany. (Source: Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 111-112).

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact began to unravel when Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov arrived in Berlin on November 12, 1940. Molotov presented to Hitler a long list of ridiculous territorial claims on behalf of the Soviet Union. Molotov demanded strongholds in Yugoslavia, in the Adriatic Sea, in Greece, in the Bosporus and Dardanelles, in the Persian Gulf; he demanded that countries south of the Baku-Batumi line, in the direction of the Persian Gulf, be given over to Soviet control, including eastern Turkey, northern Iran, and Iraq. (Ibid., p. 278).

These territorial claims were repeated on November 25, 1940, when the Soviet Union proposed a peace pact between Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Soviet Union. Molotov also demanded naval bases on the Danish side of the straits of Kattegat and Skagerrak, and from Japan the renunciation of its oil concessions in the province of Northern Sakhalin. The German ambassador to Moscow was told on November 25, 1940, that Germany had to withdraw its troops from Finnish territory immediately. Molotov repeatedly reminded Hitler that without Soviet raw materials German victories in Europe would have been impossible. Hitler and his officials were surprised by such extraordinary demands and did not respond.

Hitler stated to Molotov in their talks that the Soviet Union’s takeover of Northern Bukovina violated their pact about the division of spheres of influence. Molotov replied that the Soviet Union did indeed violate the previously reached agreement with Germany, but that it would not give up what it got from Romania. Moreover, Stalin wanted Southern Bukovina and Bulgaria. Hitler again reminded Molotov that they had agreed about the division of Europe back in August 1939. Molotov replied that it was now time for a new division of Europe that would give an advantage to the Soviet Union. Hitler brought up questions of safety from a Soviet invasion of Germany’s oil supply in Romania and other territory crucial to Germany. Molotov did not give a satisfactory reply, and further discussions were in the same tone. (Source: Ibid., pp. 181-183).

Hitler had been preparing for an invasion of Great Britain when Stalin demanded new territories in Europe--territories on which Germany’s economy and armed forces depended completely. After Molotov’s departure, Hitler gathered his most trusted subordinates and clearly let them understand that he planned to invade the Soviet Union. On June 21, 1941, Hitler wrote a letter to Mussolini: “Russia is trying to destroy the Romania oil field…The task for our armies is eliminating this threat as soon as possible.” The Soviet threat to the Romanian oil fields is a major reason why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was not at all a struggle for Lebensraum (living space). (Source: Ibid., pp. 159, 183).

Replies: @Incitatus

You write: “Strawman. Haven’t read Berben. Not really interested in the perennial Unz gassing/no gassing debates. Sorry.”

My response: You love to use the word “Strawman” when referencing my comments.

At the end of my comment #182, I wrote: “In conclusion, I do not accept that we know for certain that there was a 38% death rate among Polish priests at Dachau. If you have more authoritative sources than what I am providing in this comment, please let me know. I am very interested in this subject.”

You now respond with what I consider to be a “Strawman” response. You reply with a very long list of examples of criminal activity at Dachau. That has nothing to do with what I wrote in my comment #182.

You write at the end of your comment #225: "You seem eager to gloss over that legacy. Why?”

My response: Please read Chapters Nine and Ten of my book “Germany’s War.” I do not gloss over Germany’s crimes in these two chapters.

Replies: @Incitatus

You write: "Lesson: massive German intelligence failure. Incompetence borne of hubris.
• If they seriously feared the Soviets, would they have made such mistakes?"

My response: Hitler did not make a mistake in attacking the Soviet Union. I will continue with some more information from the book "The Chief Culprit" by Viktor Suvorov.

Hitler launched his invasion of the Soviet Union as a preemptive move to prevent the Soviet Union's invasion of all of Europe. Hitler realized that he had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union. If Hitler had waited for Stalin to attack, all of Europe would have been lost.

Suvorov states in "The Chief Culprit" that both German and Soviet forces were positioned for attack on June 22, 1941. The position of the divisions of the Red Army and the German army on the border mirrored each other. The airfields of both armies were moved all the way up to the border. From the defensive point of view, this kind of deployment of troops and airfields by both armies was stupid and suicidal. Whichever army attacked first would be able to easily encircle the troops of the other army. Hitler attacked first to enable German troops to trap and encircle the best units of the Red Army. (Source: Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008, p. xx).

The Red Army in 1941 was designed for offense. The Soviet Union constructed new railroads and railroad bridges in the western border regions. Almost all railroad troops were concentrated in the western border regions. The railroad troops worked intensively to modernize old railroads and build new ones right up to the border. Simultaneously with the construction of railroads, automobile roads were built in the western regions. The Red Army was building railroads and roads from east to west, which is usually done when preparing for advance, for a quick transfer of reserves, and for further supplying the troops after they crossed the borders. All of this work was designed for offense and hurt the Soviet Union in a defensive war. When Germany attacked the Soviet Union, German troops used the roads, bridges, supplies, rails, and sectional bridges constructed by the Soviets in the western regions to aid their advance into Soviet territory. (Source: Ibid., pp. 166-167).

The Soviet Union also destroyed its partisan movement in the late 1930s. Soviet leaders knew that partisan tactics could win a war against any aggressor. With the largest territory of any country in the world, Soviet territory naturally facilitated partisan warfare. In the 1920s, Stalin created light mobile units and stationed them in the woods in the event of a German attack. These partisan units were comprised only of commanders, organizers, and specialists that acted as a nucleus. At the very beginning of a war, each peacetime partisan unit would expand into a powerful formation numbering thousands of people. (Source: Ibid., p. 168).

In the Soviet Union’s invasion of Finland, the Red Army encountered the Mannerheim Line, a security pale before it, and light squads of partisan fighters within. The light ski units of Finnish partisans carried out sudden strikes and then immediately disappeared into the forests. The Red Army suffered tremendous casualties from these strikes. All of the Red Army’s modern technology was useless in a fight against an enemy that evaded open battle. However, having learned a cruel lesson in Finland, Stalin did not change his mind and create partisan units in the western regions of the Soviet Union. As the Soviet Union’s industrial and military might grew, Stalin planned to fight enemies on their soil rather than on Soviet land. In the second half of the 1930s, defense systems and partisan units became unnecessary for the Soviet Union. (Source: Ibid., pp. 168-169). Stalin reestablished partisan units only after Germany had invaded the Soviet Union.

During the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, Yakov Iosifovich Dzhugashvili, the son of Stalin, was taken prisoner by the Germans. Stalin’s son was searched and questioned. A letter dated June 11, 1941, was found in his pockets from another officer stating: “I am at the training camps. I would like to be home by fall, but the planned walk to Berlin might hinder this.” German intelligence officers asked Yakov Dzhugashvili to clarify the statement about the “planned walk to Berlin.” Stalin’s son read the letter and quietly muttered: “Damn it!” Obviously, the letter indicates that Soviet forces were planning to invade Germany later that year. (Source: Ibid., p. 258).

German intelligence officers also asked Stalin’s son why the Soviet artillery, which had the best cannon and howitzers in the world, fired so poorly. Stalin’s son truthfully answered: “The maps let the Red Army down, because the war, contrary to expectations, unfolded to the east of the state border.” The Soviet maps were of territories in which the Red Army planned to advance, and were useless for defending the country. Storages of topographic maps located unreasonably close to the border were either destroyed by the advancing German army or by the retreating Soviet forces. In 1941, the Red Army fought without maps, and the Soviet artillery could not fire accurately without maps. (Source: Ibid., pp. 258-259).

Every Soviet commander, starting with regiment level and higher, had in his safe a so-called “Red Packet,” which contained the plans for war. When Germany invaded, the commanders opened their “Red Packets,” but they did not find in them anything useful for defense. The Red Army had neither prepared for defense nor conducted any training in defensive operations. The defensive operations of the Red Army in the summer of 1941 were pure improvisation. (Source: Ibid., pp. 252-253).

On May 5, 1941, Stalin made it clear to his generals that the Soviet Union would be the aggressor in a war with Germany. At a banquet a Soviet general toasted Stalin’s peaceful foreign policy. Stalin intervened:

"Allow me to make a correction. A peaceful foreign policy secured peace in our country. A peaceful foreign policy is a good thing. For a while, we drew a line of defenses until we rearmed our army [and] supplied it with modern means of combat. Now, when our army has been rebuilt, our technology modernized, [now that we are] strong [enough] for combat, now we must shift from defense to offense. In conducting the defense of our country, we are compelled to act in an aggressive manner. From defense we have to shift to a military policy of offense. It is indispensable that we reform our training, our propaganda, our press to a mindset of offense. The Red Army is a modern army, and the modern army is an army of offense."

The general who made the toast to Stalin’s peaceful foreign policy was discharged a few days after the banquet. (Source: Ibid., p. 205).

Suvorov also mentions that Soviet soldiers and officers were issued Russian-German and Russian-Romanian phrase books as part of their preparations for an invasion of Europe. Thousands of Soviet troops did not think to get rid of this compromising evidence when they were captured in the German invasion of the Soviet Union. The Russian-German phrase books were composed very simply: a question in Russian, followed by the same question in German written in Russian letters, then in German in Latin letters. If the Soviet soldier did not know how to pronounce the needed German phrase, he could point to the corresponding lines in the book and the Germans could read the lines themselves.

The phrases indicated that the Soviets were planning to conduct an offensive war in Europe. For example, some phrases asked: “Where is the burghermeister? Is there an observation point on the steeple?” There were no burghermeisters or steeples in the Soviet Union. These questions are relevant only if the Soviet soldiers were in Germany. Here are other examples: “Where is the fuel? Where is the garage? Where are the stores? Where is the water? Gather and bring here [so many] horses [farm animals], we will pay!” These questions and phrases would not be relevant on Soviet soil. Other revealing phrases are the following: “You do not need to be afraid. The Red Army will come soon!” These phrases are also not relevant for a war conducted on Soviet soil. (Source: Ibid., pp. 257-258).

This comment is getting somewhat long. I will continue with more information in my next comment.

Replies: @John Wear, @Incitatus

This comment is a continuation of my comment #186 with more information from Viktor Suvorov:

The Soviet Union in 1941 was preparing for an offensive war against Europe. In the first half of June 1941, the Soviet 9th Army was the most powerful army in the world. The 9th Army appeared on the Romanian border on June 14, 1941, in the exact place where a year ago it had “liberated” Bessarabia. If the Soviet 9th Army had been allowed to attack Romania, Germany’s main source of oil would have been lost and Germany would have been defeated. Hitler’s attack of the Soviet Union prevented this from happening. The unjustified concentration of Soviet troops on Romanian borders presented a clear danger to Germany, and was a major reason for the German invasion of the Soviet Union. (Source: Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 196-197).

On June 21, 1941, Hitler wrote a letter to Mussolini: “Russia is trying to destroy the Romania oil field…The task for our armies is eliminating this threat as soon as possible.” The Soviet threat to the Romanian oil fields is a major reason why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was not at all a struggle for Lebensraum (living space). (Source: Ibid., pp. 159, 183).

The First Strategic Echelon of the Red Army had 170 tank, motorized, cavalry, and rifle divisions. Fifty-six of them were already located right on the border and could not move any farther ahead. All of the remaining 114 divisions began to move toward the border in the wake of a reassuring TASS announcement on June 13, 1941.

This massive troop movement could not have been defensive. Troops preparing for defense dig themselves into the ground, close off roads, establish barbwire barriers, dig anti-tank trenches, and prepare covers behind the barricades. The Red Army did none of these things. Instead, the additional Soviet divisions began to hide in the border forests just like the German troops preparing for invasion. The TASS announcement had been made solely in an attempt to falsely allay German fears of a pending Soviet invasion of Europe. (Source: Ibid., pp. 207-217).

The actions of the Red Army during the first days of the war speak best about Soviet intentions to conduct an offensive war. Up until June 30, 1941, Gen. Zhukov insisted on advance and demanded that commanders of Soviet forces aimed at Romania and Hungary exclusively attack. Zhukov stopped the attack only when he and his colleagues concluded that his armies could no longer advance. On June 22, 1941, several other Soviet commanders also followed prewar plans without awaiting orders from Moscow, and attacked the following regions: the Rava-Russkaya region, Tilzit in Eastern Prussia, and the Polish city of Suvalki.

The actions of the Soviet fleet during the first days of the war also show with sufficient clarity its plans for offense. On June 22, 1941, the submarines of the Baltic fleet sailed toward the shores of Germany with the objective of sinking all enemy ships and vessels according to the rules of unrestricted warfare. No exceptions were made, not even for medical vessels sailing under the Red Cross flag. Soviet submarines from the Black Sea fleet immediately sailed into the sea toward the shores of Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey. On June 25 and 26, 1941, the Black Sea fleet’s cruisers carried out an intensive artillery raid in the vicinity of the Romanian port of Constanta. At the same time, the Danube military flotilla began an assault in the Danube river delta. The garrison of the Soviet naval base Hanko also conducted intensive assault operations during the beginning of the war, taking over 19 Finnish islands in the course of several days. (Source: Ibid., pp. 253-256).

The Soviet air force also acted in an aggressive manner at the start of the war. On June 25, 1941, despite losses suffered during the first days of the war, Soviet air forces bombed all known air fields of the southern part of Finland. On June 23, 1941, acting according to plans, the Soviet long-range bomber air force carried out a massive attack against military targets in Koenigsberg and Danzig. Soviet long-range bombers also began to bomb the Ploieşti oil fields in Romania on June 26, 1941. After a few days of raids, the amount of oil Germany obtained in Romania was reduced almost in half. If Hitler had not attacked first, the Soviet air force would have been much more dangerous, and could have totally paralyzed the entire German war effort through its strikes against the oil-producing regions. (Source: Ibid., p. 254).

You write in comment # 185:
“• Why didn’t Stalin, if interested in the west, invade in May-September 1940?
• Why didn’t Stalin, warned of Barbarossa by multiple sources, launch a preemptive attack in early 1941?
• Why did Stalin let millions of his own men and tons of equipment perish?
• Why wasn’t the threat of immanent Soviet invasion mentioned in press announcements of Barbarossa?
• Why did Hitler order Göbbels to use it only 15 days later?
• Why did Hitler predict victory in a matter of weeks, if Stalin was a serious threat?
• Why didn’t Germany fortify their eastern frontier after taking half of Poland?
Does Suvorov have the answers?”

My response: Let’s see what Suvorov says about each of these questions:

1) Why didn’t Stalin, if interested in the west, invade in May-September 1940?

Stalin maybe should have invaded the West in May-September 1940. Suvorov says on page 133 of “The Chief Culprit” that “if Stalin had attacked Germany in 1940, there would have been nothing left for Germany to use in fending off his attack, because her industries had still not been mobilized.”

The Soviet Ammunition Commissariat was created as a separate ministry to take care exclusively of the production of ammunition. This ministry had to determine where to locate all of the new factories that would be producing shells, gunpowder, cartridges, missiles, and other weapons. If Stalin had planned to conduct a defensive war, the new ammunition factories would have been built either behind the Volga River or even farther inland in the Ural Mountains. But no defensive options were ever discussed. Since Stalin planned to conduct an offensive operation into a war-devastated and weakened Europe, all of the new ammunition factories were built near the western border regions of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union lost almost all industry capable of producing new ammunitions at the beginning of the war. From August to November 1941, German troops took over 303 Soviet ammunition factories as well as mobilization reserves of valuable raw materials located in those factories. These factories produced 85% of all output from the Ammunition Commissariat. All of these resources went to Germany and were used against the Red Army. The Red Army also lost an unthinkable amount of artillery shells in the border regions of the Soviet Union at the start of the war. However, Stalin’s prewar potential was so great that he was able to rebuild his ammunitions factories behind the Volga River and in the Urals, and produce all of the ammunitions needed to defeat the German army. (Source: Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 131-132).

The seizure of Stalin’s supplies was a tremendous benefit for Germany, but Hitler needed to shift Germany’s own industry to a wartime regime. Hitler waited until January 1942 before he made the decision to gradually begin the shift of industry from a peacetime to a wartime regime. Stalin, on the other hand, began setting Soviet industry on a wartime regime back in January 1939. Despite losing 85% of the ammunitions of the Ammunition Commissariat, the Red Army used 427 million shells and artillery mines and 17 billion cartridges during the war. To this one can add innumerable hand grenades, land mines, and air bombs. Imagine what the outcome of World War II would have been if Stalin had been able to use 100% of his ammunitions arsenal. (Source: Ibid., pp. 133-135).

You ask: "Why didn’t Stalin, warned of Barbarossa by multiple sources, launch a preemptive attack in early 1941?"

My response: Stalin had three separate independent espionage agencies working for him. The total power of these agencies was colossal, and testimonies abound about the might of Stalin’s espionage. These Soviet espionage services had penetrated into leading German military and political circles. Soviet military intelligence managed to gain access in Germany to the most secret information from the highest levels of power. Given these facts, the question is: “How could Hitler have surprised Stalin with his invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941?”

Suvorov says that Hitler knew that it had become impossible to conceal his preparations to invade the Soviet Union. Therefore, Hitler said in secret, in a way that Stalin could hear, “Yes, I want to attack Stalin after I have finished the war in the west.” The Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Soviet Armed Forces (GRU) also made extensive studies of all the economic, political, and military aspects of the situation and concluded that Germany could not win a war on two fronts. The GRU concluded that Hitler would not begin a war in the east without first finishing the war in the west. The head of the GRU submitted a detailed report to Stalin on March 20, 1941, which concluded that “the earliest possible date on which operations against the USSR may begin is the moment following victory over England or after an honorable peace for Germany has been achieved.” (Source: Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 244-247).

Soviet intelligence knew about the massive concentration of German troops on Soviet borders, the locations of all German divisions, the huge ammunition supplies, the movements of the German air force, and many other things. Soviet GRU agents knew many important secrets, including the name of Operation Barbarossa and the time of its inception. Yet on the eve of the German invasion, Soviet intelligence reported that preparations for invasion had not yet begun, and without these preparations it was impossible for Germany to begin the war. (Source: Ibid., p. 248).

Soviet intelligence believed, with good reason, that a country needed serious preparations to fight the Soviet Union. One of the vital things Germany would need to fight the Soviet Union was sheepskin coats so that its troops could survive the Russian winter. All GRU agents in Europe gathered and analyzed information on sheep in Europe, and on the main sheep-breeding centers and slaughterhouses. As soon as Hitler decided to attack the Soviet Union, Soviet intelligence thought that Germany would order industry to begin producing millions of sheepskin coats. This would be reflected in rising sheepskin prices, and sheepskin coats would be delivered to German divisions. However, sheepskin coats were never delivered to any divisions of the German army.

Soviet intelligence also reasoned that the German army would have to use a new type of lubricating oil for its weaponry and motor fuel for its vehicles for the extremely cold Russian winters. The lubricating oil Germany usually used would congeal in the frost, component parts would freeze together, and the weapons would not work. The normal German motor fuel broke down into incombustible components in heavy frost. The quantities and type of liquid fuels possessed by Germany were not sufficient to conduct deep offensive operations in the Soviet Union. Germany was not even conducting research in the field of creating frost-resistant fuels and oils.

The GRU closely followed many other indicators for warning signals of a German invasion. German soldiers needed boots, warm underwear, sweaters, special tents, hats, heaters, skis, ski wax, masking robes, devices for heating water, and frost-resistant batteries. The German army also needed tanks with broad caterpillar tracks, thousands of cars that could drive in poor road conditions, and so on. The German army had none of these. Outside of a great buildup of German troops on the Soviet border, Germany had made no preparations for war against the Soviet Union. Since the German army had not taken reasonable actions to prepare for war, Stalin and his agents did not believe that Germany would invade the Soviet Union. (Source: Ibid., pp. 248-250).

However, Hitler launched his invasion of the Soviet Union without making reasonable preparations. Hitler realized that he had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union. If Hitler had waited for Stalin to attack, all of Europe would have been lost.

You ask: "Why did Stalin let millions of his own men and tons of equipment perish?

My response: In regard to the equipment, as I state in my comments #190 and 191, the majority of Stalin's equipment had been moved up to the western border. When Germany surprised Stalin by attacking the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Stalin lost almost all of this equipment.

In regard to the Soviet men who perished, Stalin did not care about Soviet troops who were taken prisoner during the war. Stalin regarded these men as malicious deserters.

The Soviet Union was not a party to The Hague Conventions. Nor was the Soviet Union a signatory of the Geneva Convention of 1929, which defined more precisely the conditions to be accorded to prisoners of war (POWs). Germany nevertheless approached the ICRC immediately after war broke out with the Soviet Union to attempt to regulate the conditions of prisoners on both sides. The ICRC contacted Soviet ambassadors in London and Sweden, but the Soviet leaders in Moscow refused to cooperate. Germany also sent lists of their Russian prisoners to the Soviet government until September 1941. The German government eventually stopped sending these lists in response to the Soviet Union’s refusal to reciprocate. (Source: Tolstoy, Nikolai, Victims of Yalta: The Secret Betrayal of The Allies 1944-1947, New York and London: Pegasus Books, 1977, pp. 33-34).

The ICRC soon became aware of the Soviet government’s callous abandonment of Soviet soldiers who fell into German hands. In August 1941, Hitler permitted a Red Cross delegation to visit the German camp for Soviet POWs at Hammerstadt. As a result of this visit, the Red Cross requested that the Soviet government send food parcels to the Soviet POWs. The Soviet government adamantly refused. It replied that sending food in this situation and under fascist control was the same as making presents to the enemy. (Source: Teplyakov, Yuri, “Stalin’s War Against His Own Troops: The Tragic Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War in German Captivity,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, July/Aug. 1994, p. 6).

In February 1942, the ICRC told Molotov that Great Britain had given permission for the Soviet Union to buy food for captured Soviet prisoners in her African colonies. Also, the Canadian Red Cross was offering a gift of 500 vials of vitamins, and Germany had agreed to collective consignments of food for POWs. The Red Cross reported: “All these offers and communications from the ICRC to the Soviet authorities remained unanswered, either directly or indirectly.” All other appeals by the ICRC and parallel negotiations undertaken by neutral or friendly nations met with no better response. (Source: Tolstoy, Nikolai, Victims of Yalta: The Secret Betrayal of The Allies 1944-1947, New York and London: Pegasus Books, 1977, p. 55).

The Soviet refusals to accept aid came as a surprise to the Red Cross. The Red Cross had not read Order No. 270, which was published by Stalin on August 16, 1941. This order states in regard to captured Soviet POWs:

"If…instead of organizing resistance to the enemy, some Red Army men prefer to surrender, they shall be destroyed by all possible means, both ground-based and from the air, whereas the families of the Red Army men who have been taken prisoner shall be deprived of the state allowance and relief.

The commanders and political officers…who surrender to the enemy shall be considered malicious deserters, whose families are liable to be arrested [the same] as the families of deserters who have violated the oath and betrayed their Motherland." (Source: Teplyakov, Yuri, “Stalin’s War Against His Own Troops: The Tragic Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War in German Captivity,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, July/Aug. 1994, pp. 4, 6).

Order No. 270 reveals Stalin’s great hatred for Soviet soldiers captured by German forces. It also reveals the danger to innocent children and relatives of Soviet POWs. Hundreds of thousands of Russian women and children were murdered simply because their father or son had been taken prisoner. Given Stalin’s attitude, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating captured German prisoners. (Source: Ibid., pp. 6-7).

The result was disastrous for surrendered Russian soldiers in German camps. Captured Red Army soldiers had to endure long marches from the field of battle to the camps. Prisoners who were wounded, sick, or exhausted were sometimes shot on the spot. When Soviet prisoners were transported by train, the Germans usually used open freight cars with no protection from the weather. The camps also often provided no shelter from the elements, and the food ration was typically below survival levels. As a result, Russian POWs died in large numbers in German camps. Many Russian survivors of the German camps described them as “pure hell.” (Source: Snyder, Timothy, Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin, New York: Basic Books, 2010, pp. 176-177, 179).

The death of millions of Russian POWs in German captivity constitutes one of the major war crimes of the Second World War. However, much of the blame for the terrible fate of these Soviet soldiers was due to the inflexibly cruel policies of Josef Stalin. A major portion of the Soviet POWs who died from hunger could have been saved had Stalin not called them traitors and denied them the right to live. By preventing the ICRC from distributing food to the Soviet POWs in German captivity, Stalin needlessly caused the death of a large percentage of these Soviet POWs.

You ask the following questions in comment #185:

Why wasn’t the threat of immanent Soviet invasion mentioned in press announcements of Barbarossa?

Why did Hitler order Göbbels to use it only 15 days later?

Why did Hitler predict victory in a matter of weeks, if Stalin was a serious threat?

My response: I do not find anything from Viktor Suvorov where he quotes Joseph Göbbels on these questions. The original announcement of Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union can be read at http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p50_Hitler.html.

Among other things, Göbbels said that Stalin had massed some 160 divisions in readiness to strike westwards. In reality, more than 200 Soviet divisions were assembled against Germany and Europe.

Suvorov’s book "The Chief Culprit" fails to mention Adolf Hitler’s speech on December 11, 1941, declaring war on the United States. This speech provides important corroborating evidence why Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. Hitler stated in this speech:

"When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the Reich in 1940 through reports from the British House of Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored, motorized and infantry divisions. The human and material resources for them were abundantly available….

We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our heart. Nevertheless, the decision in this case was a very difficult one. When the writers for the democratic newspapers now declare that I would have thought twice before attacking if I had known the strength of the Bolshevik adversaries, they show that they do not understand either the situation or me.

I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to avoid conflict. But I would forget my duty and my conscience if I were to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as a danger not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the outbreak of this conflict.

A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank the Lord God that He enlightened me in time and has given me the strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.

I may say this today: If this wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.

Several nations have been destined to prevent or parry this blow through the sacrifice of their blood. If Finland had not immediately decided, for the second time, to take up weapons, then the comfortable bourgeois life of the other Nordic countries would have been quickly ended.

If the German Reich, with its soldiers and weapons, had not stood against this opponent, a storm would have burned over Europe which would have eliminated once and for all time the laughable British idea of the European balance of power in all its intellectual paucity and traditional stupidity.

If the Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians had not also acted to defend this European world, then the Bolshevik hordes would have poured over the Danube countries as did once the swarms of Attila’s Huns, and [Soviet] Tatars and Mongols would [then] force a revision of the Treaty of Montreux on the open country by the Ionian Sea.

If Italy, Spain and Croatia had not sent their divisions, then a European defense front would not have arisen which proclaims the concept of a new Europe and thereby effectively inspires all other nations as well. Because of this awareness of danger, volunteers have come from northern and western Europe: Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Flemish, Belgians and even French. They have all given the struggle of the allied forces of the Axis the character of a European crusade, in the truest sense of the word." (Source: Weber, Mark, “The Reichstag Speech of 11 December 1941: Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the United States,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, Winter 1988-1989, pp. 395-396).

Hitler’s speech confirms Suvorov’s thesis that the German invasion of the Soviet Union was for preemptive purposes. Hitler’s attack was not for Lebensraum or any other malicious reason.

You ask: "Why didn’t Germany fortify their eastern frontier after taking half of Poland?"

My response: As mentioned in my comment #19o, Hitler waited until January 1942 before he made the decision to gradually begin the shift of industry from a peacetime to a wartime regime. Stalin, on the other hand, began setting Soviet industry on a wartime regime back in January 1939. With the benefit of hindsight, Hitler could have better prepared Germany militarily for a war which he had never wanted.

You write: "Suvorov is favorite UR click-bait, but far from proven."

My response: "The Chief Culprit" is a very convincing book. In my opinion, Suvorov does prove that Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was preemptive in nature.

You then go on to quote from page 181 of Erich von Manstein's book "Lost Victories." However, your quotes end before the next two sentences from page 181 of his book:

"Yet the pattern could have been switched in no time to meet any change in Germany's political or military situation. With a minimum of delay the Red Army--each of whose army groups was numerically, if not qualitatively, superior to the German army group facing it--could have closed up and become capable of going over to the attack."

Thus, according to Gen. Erich von Manstein, the Red Army's numerically superior forces could have with a minimum of delay gone over to the attack against Germany.

Viktor Suvorov provides convincing evidence that the Soviet Union was preparing to attack Germany. Suvorov writes the following:

After the division of Poland by the Soviet Union and Germany, Soviet troops could have created a powerful barrier on the new Soviet-German border. In 1939 conditions for defense along the Soviet-German border were highly favorable: forests, rivers, swamps, few roads, and lots of time. However, instead of making the area impassable, it was quickly made more penetrable. The Red Army tore down previously existing fortifications and buried them under mounds of ground. The Soviet Union also stopped producing anti-tank and anti-aircraft cannon. The Soviet Union had huge land mine production that could have been used for defense, but after the new borders with Germany were established this production was curbed. (Source: Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008, p. 162).

The Red Army also dismantled the security pale created earlier on the old western borders, and failed to create a new security pale on the Polish territory annexed to the Soviet Union. The Red Army in Finland learned the hard way that a security pale could ease the position of the defense and complicate the position of the aggressor. All Soviet commanders expressed their awe at the Finnish line of defense. The Soviet Union had to expend a huge amount of time, strength, resources, and blood to cross the Finnish security pale. However, the Soviet Union dismantled its security pale in 1940 because it was not interested in conducting a defensive war. (Source: Ibid., p. 165).

From 1926 to 1937, the Soviet Union constructed 13 fortified regions along its western borders known unofficially as “the Stalin Line.” There were many differences between the Soviet Stalin Line and the French Maginot Line. Unlike the French Maginot Line, the Stalin Line was built in secrecy and not publicized. The Stalin Line was much deeper and was built not only to stop infantry, but mostly to stop tanks. The Soviets also used huge quantities of steel and granite boulders in addition to concrete. The Stalin Line was built from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south and could not be bypassed. Finally, unlike the Maginot Line, the Stalin Line was not built at the very border, but further into Soviet territory. (Source: Ibid., pp. 171-172).

The 13 fortified regions on the Stalin Line were built for defense and came at a tremendous cost in effort and money. Each fortified region was also a military formation that could independently conduct military operations during a long period of time and in isolated conditions. In 1938 it was decided to strengthen all 13 regions by building heavy artillery installations within them. The Soviet Union also started construction of eight more fortified regions. Then, when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact created a common border between Germany and the Soviet Union, Stalin ordered further construction of the fortified regions to stop. The existing fortified regions were disarmed, and everything connected with defense was dismantled and destroyed. (Source: Ibid., pp. 171-173).

The construction of a new line of fortified regions began during the summer of 1940 on the new Soviet-German border. These new regions were unofficially referred to as the Molotov Line, but they were never finished. The defense buildup on the new borders proceeded very slowly, while the destruction of the Stalin Line was surprisingly fast. When Germany attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the Molotov Line was not yet built. Soviet generals and marshals after Stalin’s death unanimously expressed their anger. They asked: How could Stalin liquidate and disarm the fortified regions on the old borders without building the necessary defenses on the new western borders? The answer is that Stalin was not planning to fight on his territory; Stalin was planning an offensive war against all of Europe. (Source: Ibid., pp. 173-176).

Another defense system of the Soviet Union was the Dnepr military flotilla. All Dnepr river bridges were mined before 1939 and could be thoroughly demolished so that nothing would be left to restore. The Dnepr military flotilla was created in the early 1930s to prevent the establishment and crossing of temporary bridges across the river. The flotilla included 120 warships and motorboats, as well as its own air force with shoreline and air defense batteries. The Dnepr flotilla could securely close off the roads to the industrial regions in the south of Ukraine and to the Black Sea bases of the Soviet Navy. A German attack could be stopped on the Dnepr line, or at least held up for several months. However, when Hitler attacked France, Stalin ordered the removal of mines from the Dnepr river bridges and disbanded the military flotilla. The Dnepr flotilla could only be used in a defensive war on Soviet territory, and Stalin did not believe he needed it. (Source: Ibid., pp. 190-191).

The records of a conference of the Soviet High Command held in Moscow from December 23, 1940, through the evening of December 31, 1940, also indicate that the Soviet Union was planning a massive offensive against Europe. This extremely secret meeting was attended by 274 of the highest-ranking leaders of the Red Army. Most of the speakers discussed the importance of the new tactics of sudden surprise attack. Defense at the primary locations of attack was not foreseen, even theoretically. The Soviet military leaders made it clear at the conference that they had no established contemporary defense theory. Soviet military leaders also did not work on questions of defense after the conference. The goal of the Red Army was to conduct grandiose sudden offensive operations that overwhelmed the enemy on its own territory. (Source: Ibid., pp. 184-186).

Further evidence that the Soviet Union was planning to attack Germany is provided by Andrei Vlasov, a Soviet general who had been captured by the Germans. During a conversation in 1942 with SS Gen. Richard Hildebrandt, Vlasov was asked if and when Stalin had intended to attack Germany. Hildebrandt later stated: “Vlasov responded by saying that the attack was planned for August-September 1941. The Russians had been preparing the attack since the beginning of the year, which took quite a while because of the poor Russian railroad network. Hitler had sized up the situation entirely correctly, and had struck directly into the Russian buildup. This, said Vlasov, is the reason for the tremendous initial German successes.” (Michaels, Daniel W., “New Evidence on the 1941 ‘Barbarossa’ Attack: Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia When He Did,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, May/June 1999, p. 41).

I could go on and on. The German invasion of the Soviet Union was preemptive in nature. German forces prevented the Soviet Union from conquering all of Europe.

Replies: @Incitatus

You write: "It might have something to do with the Polish clerics: 697 arrived December 1941. Another 500 (most elderly, inadequately clothed) appeared in October 1942 (82 survived). Others were selected for medical experiments (Klaus Schilling)."

My response: The malaria experiments performed by Dr. Klaus Karl Schilling were usually not lethal, and were not significantly different from the U.S. malaria experiments performed by American doctors during the war. Dr. Schilling was executed by hanging after the war while his wife was forced to watch his hanging. By contrast, none of the American doctors who performed malaria experiments were ever tried for their crimes.

A total of 176 Polish priests, four Czechs and five German clergymen were subject to malaria experimentation at Dachau. Two priests died as a result of these malaria experiments: Father Josef Horky from Czechoslovakia, and Father Francis Dachtera from Poland. It is also possible that other clergymen died from indirect pathologies such as tuberculosis or renal failure induced by these malaria experiments. (Source: Zeller, Guillaume, The Priest Barracks: Dachau, 1938-1945, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2017, pp. 152-154).

Thus, it does not appear that Dr. Schilling's medical experiments would account for the excess death rate of the Polish clerics.

Phlegmons were also induced in inmates at Dachau by intravenous and intramuscular injection of pus. Various natural, allopathic and biochemical remedies were then used to attempt to cure the resulting infections. The phlegmon experiments were conducted by National Socialist Germany to find an antibiotic similar to penicillin for the infection. (Source: Pasternak, Alfred, Inhuman Research: Medical Experiments in German Concentration Camps, Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai Kiadó, 2006, p. 149).

A total of 40 clergymen in Dachau were subject to phlegmon experiments. Eleven out of this group died, and some of the survivors suffered adverse health effects from these experiments. (Source: Zeller, Guillaume, The Priest Barracks: Dachau, 1938-1945, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2017, pp. 157-158). The phlegmon medical experiments would thus constitue at most a very minor contributing factor to the excess death rate of Polish clerics.

Your mention of Dachau being involved in Operation Hummingbird is not relevant to the topic, as Operation Hummingbird occurred during the Röhm purge, several years before the first priests arrived in Dachau. Likewise, your quote from Franz Gürtner is not relevant to our topic because it was also made years before the first priests arrived in Dachau.

A source for your statement concerning the excess death rates of Polish priests comes from the book "Dachau, 1933-1945: The Official History" by Paul Berben. This book references a book written by Johann Neuhäusler, which uses a table indicating that 868 out of 1,780 Polish priests in Dachau died. (Source: Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, p. 277).

Neuhäusler’s book used a table indicating that 868 out of 1,780 Polish priests and 166 out of 940 non-Polish clergymen died in Dachau. However, Neuhäusler’s book did not reference where the figures in his table were obtained. Moreover, Neuhäusler wrote that, as a “special prisoner” separated from the general camp, he could not learn all that happened in Dachau. (Source: Neuhäusler, Johannes, What was it like in the Concentration Camp at Dachau?, Dachau: Trustees for the Monument of Atonement in the Concentration Camp at Dachau, 1973, pp. 3, 25-26.) Thus, Neuhäusler’s statistics did not originate from his personal experience in Dachau, and I do not think they can be considered as authoritative.

Paul Berben in his book wrote that 697 Polish clergy arrived from Auschwitz, Sachsenhausen and Buchenwald in December 1940. Additionally, some 500 Polish clergy, most of them elderly, arrived in Dachau by train in deplorable condition on October 29, 1941. Berben said that this group was not issued adequate winter clothes, and that only 82 survived their internment in Dachau. (Source: Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, p. 148).

Thus, Berben's book appears to be a primary source for your statement. When I read Berben's book, I do not see any footnotes indicating where he obtained these numbers. So, while I am not saying that Berben is wrong, I do not think that Berben's statements constitute conclusive evidence as to the death rate of the Polish priests in Dachau.

Berben also wrote that 304 members of the Polish clergy were exterminated in various ways, including “liquidated inside the camp, in the showers or in the Bunker.” (Source: Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, p. 148-149).

Berben did not explain how Polish priests could have been exterminated in the showers in Dachau. Historians and former Dachau inmates generally agree that there were no functioning gas chambers inside Dachau. (For example, Neuhäusler, Johannes, What was it like in the Concentration Camp at Dachau?, Dachau: Trustees for the Monument of Atonement in the Concentration Camp at Dachau, 1973, pp. 15, 29).

Berben in his own book even stated that “the Dachau gas-chamber was never operated.” (Source: Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, p. 8). So, how can Berben say that Polish priests were exterminated in the showers in Dachau?

In conclusion, I do not accept that we know for certain that there was a 38% death rate among Polish priests at Dachau. If you have more authoritative sources than I am providing in this comment, please let me know. I am very interested in this subject.

Replies: @Incitatus, @Incitatus

You write: "Fair enough. Riefenstahl minces no words on post-war hardship. ‘After the Reich’, ‘Aftermath’, ‘Eight Days in May’ are rightly sobering. German resilience after losing almost everything does them great credit."

My response: I use the book "After the Reich" by Giles MacDonogh as a source of information in my book "Germany's War." While the three books you mention have some merit, I think all three of these books understate how bad conditions were in Germany after World War II.

If you are interested in the subject, I recommend you read Chapters Five, Six and Seven of my book "Germany's War." I think these three chapters will give you more complete information about how horrible conditions were in Germany after the war.

You ask about the Panay incident: "If it wasn’t an act of war, what – given the deliberate nature of the attack and subsequent lies – was their motive?"

My response: I am not sure. I probably need to study the Panay incident in more detail. For now I will copy and paste from Wikipedia:

"Modern historians believe that the attack may have been intentional. According to John Prados, Navy cryptographers had intercepted and decrypted traffic relating to the attacking planes which clearly indicated that they were under orders during the attack and that it had not been a mistake of any kind. This information was not released at the time because it would have revealed that the United States had broken Japanese Naval codes. Writer Nick Sparks believes that the chaos in Nanking created an opportunity for renegade factions within the Japanese army who wanted to force the U.S. into an active conflict so that the Japanese could once and for all drive the U.S. out of China."

It should also be noted that it was much more than merely the Japanese government that attempted to reimburse the United States for its losses. This is again from Wikipedia:

"Following the incident, Japanese individuals and organizations sent letters of apology and gifts of money to U.S. diplomatic offices and the U.S. Navy Department in Washington, D.C. This ranged from letters penned by schoolchildren to organized pools of donors.

The most prominent donor was the America-Japan Society, headed by Prince Tokugawa Iesato, which amassed ¥16,242.56 in Panay contributions from 7,749 people and 218 organizations...

A final solution to the donations was reached by creating the Japan-America Trust in the name of the Panay survivors and relatives of those who lost their lives. The trust would be used to care for the graves of American sailors buried in Japan, dating back to the graves of sailors involved in the Perry Expedition in 1853. The formation of the trust allowed the State Department to avoid returning donations or directly distributing them to the U.S. government or individuals."

You write about the Israeli attack of the USS Liberty: "Yes, it clearly was an act of war. Liberty survivors agree. Doubtless Panay survivors felt the same."

My response: Israel's attack on the USS Liberty was clearly intentional. We both agree on that. However, Israel never had to be concerned about any retaliation on the part of the U.S. government. The U.S. government continued to give Israel billions of dollars of foreign aid each year, and continued normal commercial relations with Israel. U.S. politicians and media continued to refer to Israel as our good friend and ally. In short, the U.S. acted as if the attack on the USS Liberty never happened. This is different than what the U.S. government did to Japan after the Panay incident.

You write: "Thanks John. Built projects in the ME for years, many with Palestinian engineers. Saw the squalid camps in Jordan 1970-80s. Have you been there? You might want to add ‘Fateful Triangle’ to your sources, though I otherwise don’t care much for Chomsky."

My response: I have not ever been to that part of the world. Unfortunately, I am currently disabled with chronic fatigue syndrome, so I am not able to travel. Even if I could travel, I would not want to go to Israel. As a published "Holocaust denier," I might be arrested there.

I am not a huge fan of Noam Chomsky either. I like the Jews I used in my comment much better. I am a very big fan of Ilan Pappé, who I greatly admire.

You write: "You’re far from proving FDR started WW2."

My response: I don't think it was just FDR who started World War II. In my opinion, you would also have to include British leaders such as Winston Churchill, and Josef Stalin of the Soviet Union. For a more complete analysis, I recommend that you read the first four chapters of my book "Germany's War."

You write: "At that time, months into Barbarossa, German leadership knew it was a colossal – probably fatal – mistake."

My response: Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 was a preemptive attack. If Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union at this time, Stalin and the Soviet Union would have conquered all of Europe. I recommend that you read "The Chief Culprit" by Viktor Suvorov for a more complete analysis.

You write: "Why this surprise? Germans (including Guderian) trained in Russia after WW1 (evading Versailles terms). What were they thinking in 1941? Four years later, the Nerobefehl was Hitler’s the last gift to ordinary Germans. Suicide raised to the national level. What did Niemöller think?"

My response: You are correct that Germans including Heinz Guderian trained in the Soviet Union after World War I. I write about this on page 49 of my book "Germany's War". The supply problem might have surprised Joseph Goebbels, but I doubt if it surprised Guderian and other German military leaders. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union only because he had to. Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was made for purely preemptive reasons.

I am not sure what Martin Niemöller was thinking at the time. He might have been thinking that Germany should have let him fight in the German navy. In his interview on June 5, 1945 to dozens of British and American war correspondents, Niemöller said his objections to Nazism were religious and not political, which is why he had offered his services to the German navy when World War II broke out.

Replies: @Incitatus

You write: "You spend 800 words evading a simple question (Hitler’s contempt for Niemöller) with false equivalence. The latter’s regard for the Allies, good or bad, is a different subject."

My response: I don't agree with Hitler's treatment of Martin Niemöller, and I don't agree with the United States's treatment of Niemöller after the war. My point is that both Hitler's and America's treatment of Niemöller were wrong and inappropriate. I do not regard this as "false equivalence."

What so frequently happens in these discussions is that all you ever hear about is Germany's alleged or real crimes against people like Niemöller. You almost never hear about the mistreatment of people like Niemöller by the Allies after the war. I was attempting to add balance to the discussion.

There is actually more I could have written about Niemöller's contempt of the American treatment of Germans after World War II. I will be gald to elaborate if you ask me to.

You ask about Niemöller: "Did he express regret at surviving the 38% Dachau clerical mortality rate?

My response: Not that I am aware of. I read every book available in Dallas libraries about Niemöller, but I don't remember him expressing such regrets.

The 38% Dachau mortality rate you use comes from page 113 of the book "The Priest Barracks" by Guillaume Zeller. Zeller writes: "Of the 2,720 ecclesiastics who were imprisoned in Dachau, 1,034 died during their detention--38% of them--in 'natural' or intentional circumstances."

Zeller's 38% death rate for the ecclesiatics is much higher than the overall death rate at Dachau. I am not sure why it is as high as 38%, as the overall death rate for people interned at Dachau is much lower.

The book "Dachau, 1933-1945: The Official History" by Paul Berben states that the total number of people who passed through Dachau during its existence is well in excess of 200,000. The author concludes that while no one will ever know the exact number of deaths at Dachau, the number of deaths is probably several thousand more than the quoted number of 31,951. This book documents that approximately 66% of all deaths at Dachau occurred during the final seven months of the war. (Source: Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, pp. 19, 202).

Thus, the overal death rate at Dachau was about 17%. Why the death rate among clerics was so much higher at 38% I have no idea.

Replies: @Incitatus

You ask about the Panay incident: "Sorry. You haven’t answered if it was an act of war....FDR didn’t have to do a thing – Japan already attacked when it sunk the Panay in December 1937!"

My response: No, I don't think the Panay incident was an act of war. The Japanese government apologized for the incident, and reimbursed the United States for its material losses. The Japanese government had no desire to go to war with the United States. The Japanese government was not so stupid as to start a war against an enemy as powerful as the United States.

If you think the Panay incident was an act of war, do you think that Israel's attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 was an act of war? This combined air and sea attack killed 34 American crew members (naval officers, seamen, two marines, and one civilian NSA employee), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship. As has been documented by numerous survivors, this attack was clearly intentional and not a case of mistaken identity. Yet, Israeli leaders lie that the attack on the USS Liberty was a case of mistaken identity, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship. Do you think the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty is different from the Panay incident?

Israel continued to receive billions of dollars of foreign aid from the United States each year. Israeli leaders such as Benjamin Netanyahu also received numerous standing ovations when they speak before the U. S. Congress. According to most politicians and mainstream media, Israel is still our good friend and ally.

You write: "By 1941 Japan had spent a decade waging war, killing millions and destroying property. What was their motive? Without that, you’re not writing ‘inconvenient history’ – you’re writing incomplete history. Without context, 'massive documentation' is meaningless."

My response: Using your logic, the United States should have imposed sanctions and declared war on Israel many decades ago.

There were dozens of massacres in Palestinian villages during Israel’s “War of Independence” beginning in 1948. Zionist forces were larger and better equipped than their opponents, and by the end of the war over 750,000 Palestinians were ruthlessly expelled from their homes. Half of the Palestinian villages were destroyed by the spring of 1949, flattened by Israeli bulldozers which had been at work since August 1948. (Source: Pappé, Ilan, A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 130-131, 136-139).

Israeli historian Tom Segev writes, “Israel was born of terror, war, and revolution, and its creation required a measure of fanaticism and of cruelty.” (Source: Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, 1993, p. 63).

Entire cities and hundreds of villages in Israel were left empty and repopulated with new Jewish immigrants. The Palestinians lost everything they had and became destitute refugees, while the Jewish immigrants stole the Palestinians’ property and confiscated everything they needed. (Source: Ibid., pp. 161-162).

Israeli historian Ilan Pappé writes that the Zionist takeover of Palestine “was a clear-cut case of an ethnic cleansing operation, regarded under international law today as a crime against humanity.” (Source: Pappé, Ilan, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oxford: Oneworld, 2007, p. xiii).

Norman Finkelstein writes: “The injustice inflicted on Palestinians by Zionism was manifest and, except on racist grounds, unanswerable: their right to self-determination, and perhaps even to their homeland, was being denied.” Finkelstein concludes that “the scholarly consensus is that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948.” (Source: Finkelstein, Norman G., Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005, pp. 5, 8).

Israel claimed that the majority of Palestinian refugees voluntarily fled and were not expelled. However, Israel did not allow the Palestinians to return to their homes as demanded by a U.N. resolution shortly after the 1948 war. The State of Israel was clearly founded through the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. (Source: Reinhart, Tanya, The Road Map to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003, London: Verso, 2006, pp. 1-2; Carter, Jimmy, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006, p. 74).

Israeli leaders established a racist nation set up exclusively for Jews. A Palestinian who was born within the boundaries of what is now Israel cannot return to his homeland and become a citizen of Israel. By contrast, a Jew born outside of Israel can immigrate to Israel and be granted instant citizenship with numerous benefits. Israel has segregated housing areas, schools and recreational facilities where Palestinians are not allowed. The legality of marriage between Jews and Palestinians is also not recognized by Israeli law. (Source: Pappé, Ilan, The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge, London: Verso, 2014, pp. 272-273; Abunimah, Ali, The Battle for Justice in Palestine, Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2014, pp. 26-29).

Dr. Israel Shahak, a survivor of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, chaired the Israel League for Human and Civil Rights. Citing laws and regulations that have been rigorously enforced in Israel, Shahak contended that “the State of Israel is a racist state in the full meaning of this term because people are discriminated against, in the most permanent and legal way and in the most important areas of life, only because of their origin…one who is not a Jew is discriminated against, only because he is not a Jew.” Shahak denounced the “grave social discrimination visited upon any Israeli citizen every day of his life if his mother is not a Jewess.” (Source: Lilienthal, Alfred M., The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace?, New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1978, pp. 126-127, 743).

Palestinians have faced ongoing terrorism from Israel in times of both peace and war. A partial list of the massacres committed by Israel against Palestinians include Ad Dawayima, Deir Yassin, Kafr Qassem, Etzion Bloc, Sabra and Chatila, Lydda, Qalqilya, Qana, and Qibya. Israel also bombed and invaded Lebanon in the 1980s, with estimates of civilian casualties exceeding 15,000. (Source: Pappé, Ilan, A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 159, 197, 223; Finkelstein, Norman G., Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005, pp. 261-266, 275).

Israel has assassinated hundreds of Palestinian leaders and innocent civilians. Many of the assassinated Palestinian leaders had never been associated with violence or terror of any kind; they were simply writers or clerics who by their words inspired their countrymen to seek freedom. The assassinations of Palestinian leaders and civilians have often killed innocent bystanders. According to a New York Times reporter, Israeli soldiers have also shot Palestinian children purely for sport. (Source: Finkelstein, Norman G., Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005, pp. 131-137, 221-222).

Ilan Pappé states that what the Israeli army has been doing in the Gaza Strip since 2006 can appropriately be called an incremental genocide. Israeli military operations have been steadily escalating in every area. Ilan Pappé writes:

"Firstly, there was the disappearance of the distinction between “civilian” and “non-civilian” targets: the senseless killing had turned the population at large into the main target of the operation. Secondly, there was the escalation in the employment of every possible killing machine the Israeli army possesses. Thirdly, there was the conspicuous rise in the number of casualties. Finally, and most importantly, the operations gradually crystallized into a strategy, indicating the way Israel intends to solve the problem of the Gaza Strip in the future: through a measured genocidal policy. The people of the Strip, however, continued to resist. This led to further genocidal Israeli operations, but still today a failure to reoccupy the region." (Source: Pappé, Ilan, Ten Myths About Israel, London: Verso, 2017, pp. 130, 133).

Alfred Lilienthal wrote: “Zionist expansionist aspirations are limitless…an abnormal Israel promulgating worldwide Jewish nationalism means only perpetual warfare. More than physical boundaries, the limitless nationality base of the present Israeli state obstructs all hope of a peaceful tomorrow and underlies much of Arab fear. The ‘lebensraum’ the Zionist state requires for its ingatherees poses a perpetual threat of limitless expansion.” (Source: Lilienthal, Alfred M., The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace?, New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1978, pp. 771, 774).

I could go on and on.

If you think the U.S. should have imposed sanctions against the Japanese after the Panay incident, don't you think we should also have imposed sanctions against Israel after the USS Liberty incident? Instead, we gave many billions of dollars each year to Israel. Do you think this was a fair and just use of American taxpayer money?

Replies: @Incitatus, @Fran Taubman

You write about me: "You insist FDR was doing everything in [his] power to force Japan to attack the United States.”

My response: Yes, I think that FDR did everything in his power to force Japan to attack the United States. I list some of these steps in comment #152:

1) The United States began a campaign of economic pressure against Japan. On July 26, 1939, the United States gave notice to Japan of its intention, effective six months from the date, to abrogate the 1911 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Japan. On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials. Roosevelt acted at once under these powers. (Source: Morgenstern, George, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 322).

2) On July 26, 1940, Roosevelt announced a ban on Japanese acquisition of U.S. high-octane aviation gasoline, certain grades of steel and scrap iron, and some lubricants. On September 26, 1940, Roosevelt imposed a ban on all scrap iron exports to Japan. Since the Japanese steel industry was highly dependent on imported scrap iron from the United States, the ban compelled Japan to draw down its stockpiles and operate its steel industry well below capacity. The embargo was expanded in December 1940 to include iron ore, steel, and steel products. The following month the embargo was expanded to include copper, brass, bronze, zinc, nickel, and potash. Other items were continually added to the list, each of which was much needed for Japanese industrial production. (Source: Miller, Edward S., Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2007, pp. 88-123).

3) Provoking Japan into an overt act of war was the principal policy that guided Roosevelt’s actions toward Japan throughout 1941. Lt. Cmdr. Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote an eight-action memo dated October 7, 1940, outlining how to provoke a Japanese attack on the United States. McCollum had spent his youth in various Japanese cities and spoke Japanese before learning English. McCollum was an expert in Japanese activities, culture, and intentions, and he had access to intercepted and decoded Japanese military and diplomatic messages. The following are the eight actions that McCollum predicted would provoke a Japanese attack on the United States:

1. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
2. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
3. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek.
4. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
5. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
6. Keep the main strength of the U.S. Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
7. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
8. Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire. (Source: Stinnett, Robert B., Day of Deceit: the Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, New York: The Free Press, 2000, pp. 6, 8).

McCollum’s eight-action memorandum was approved by Roosevelt’s most trusted military advisers. Roosevelt’s “fingerprints” can be found on each of the provocations listed in the memorandum.

4) The climax of Roosevelt’s measures designed to bring about war in the Pacific occurred on July 25, 1941, when Roosevelt froze all Japanese assets in the United States. This brought commercial relations between the nations to an effective end, including an end to the export of oil to Japan. As early as August 7, 1941, Prince Konoye, the Japanese premier, requested a meeting with Roosevelt to resolve the differences between the United States and Japan. American Ambassador Grew sent a series of telegrams to Washington, D.C. in which he strongly recommended that such a meeting take place. However, Roosevelt steadfastly refused to meet with the Japanese premier. (Source: Morgenstern, George, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, pp. 327-331).

Foreign Minister Toyoda made a dispatch to Japanese Ambassador Nomura on July 31, 1941. Since U.S. Intelligence had cracked the Japanese diplomatic code, Roosevelt and his associates were able to read this message:

"Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas…I know that the Germans are somewhat dissatisfied with our negotiations with the United States, but we wished at any cost to prevent the United States from getting into the war, and we wished to settle the Chinese incident." (Source: Hearings Before the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, 79 Cong., 2 sess., 39 parts; Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1946, Part XII, p. 9).

This obvious desire of Japan for peace with the United States did not change Roosevelt’s policy toward Japan. Roosevelt refused to lift the oil embargo against Japan. The Roosevelt administration was well aware that Japan imported approximately 90% of her oil, and that 75% to 80% of her oil imports came from the United States. Roosevelt also knew that the Netherlands East Indies, which produced 3% of the world’s oil output, was the only other convenient oil producer that could meet Japan’s import needs. (Source: Miller, Edward S., Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2007, p. 162).

On October 31, 1941, an oil agreement between Japan and the Netherlands East Indies expired. The Netherlands East Indies had promised to deliver to Japan about 11.4 million barrels of oil, but had actually delivered only one-half of that amount. The Japanese Navy had consumed about 22% of its oil reserves by the time the war broke out. (Source: Sanborn, Frederic R., Design for War: A Study of Secret Power Politics, 1937-1941, New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1951, p. 424).

Roosevelt and his advisors briefly discussed a modus vivendi or truce with Japan. In fact, on November 21, 1941, the army’s War Plans Division told Secretary of State Cordell Hull it was a matter of “grave importance…that we reach a modus vivendi with Japan.” Hull permitted the peacemakers in Roosevelt’s administration to put together a proposal that had real potential. The proposal offered Japan practical proof of American friendship in the form of a two billion dollar loan contingent on Japan’s ending the war with China on reasonable terms. The proposal promised a renewal of the shipments of oil, metals, and other minerals that Japan needed for her factories. The proposal might have at least produced a temporary truce with Japan. But the idea of a modus vivendi was quickly rejected by interventionists in the State Department and War Department, and the final version was an unacceptable ghost of the original proposal. (Source: Fleming, Thomas, The New Dealers’ War: FDR and the War within World War II, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 21).

Instead of a modus vivendi, on November 26, 1941, Secretary of State Hull handed to the Japanese diplomatic representatives a 10-point proposal which amounted to a sharp ultimatum. The proposal, which was cleared by Roosevelt before submission, called for complete Japanese withdrawal from China and Indochina. The proposal also called for Japan to support only the Nationalist government of China, with which Japan had been in conflict for four years, and to interpret its pledges under the Tripartite Pact so that Japan would be bound to peace in the Pacific and to noninterference in Europe. The United States would meanwhile be free to intervene in Europe. (Source: Morgenstern, George, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, pp. 344-346).

Roosevelt knew that the Japanese government could not accept such a proposal: the proposal was in effect an invitation to war. The Japanese leaders were dumbfounded by such harsh terms, referring to the proposal as “humiliating.” (Source: Hearings Before the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, 79 Cong., 2 sess., 39 parts; Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1946, Part XII, p. 195).

In a defense deposition at the Tokyo war crime trials, Foreign Minister Togo said of the Hull proposal: “The reaction of all of us to it was, I think, the same. Ignoring all past progress and areas of agreement in the negotiations, the United States had served upon us what we viewed as an ultimatum containing demands far in excess of the strongest positions theretofore taken. (Source: Record of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 1946, Exhibit No. 3646).

Roosevelt and his administration also conspired to have the Japanese successfully attack Pearl Harbor. I write about this in my article at https://inconvenienthistory.com/12/4/7534.

In conclusion, Roosevelt took economic and political steps to force Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt also knowingly withheld information from Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short to enable Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor to be successful. He then lied to the American public and Congress that Japan had made a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. In reality, Roosevelt knew the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and did everything in his power to ensure that it was successful.

You ask: "How about Niemöller (former WW1 U-Boat captain and early NSDAP supporter)...Why did they have to “break him so that he can’t believe his eyes or ears”? Doesn’t that bear out FDR’s “preposterous” warnings?"

My response: It is also relevant to ask why Niemöller was treated so badly by Americans after the war.

The American infatuation with Niemöller was severely tested from an interview he gave in Naples on June 5, 1945 to dozens of British and American war correspondents. Niemöller said his objections to Nazism were religious and not political, which is why he had offered his services to the German navy when World War II broke out. Niemöller said that honest Germans did not feel responsible for the German concentration camps. Niemöller further said that the German people were ill suited to live under a Western form of democracy; indeed, in many ways Germans preferred authoritarian rule. (Source: Hockenos, Matthew D., Then They Came for Me: Martin Niemöller, the Pastor Who Defied the Nazis, New York: Basic Books, pp. 162-163).

Niemöller faced harsh criticism from Eleanor Roosevelt after this interview. The former first lady wrote: “Pastor Niemöller sounds to me like a gentleman who believes in the German doctrine of the superiority of race” and described his Naples interview as sounding “almost like a speech by Mr. Hitler.” Niemöller later wrote that Eleanor Roosevelt and her friends were investigating and highlighting his past, saying that he had been “an anti-Semite, a militarist and even a Nazi!” (Source: Ibid., pp. 174, 212).

Niemöller became exasperated by repeated Allied assaults on his honor. He yearned for the life of a simple pastor. Niemöller wrote to an American friend: “Else and I are rather tired of the whole thing, and I am thinking earnestly of leaving Germany for good and of taking a small congregation in England or in your country. You see, there is not much left of the old ‘fighting pastor,’ at least of my old resistance.” (Source: Ibid., p. 212).

Martin Niemöller opposed Allied denazification from the moment the policy was unveiled in 1945 to its demise in 1948. When asked in December 1945 what he thought was the most serious problem facing the German churches, Niemöller mentioned the overbearing denazification policies that had resulted, in the American Zone alone, in the arrest and internment of some 117,000 Germans who had been members of Nazi organizations. Niemöller in early 1946 joined other church leaders in sending a declaration to the American Military Government criticizing the denazification process. (Source: Ibid, pp. 182-183).

Historian Steven Remy writes concerning Niemöller’s opposition to denazification: “In early 1948…Martin Niemoeller went so far as to insist that Protestants stop assisting the prosecution and forbade clergy in Hesse-Nassau from “justify[ing] this scandal any longer by doing any work in connection with denazification.” (Source: Remy, Steven P., The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2017, p. 186).

Niemöller was also a strong critic of the Allied-run postwar trials in Germany. Along with four other leading German clergymen, Niemöller sent a long letter to U.S. Gen. Lucius Clay denouncing the International Military Tribunal (IMT). The signatories argued that the defense attorneys had been handicapped at the IMT, witnesses had been “interrogated under the duress of extradition to Eastern states,” international law was being applied only to the vanquished, and there was no court of appeal. Niemöller also vigorously protested the unfairness of other American-run postwar trials in Germany. (Source: Ibid., pp. 203, 258).

Niemöller and his family suffered extreme hardships after the war. Niemöller told his friend Pastor Ewart Turner that if things didn’t improve, “I should prefer to be back in my cell number 31 at Dachau.” Niemöller blamed “the followers of the Morgenthau Plan” who had moved their “headquarters from Washington to the American Zone.” (Source: Hockenos, Matthew D., Then They Came for Me: Martin Niemöller, the Pastor Who Defied the Nazis, New York: Basic Books, pp. 204, 212).

During his American speaking tour, Niemöller told American audiences that Germans were receiving no better than “the lowest ration ever heard of in a Nazi concentration camp.” Although Niemöller raised more money than expected from his American tour, he was disappointed in its outcome because he was not able to improve U.S. occupation policies in Germany. Starvation conditions continued in Germany after Niemöller’s American tour. (Source: Ibid., pp. 204, 209).

So, at least for a while after the war, Niemöller’s Dachau cell looked as good or better to him than what he and his family were experiencing in the American Zone of Germany.

Replies: @Incitatus

Incitatus,

You keep writing about the Panay incident.

In comments #152, #157 and #161 of this discussion thread, I have provided massive documentation that the U.S. government under Franklin Roosevelt did everything in its power to have the United States enter into World War II. Do you have any explanation for the lies and provocations made by the United States and Franklin Roosevelt against Japan and Germany? I don't think that you do, so you keep harping on the Panay incident as if it explains everything.

The technique you have been using in this discussion thread is to focus on one issue to the exclusion of everything else. For example, your comment #102 states that Fred Leuchter lied about being a professional engineer. In comment #124, you write: "Leuchter, lacking any engineering degree, internship service or license, claimed to be a Professional Engineer. That, and that alone, is the issue. He’s a liar who admitted his lie, then went on to lie again and again." You made similar statements in comments #125 and #128 of this discussion thread.

In comment #129, I decided to enter this discussion thread by writing: "There are numerous professional engineers who have publicly stated that there were no homicidal gas chambers at any of the German camps. These people include Walter Lüftl, Friedrich Paul Berg, Dr. Arthur Robert Butz, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Dr. Ing Franco Deana, and Richard Krege. In my opinion, these engineers are all credible sources."

In comment #135 you reply "Excellent! Use them!" and go on to again degrade Fred Leuchter.

I use other engineers in my book "Germany's War" to document that there were no homicidal gas chambers in German camps during World War II. For example, on pages 344-345 of my book, I write:

"In March 1992, a prominent Austrian engineer named Walter Lüftl made headlines when a report he had written stated that the stories of mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz and Mauthausen are impossible for technical reasons and because they are incompatible with observable laws of nature. At the time of his report, Lüftl was a court-recognized expert engineer who headed a large engineering firm in Vienna.

Lüftl stated that although the hydrocyanic acid contained in the Zyklon B can kill quickly and certainly, the handling requirements for Zyklon B rule out any significant use of Zyklon B for the mass killing of people. Lüftl stated that during the ventilation process after a gassing, Zyklon B would still retain approximately 92% of its hydrocyanic acid content, and would thus continue releasing hydrocyanic acid gas. Lüftl asked: How could the gas chamber operators get rid of the remaining Zyklon B from the midst of dead corpses, without lengthy ventilation periods, and without causing mass deaths outside the gas chambers? Lüftl concluded that because of operational and time considerations, quasi-industrial killing using Zyklon B would be impossible.

Lüftl also stated in his report that mass murder with diesel exhaust gasses is a sheer impossibility for reasons of time alone. Lüftl stated that this can be easily proven experimentally, even today, with a few brave men. Therefore, Lüftl concluded that the stories of gas chambers with diesel engines and gas vans at places such as Treblinka can only be disinformation. In his report, Lüftl states: “The laws of nature apply both to Nazis and anti-fascists. Nobody can be killed with diesel exhaust gas in the manner described [in the Holocaust literature].”

On pages 345-346 of my book, I write:

"Friedrich Paul Berg, an American engineer, agrees with Lüftl that diesel gas chambers are not an effective means of committing mass murder. Berg states that for any Diesel arrangement to have been even marginally effective for mass murder, it would have required an exceptionally well-informed team of experts to know and do all that was necessary. Berg mentions that even if someone had tried for a time to commit murder with Diesel exhaust, after a few tries it would have become apparent that something better was needed. Berg concludes that the evidence for diesel gassings in the German concentration camps fails to meet the most basic standards that credible evidence must pass to satisfy reasonable people."

On page 349 of my book, I also write:

"A detailed forensic examination at the Treblinka camp using sophisticated electronic ground radar has also found no evidence of mass graves. An Australian team headed by Richard Krege, a qualified electronics engineer, carried out an examination at the site of the Treblinka camp. Krege’s team used an $80,000 Ground Penetration Radar (GPR) device, which sends out vertical signals that are visible on a computer monitor. GPR devices are routinely used around the world by geologists, archeologists, and police. GPR detects any major disturbances in the soil to a normal effective depth of four or five meters.

For six days in October 1999 the team carefully examined the entire Treblinka site, especially the alleged “mass graves” portion, and carried out control examinations of the surrounding area. Krege’s team also carried out visual soil inspections, and used an auger to take numerous soil samples. They found no soil disturbance consistent with the burial of hundreds of thousands of bodies, or even evidence that the ground had ever been disturbed. In addition, the team found no evidence of individual graves, bone remains, human ashes, or wood ashes. Richard Krege concludes from his examination of the site that Treblinka was never an extermination camp."

So, there are plenty of professional engineers who have written that there were no homicidal gas chambers during World War II.

Another such prominent engineer is Dr. Arthur Robert Butz. Dr Butz earned an undergraduate and masters degree in engineering from MIT, which is regarded as one of the best engineering schools in the world. Dr. Butz later earned his PhD from the Univerity of Minnesota. Dr. Butz went on to teach electrical engineering at Northwestern University for many decades. Dr. Butz's engineering credentials are outstanding.

So, in my opinion, the relevant question is whether or not there were homicidal gas chambers in any of the German camps during World War II. Based on the research and reports from Walter Lüftl, Friedrich Paul Berg, Richard Krege, Dr. Arthur Rober Butz and many other scientists, any objective researcher will conclude that there were no homicidal gas chambers in any of the German camps during World War II.

You ask at the end of comment #162: "Why did the NSDAP imprison clerics and use them for medical experiments? Why did they dispossess and imprison Jehovah’s Witnesses? Why did they brainwash children with messianic songs?

My response: In regard to the imprisonment of clerics at Dachau, I have written an article on this subject at https://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6354. I have written an article concerning Dr. Sigmund Rascher's gruesome medical experiments at Dachau at https://inconvenienthistory.com/13/4/8110. Finally, I have also written an article concerning Martin Niemöller's long imprisonment at https://inconvenienthistory.com/11/4/6969.

Also, in my book "Germany's War," I discuss at length in the first part of Chapter Nine some of the illegal medical experimentation performed by Germany during World War II. You can read about these medical experiments on this website at https://www.unz.com/book/john_wear__germanys-war/.

It should be noted that the United States also performed illegal medical experiments during World War II. The defense in the Doctors’ Trial at Nuremberg submitted evidence of doctors in the United States performing medical experiments on prison inmates and conscientious objectors during the war. The evidence showed that large-scale malaria experiments were performed on 800 American prisoners, many of them black, from federal penitentiaries in Atlanta and state penitentiaries in Illinois and New Jersey. U.S. doctors conducted human experiments with malaria tropica, one of the most dangerous of the malaria strains, to aid the U.S. war effort in Southeast Asia. (Source: Schmidt, Ulf, Karl Brandt: The Nazi Doctor, New York: Continuum Books, 2007, p. 376).

Although German Dr. Klaus Karl Schilling’s malaria experiments at Dachau were no more dangerous or illegal than the malaria experiments performed by U.S. doctors, Dr. Schilling had to pay for his malaria experiments by being hanged to death while his wife watched. The U.S. doctors who performed similar malaria experiments on humans were never charged with a crime.

The U.S. prosecution flew in Dr. Andrew Ivy to explain the differences in medical ethics between German and U.S. medical experiments. Interestingly, Dr. Ivy himself had been involved in malaria experiments on inmates at the Illinois State Penitentiary. When Dr. Ivy mentioned that the United States had specific research standards for medical experimentation on humans, it turns out that these principles were first published on December 28, 1946. Dr. Ivy had to admit that the U.S. principles on medical ethics in human experimentation had been made in anticipation of Dr. Ivy’s testimony at the Doctors’ Trial. (Source: Schmidt, Ulf, Karl Brandt: The Nazi Doctor, New York: Continuum Books, 2007, pp. 376-377).

In regard to your question why did Germany "brainwash children with messianic songs?", I will simply state that all nations brainwash their citizens. In my opinion, Germany did not brainwash their children any more than did other nations such as the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, etc.

Regarding your question why did Germany dispossess and imprison Jehovah's Witnesses, the short answer is that Jehovah's Witnesses were not deemed loyal to the German war effort. This is approximately the same reason why over 100,000 American citizens of Japanese descent were imprisoned in U.S. prisons during World War II.

Replies: @Incitatus

You ask at the end of comment #160: "Wasn’t Japan culpable in 'doing everything in its power to force' America into war?"

My response: No. As previously discussed in regard to the Panay incident, Japan did formally apologize and indemnified the United States for its losses. While this was a serious incident, fortunately the sinking of the Panay failed to kindle any desire for war among the American public.

Actually, it was the U.S. government under Franklin Roosevelt that did everything in its power to have the United States enter into World War II. I outline some of these actions in my comments #152 and #157 on this discussion thread.

Roosevelt also lied on numerous occasions to convince the American public that America should enter into World War II.

For example, on October 27, 1941, Roosevelt broadcast over nationwide radio his Navy Day address. In an effort to convince his listeners in his Navy Day speech that Germany was a real threat to American security, Roosevelt made the following announcement: “Hitler has often protested that his plans for conquest do not extend across the Atlantic Ocean. I have in my possession a secret map, made in Germany by Hitler’s government—by the planners of the new world order. It is a map of South America and a part of Central America as Hitler proposes to organize it.” Roosevelt explained that the map showed South America, as well as “our great life line, the Panama Canal,” divided into five vassal states under German control. Roosevelt concluded: “That map, my friends, makes clear the Nazi design not only against South America but against the United States as well.” (Source: Weber, Mark, “Roosevelt’s ‘Secret Map’ Speech,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 1985, p. 126).

The Italian government stated that if Roosevelt did not publish his map “within 24 hours, he will acquire a sky high reputation as a forger.” A reporter at a press conference the next day asked Roosevelt for a copy of the secret map. Roosevelt refused, insisting that it came from “a source which is undoubtedly reliable.” The truth about the map emerged after the war: It was a forgery produced by the British intelligence service. William Stephenson, chief of British intelligence operations in North America, passed it on to the chief of U.S. intelligence, William Donovan, who gave it to Roosevelt. Wartime British agent Ivar Bryce claimed credit for thinking up the secret map in his memoir published in late 1984. (Source: Ibid., pp. 126-127).

Roosevelt went on in his Navy Day address to mention that he also had in his possession “another document made in Germany by Hitler’s government. It is a detailed plan to abolish all existing religions—Catholic, Protestant, Mohammedan, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish alike” which Germany will impose “on a dominated world, if Hitler wins.”

Roosevelt continued: “The property of all churches will be seized by the Reich and its puppets. The cross and all other symbols of religion are to be forbidden. The clergy are to be ever liquidated…In the place of the churches of our civilization there is to be set up an international Nazi church, a church which will be served by orators sent out by the Nazi government. And in the place of the Bible, the words of Mein Kampf will be imposed and enforced as Holy Writ. And in the place of the cross of Christ will be put two symbols: the swastika and the naked sword.” (Source: Ibid., p. 126).

As with the secret map, the German government correctly denounced Roosevelt’s religious document as a preposterous fraud. Roosevelt’s Navy Day address was loaded with brazen falsehoods designed to convince the American public to enter into war against Germany. Despite Roosevelt’s lies and provocations, the American public was still against entering the war. By the end of October 1941, Roosevelt had no more ideas how to get into a formal and declared war: “…He had said everything ‘short of war’ that could be said. He had no more tricks left. The hat from which he had pulled so many rabbits was empty.” (Source: Sherwood, Robert E., Roosevelt and Hopkins, an Intimate History, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948, p. 438; see also Churchill, Winston S., The Grand Alliance, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950, p. 539.

Numerous historians conclude that Roosevelt conspired to force the United States into war. Historian Harry Elmer Barnes, for example, summarized President Roosevelt’s efforts to involve the United States in World War II:

"Roosevelt 'lied the United States into war.' He went as far as he dared in illegal efforts, such as convoying vessels carrying munitions, to provoke Germany and Italy to make war on the United States. Failing in this, he turned to a successful attempt to enter the War through the back door of Japan. He rejected repeated and sincere Japanese proposals that even Hull admitted protected all the vital interests of the United States in the Far East, by his economic strangulation in the summer of 1941 forced the Japanese into an attack on Pearl Harbor, took steps to prevent the Pearl Harbor commanders, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, from having their own decoding facilities to detect a Japanese attack, kept Short and Kimmel from receiving the decoded Japanese intercepts that Washington picked up and indicated that war might come at any moment, and ordered General Marshall and Admiral Stark not to send any warning to Short and Kimmel before noon on December 7th, when Roosevelt knew that any warning sent would be too late to avert the Japanese attack at 1:00 P.M., Washington time." (Source: Barnes, Harry Elmer, Barnes Against the Blackout, Costa Mesa, CA: The Institute for Historical Review, 1991, pp. 285-286).

William Henry Chamberlain also concluded that Roosevelt guided America into the war. Chamberlain wrote: “The war with Germany was also very largely the result of the initiative of the Roosevelt Administration. The destroyer deal, the lend-lease bill, the freezing of Axis assets, the injection of the American Navy, with much secrecy and doubletalk, into the Battle of the Atlantic: these and many similar actions were obvious departures from neutrality, even though a Neutrality Act, which the President had sworn to uphold, was still on the statute books.” (Source: Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 352).

Historian Klaus Fischer writes that Roosevelt implemented numerous actions in 1941 that prepared the United States to enter World War II:

"Roosevelt’s actions against both Germany and Japan were positively provocative, including the previously mentioned programs of cash and carry, lend-lease, neutrality zones, restoring conscription, increased defense appropriations, and secret war plans. In March 1941 Roosevelt informed the British that they could have their ships repaired in American docks, and that same month the president ordered the seizure of all Axis vessels in American ports. On April 10, Roosevelt extended the security zone all the way to the eastern coast of Greenland, negotiating the use of military bases on the island with a Danish official who did not have approval from his home government. If we add the various economic sanctions the president imposed on Japan, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Roosevelt was preparing the nation for war." (Source: Fischer, Klaus P., Hitler and America, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011, p. 140).

Even biographers friendly to Roosevelt admit that until the last year when he was weighed down by physical illness, Roosevelt had never been as happy as during World War II. After the Casablanca Conference, Roosevelt wrote a letter to George VI: “A truly mighty meeting…As for Mr. Churchill and myself, I need not tell you that we make a perfectly matched team in harness and out—and incidentally we had lots of fun together, as we always do.” (Source: Fish, Hamilton, FDR The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II, New York: Vantage Press, 1976, p. 116).

Replies: @Incitatus

You write: "I asked if WW1 & WW2 German leadership was competent. You’re rightfully concerned with the death of millions of Germans. Were they led competently? Simple question."

My response: Yes.

You ask: "I said nothing about “involvement”. Were Wilhelm II/Moltke jünger/Falkenhayn/Hindenburg and Ludendorff competent?" You then proceed to ask a series of eight questions about the competence of German military leadership during World War I.

My response: The competence of military leaders during World War I is a debatable topic. I don't claim to be a military expert, so I wil not address each of your specific questions. I will merely state that I think German military leaders were as competent as any other nation's military leaders during World War I.

You write: "No time to address WW2 with any justice. Perhaps in future? Guderian’s ‘Panzer Leader’ is in your bibliography. Talented man. Was Hitler right in sacking him?"

My response: If you want to address World War II issues in the future, please feel free to do so. I will be especially glad to discuss the so-called Holocaust with you. After all, that is the topic of E. Michael Jones's article, and what should be the primary topic of this discussion thread.

I don't know if Hitler should have sacked Guderian. However, I will say that Guderian ws rightly critical of the Allied policy of unconditional surrender. This policy prolonged the war, resulting in the deaths of millions of additional people. German Gen. Heinz Guderian was quite outspoken about this disastrous policy:

"The demand for ‘unconditional surrender’ certainly contributed to the destruction of every hope in Germany for a reasonable peace. This was true not only for the Wehrmacht and for the generals, but also for the whole people.” (Source: Armstrong, Anne, Unconditional Surrender: The Impact of the Casablanca Policy upon World War II, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1961, p. 141).

Guderian further wrote about the Allied demand for unconditional surrender:

"The effect of this brutal formula on the German nation and, above all, on the army was great. The soldiers, at least, were convinced from now on that our enemies had decided on the utter destruction of Germany, that they were no longer fighting—as Allied propaganda at the time alleged—against Hitler and so-called Nazism, but against their efficient, and therefore dangerous, rivals for the trade of the world." (Source: Guderian, Heinz, Panzer Leader, London: Michael Joseph Ltd., 1952, p. 284).

Gen. Heinz Guderian later commented on the ethnic cleansing of Germans: “Was it not atrocious so to treat the population of Eastern Germany? Was it not unjust?” This is one of the reasons why Guderian and other German military leaders concluded that the war had to be fought to its bitter end. (Source: Ibid., p. 285).

I said nothing about who started WW1 & WW2 – a perennial UR click-bait subject.

I asked if WW1 & WW2 German leadership was competent. You’re rightfully concerned with the death of millions of Germans. Were they led competently? Simple question.
 

In Johns Jewish conspiracy world. The Jews caused both WW1 and WW2, 9/11, Kennedy assassinations, and maybe a tsunami or global warming. John thinks it was the Jews that but a gun to FDR's head to coax him into WW2 for Zionist causes. As far as John is concerned FDR would have never ventured into WW2 if not for the Jews. This is also true of Churchill. He was also talked into WW2 and turned on Hitler because the Jews talked him into it. Hitler was essentially a peaceful man, with all good intentions. The Jews fucked with these countries and turned him into well the monster he is today. Jewish media. Hitler has gotten a bump rap.

And of course you have the Jewish capitalist bankers on one hand, but nothing can compete with the evil of the Jewish Bolsheviks, who without Hitler would have taken over Europe but got no credit for it.

John believes that the Holocaust and murder of the Jews was made up with a script supplied to everyone to read, the survivors, the Germans, everyone got the same script. Never mind that most descriptions came extemporaneously at various times of the war and written down in the forms of journals, which no one on trial would no about that their account of events matches perfectly what each other wrote down. I digress.

That is why Zig Zags all the way to Israel where the Jews have tortured and made homeless the innocent Arabs. The Jews deliberately sank the US Liberty, well because they are Jews, and Jews are monsters that destroyed Germany and made them look like the bad guys, when the bad guys were the Jews as puppeteers were and are the real monsters. Imagine being able to create the Holocaust and murder as a false narrative. The witnesses are unreliable, the Germans forced to read the script. etc. Even the US Liberty. Why would Israel destroy a ship that was from a country giving them billions of dollars. Well they are Jews, and Jews do really bad things, like make Hitler the saint look like Hitler the monster.

So when attempting to argue history with John, on any subject. All roads lead to a Jewish conspiracy so vast and so historically invisible, you really need to talk about cosmic satanic forces. Just an FYI, having spent many threads with solid facts that John cannot as a conspiratorialist cannot accept. Like the sun coming up in the morning. John is just delusional.

You ask: "Why weren’t those facts in your text? Your account could easily have been written by the Imperial Japanese press. Why didn’t he declare war after the deliberate sinking of the USS Panay and three other American ships December 1937? Surely it was an act of war."

My response: FDR did not declare war after the sinking of the USS Panay and three other American ships in December 1937 because Congress and the American public never would have supported such a war.

After Japan and China began a large-scale war in the summer of 1937, in an address in Chicago on October 5, 1937, Roosevelt proposed that aggressor nations be subject to “quarantine.” This was Roosevelt’s first public attempt to discard the doctrine of neutrality for the United States in concert with what later became known as “peace-loving nations”—among them the Soviet Union. However, Roosevelt could not get the American people to support the “quarantine” proposal because the American public did not want their elected officials to thrust war upon them. There is no doubt that Roosevelt was disappointed by the failure of the American people to respond favorably to his speech. (Sources: Morgenstern, George, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 318; see also Byrnes, James F., Speaking Frankly, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947, p. 6).

In regard to the Panay incident, Japan did formally apologize and indemnified the United States for its losses. While this was a serious incident, fortunately the sinking of the Panay failed to kindle any desire for war among the public in the United States. (Source: Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 156). The American people were still strongly against war, and would never have supported a war against Japan at this time.

The relevant issue was that the U.S. government under Franklin Roosevelt was doing everything in its power to force Japan to attack the United States, thereby providing a pretext for the United States to enter World War II. I mention some of these steps in my comment #152.

Replies: @Incitatus

You write: "What “step” did FDR make after 7 December to “provoke Hitler and Germany into declaring war” four days later?"

My response: FDR and his administration actively conspired to have Germany declare war on the United States before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which American intelligence knew was coming.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor surprised Hitler. Hitler had never wanted Japan to attack the United States. Germany had repeatedly urged Japan to attack Singapore and the rest of Great Britain’s Far East Empire, but Japan refused to do so. After the war Col. Gen. Alfred Jodl said that Hitler had wanted Japan to attack Great Britain and the Soviet Union in the Far East, which would have set up a two-front war. Hitler thought Roosevelt would probably not be able to persuade the American public to go to war to defend Britain’s Asian colonies. Jodl said that Hitler had wanted in Japan “a strong new ally without a strong new enemy.” (Source: Fleming, Thomas, The New Dealers’ War: FDR and the War within World War II, New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp. 31-32).

Hitler’s decision to stay out of war with the United States was made more difficult on December 4, 1941, when the Chicago Tribune carried in huge black letters the headline: F.D.R.’s WAR PLANS! The Washington Times Herald, the largest paper in the nation’s capital, carried a similar headline. Chesly Manly, the Tribune’s Washington correspondent, revealed in his report what Roosevelt had repeatedly denied: that Roosevelt was planning to lead the United States into war against Germany. The source of Manly’s information was no less than a verbatim copy of Rainbow Five, the top-secret war plan drawn up at Roosevelt’s request by the joint board of the United States Army and Navy. Manly’s story even contained a copy of President Roosevelt’s letter ordering the preparation of the plan. (Source: Ibid., p. 1).

Rainbow Five called for the creation of a 10-million-man army, including an expeditionary force of five million men that would invade Europe in 1943 to defeat Germany. On December 5, 1941, the German Embassy in Washington, D.C., cabled the entire transcript of the newspaper story to Berlin. The story was reviewed and analyzed in Berlin as “the Roosevelt War Plan.” On December 6, 1941, Adm. Erich Raeder submitted a report to Hitler prepared by his staff that analyzed the Rainbow Five plan. Raeder concluded that the most important point contained in Rainbow Five was the fact that the United States would not be ready to launch a military offensive against Germany until July 1943. (Source: Ibid., pp. 1-2, 33).

On December 9, 1941, Hitler returned to Berlin from the Russian front and plunged into two days of conferences with Raeder, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, and Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring. The three advisors stressed that the Rainbow Five plan showed that the United States was determined to defeat Germany. They pointed out that Rainbow Five stated that the United States would undertake to carry on the war against Germany alone even if Russia collapsed and Britain surrendered to Germany. The three advisors leaned toward Adm. Raeder’s view that an air and U-boat offensive against both British and American ships might be risky, but that the United States was already unquestionably an enemy. (Source: Ibid., pp. 33-34).

On December 9, 1941, Roosevelt made a radio address to the nation that is seldom mentioned in the history books. In addition to numerous uncomplimentary remarks about Hitler and Nazism, Roosevelt accused Hitler of urging Japan to attack the United States. Roosevelt declared:

"We know that Germany and Japan are conducting their military and naval operations with a joint plan. Germany and Italy consider themselves at war with the United States without even bothering about a formal declaration…Your government knows Germany has been telling Japan that if Japan would attack the United States Japan would share the spoils when peace came. She was promised by Germany that if she came in she would receive control of the whole Pacific area and that means not only the Far East, but all the islands of the Pacific and also a stranglehold on the west coast of North and Central and South America. We know also that Germany and Japan are conducting their naval operations in accordance with a joint plan." (Source: Ibid., pp. 34-35).

All of the above statements by Roosevelt are obviously lies. Germany and Japan did not have a joint naval plan before Pearl Harbor, and never concocted one for the rest of the war. Germany did not have foreknowledge and certainly never encouraged Japan to attack the United States. Japan never had any ambition to attack the west coast of North, Central, or South America. Germany also never promised anything to Japan in the Far East. Germany’s power in the Far East was negligible. (Source: Meskill, Johana Menzel, Hitler and Japan: The Hollow Alliance, New York: 1955, pp. 1-47).

On December 10, 1941, when Hitler resumed his conference with Raeder, Keitel, and Göring, Hitler said that Roosevelt’s speech confirmed everything in the Tribune story. Hitler considered Roosevelt’s speech to be a de facto declaration of war. Since war with the United States was inevitable, Hitler felt he had no choice but to declare war on the United States. Hitler declared war on the United States in his Reichstag speech on December 11, 1941, stating among other things:

"Since the beginning of the war, the American President Roosevelt has steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law. Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt have reached the point that he has ordered the American navy to immediately attack, fire upon and sink all German and Italian ships, in complete violation of international law. American officials have even boasted about destroying German submarines in this criminal manner. American cruisers have attacked and captured German and Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were taken away to imprisonment. In addition, President Roosevelt’s plan to attack Germany and Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was made public in the United States, and the American government made no effort to deny it.

Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt, Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed." (Source: Weber, Mark, “The Reichstag Speech of 11 December 1941: Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the United States,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, Winter 1988-1989, p. 412).

Hitler ended this speech with a declaration of war against the United States. Roosevelt had finally gotten a declared war with Germany using Japan as a back door to war.

You write: "Ordinary Germans twice suffered catastrophic military defeat in the 20C. 2.8 million perished in WW1 (including 763,000 civilians), millions more in WW2. Would you call those responsible – German leadership – competent?"

My response: You assume here that Germany was responsible for starting both World War I and II. I do not agree with your assumption.

Few historians in postwar years believed Germany to be solely responsible for the outbreak of World War I. There were differences of opinion about the degree of responsibility borne by Germany, Great Britain, France, Russia, and other belligerent nations, but no responsible person could find Germany totally responsible for the war. Representative of impartial scholarship on the subject is the opinion of Dr. Sidney B. Fay of Harvard University. Fay concluded after an extensive study of the causes of World War I:

"Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one and made genuine, though too belated efforts to avert one…It was primarily Russia’s general mobilization, made when Germany was trying to bring Austria to a settlement, which precipitated the final catastrophe, causing Germany to mobilize and bring war…The verdict of the Versailles Treaty that Germany and her allies were responsible for the war, in view of the evidence now available, is historically unsound." (Source: Fay, Sidney B., The Origins of the World War, New York: Macmillan, 1930, pp. 552, 554-555).

Other historians who established that Germany was not primarily responsible for causing World War I include Professors Harry Elmer Barnes, Michael H. Cochran, Max Montgelas, and Georges Demartial. The Englishman Arthur Ponsonby also convincingly demonstrated that atrocity charges against the Germans were manufactured by Allied propagandists. (Source: Ponsonby, Arthur, Falsehood in Wartime, Costa Mesa, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1991).

So, I do not think Germany was primarily responsible for starting World War I. I do not think that German involvement in this war was the result of incompetent leadership.

In regard to World War II, I spend the first four chapters of my book "Germany's War" documenting why I don't think Germany was primarily responsible for starting the war. I do not think that Germany's involvement in World War II resulted from incompetent leadership.

However, I do hold German leaders, including Adolf Hitler, responsible for conducting a euthansia program against mentally-ill Germans. I do consider the German euthanasia program to be a crime against humanity for which German leadership was responsible.

Replies: @Incitatus

You write: "FDR knew of the wholesale killing; knew the Panay and three other ships were intentionally sunk. He didn’t respond with force. You characterize that as ‘making every effort’ to get the US into WW2? Do your ‘inconvenient history’ links explain your books sanitized version of events?"

My response: You omit in your comment important information on page 91 of my book "Germany's War" regarding the Panay incident. I write about this incident: "The Japanese government was quick to apologize for the incident, and paid an indemnity of two and a quarter million dollars to compensate the United States for its losses. Fortunately, the sinking of the Panay failed to kindle any desire for war in the United States." (Source: Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 156).

So, while the Panay incident was serious, the Japanese government both apologized for it and indemnified the United States government for its losses.

FDR made every effort to get the United States into World War II. FDR used Japan as a back door to war against Germany.

The United States began a campaign of economic pressure against Japan. On July 26, 1939, the United States gave notice to Japan of its intention, effective six months from the date, to abrogate the 1911 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Japan. On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials. Roosevelt acted at once under these powers. (Source: Morgenstern, George, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 322).

On July 26, 1940, Roosevelt announced a ban on Japanese acquisition of U.S. high-octane aviation gasoline, certain grades of steel and scrap iron, and some lubricants. On September 26, 1940, Roosevelt imposed a ban on all scrap iron exports to Japan. Since the Japanese steel industry was highly dependent on imported scrap iron from the United States, the ban compelled Japan to draw down its stockpiles and operate its steel industry well below capacity. The embargo was expanded in December 1940 to include iron ore, steel, and steel products. The following month the embargo was expanded to include copper, brass, bronze, zinc, nickel, and potash. Other items were continually added to the list, each of which was much needed for Japanese industrial production. (Source: Miller, Edward S., Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2007, pp. 88-123).

Provoking Japan into an overt act of war was the principal policy that guided Roosevelt’s actions toward Japan throughout 1941. Lt. Cmdr. Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote an eight-action memo dated October 7, 1940, outlining how to provoke a Japanese attack on the United States. McCollum had spent his youth in various Japanese cities and spoke Japanese before learning English. McCollum was an expert in Japanese activities, culture, and intentions, and he had access to intercepted and decoded Japanese military and diplomatic messages. The following are the eight actions that McCollum predicted would provoke a Japanese attack on the United States:

1. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
2. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
3. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek.
4. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
5. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
6. Keep the main strength of the U.S. Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
7. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
8. Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire. (Source: Stinnett, Robert B., Day of Deceit: the Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, New York: The Free Press, 2000, pp. 6, 8).

McCollum’s eight-action memorandum was approved by Roosevelt’s most trusted military advisers. Roosevelt’s “fingerprints” can be found on each of the provocations listed in the memorandum. For example, Roosevelt personally took charge of the fourth action, which involved the deliberate deployment of American warships within or adjacent to the territorial waters of Japan. Roosevelt called the provocations under the fourth action “pop-up” cruises. Roosevelt stated: “I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs guessing. I don’t mind losing one or two cruisers, but do not take a chance on losing five or six.” White House records show that from March through July 1941, Roosevelt ignored international law and dispatched naval vessels into Japanese waters on three such pop-up cruises. (Source: Ibid., pp. 9-10).

The climax of Roosevelt’s measures designed to bring about war in the Pacific occurred on July 25, 1941, when Roosevelt froze all Japanese assets in the United States. This brought commercial relations between the nations to an effective end, including an end to the export of oil to Japan. As early as August 7, 1941, Prince Konoye, the Japanese premier, requested a meeting with Roosevelt to resolve the differences between the United States and Japan. American Ambassador Grew sent a series of telegrams to Washington, D.C. in which he strongly recommended that such a meeting take place. However, Roosevelt steadfastly refused to meet with the Japanese premier. (Source: Morgenstern, George, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, pp. 327-331).

Foreign Minister Toyoda made a dispatch to Japanese Ambassador Nomura on July 31, 1941. Since U.S. Intelligence had cracked the Japanese diplomatic code, Roosevelt and his associates were able to read this message:

"Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas…I know that the Germans are somewhat dissatisfied with our negotiations with the United States, but we wished at any cost to prevent the United States from getting into the war, and we wished to settle the Chinese incident." (Source: Hearings Before the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, 79 Cong., 2 sess., 39 parts; Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1946, Part XII, p. 9).

This obvious desire of Japan for peace with the United States did not change Roosevelt’s policy toward Japan. Roosevelt refused to lift the oil embargo against Japan. The Roosevelt administration was well aware that Japan imported approximately 90% of her oil, and that 75% to 80% of her oil imports came from the United States. Roosevelt also knew that the Netherlands East Indies, which produced three percent of the world’s oil output, was the only other convenient oil producer that could meet Japan’s import needs. (Source: Miller, Edward S., Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2007, p. 162).

Roosevelt and his advisors briefly discussed a modus vivendi or truce with Japan. In fact, on November 21, 1941, the army’s War Plans Division told Secretary of State Cordell Hull it was a matter of “grave importance…that we reach a modus vivendi with Japan.” Hull permitted the peacemakers in Roosevelt’s administration to put together a proposal that had real potential. The proposal offered Japan practical proof of American friendship in the form of a 2 billion dollar loan contingent on Japan’s ending the war with China on reasonable terms. The proposal promised a renewal of the shipments of oil, metals, and other minerals that Japan needed for her factories. The proposal might have at least produced a temporary truce with Japan. But the idea of a modus vivendi was quickly rejected by interventionists in the State Department and War Department, and the final version was an unacceptable ghost of the original proposal. (Source: Fleming, Thomas, The New Dealers’ War: FDR and the War within World War II, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 21).

Instead of a modus vivendi, on November 26, 1941, Secretary of State Hull handed to the Japanese diplomatic representatives a 10-point proposal which amounted to a sharp ultimatum. The proposal, which was cleared by Roosevelt before submission, called for complete Japanese withdrawal from China and Indochina. The proposal also called for Japan to support only the Nationalist government of China, with which Japan had been in conflict for four years, and to interpret its pledges under the Tripartite Pact so that Japan would be bound to peace in the Pacific and to noninterference in Europe. The United States would meanwhile be free to intervene in Europe. (Source: Morgenstern, George, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, pp. 344-346).

Roosevelt knew that the Japanese government could not accept such a proposal: the proposal was in effect an invitation to war. The Japanese leaders were dumbfounded by such harsh terms, referring to the proposal as “humiliating.” (Source: Hearings Before the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, 79 Cong., 2 sess., 39 parts; Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1946, Part XII, p. 195).

In a defense deposition at the Tokyo war crime trials, Foreign Minister Togo said of the Hull proposal: “The reaction of all of us to it was, I think, the same. Ignoring all past progress and areas of agreement in the negotiations, the United States had served upon us what we viewed as an ultimatum containing demands far in excess of the strongest positions theretofore taken. (Source: Record of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 1946, Exhibit No. 3646).

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, as a result of Roosevelt’s provocations. Secretary of War Henry Stimson was relieved the attack had taken place. Stimson stated:

"We three [Hull, Knox, Stimson] all thought that we must fight if the British fought. But now the Japs have solved the whole thing by attacking us directly in Hawaii…When the news first came in that Japan had attacked us, my first feeling was of relief that the indecision was over and that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people. This continued to be my dominant feeling in spite of the news of catastrophes which quickly developed. For I feel that this country united has practically nothing to fear; while the apathy and divisions stirred by unpatriotic men have been hitherto very discouraging. (Source: Hearings Before the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, 79 Cong., 2 sess., 39 parts; Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1946, Part XI, p. 5438).

Roosevelt and his administration had finally forced Japan to attack the United States. The American public would now enthusiastically supported all-out war with Japan. The next step was to provoke Hitler and Germany into declaring war on the United States.

Replies: @Incitatus

You ask: “Are you so eager to pin war guilt on FDR?”

My response: The Roosevelt administration made every effort to involve the United States in World War II. If you don’t want to read all of my book, you might enjoy reading my articles at
https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/4/7534 and https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4882.

You ask: “Your dedication ‘to the all-but-forgotten memory of the millions of Germans murdered by the Western Allies after the end of World War II’ is admirable. But why exclude millions of Germans murdered by years of incompetent leadership? Don’t they merit mention?”

My response: Why do you say millions of Germans were murdered by years of incompetent leadership? Please clarify your question.

Replies: @Incitatus

One cannot legally call oneself an Architect unless you hold an active license.
 

Replies: @Incitatus

I write in comment #129: "There are numerous professional engineers who have publicly stated that there were no homicidal gas chambers at any of the German camps” and you reply: "Excellent! Use them!"

My response: I do use them. For example, you might want to read my article on IBM and the Holocaust at https://inconvenienthistory.com/13/2/7825.

You write: "PS. Like your book, especially the use of Göring’s ‘everybody does it’ defense to indict Stalin and FDR as the main WW2 culprits. Genuine feat of imagination, even if it really fails to convince. Maybe I’ve read too many other Göring quotes proving the opposite."

My response: Have you read my book? I use far more evidence than Hermann Göring quotes to prove that Stalin, FDR and Great Britain were primarily responsible for starting World War II.

Replies: @Incitatus

Your "splitting of hairs", an obvious jewish trait has been exposed.
In fact when the film (first edit) on Leuchter first came out, jews protested as it put Leuchter in a good light, so the author of the movie changed parts of the plot to make Leuchter "look bad".
As to jewish influence in the prosecution of Leuchter, the "men behind the curtain pulling the strings" were indeed jewish.
Throughout my career, I have performed many engineering functions, designing machinery and other systems, planning and implementation of building systems without a "license". I consider myself to be a "professional engineer", along with others who recognize my expertise, albeit without state licensure. So what??
Leuchter was "railroaded" by the jews for seeking and speaking the TRUTH.

Replies: @Incitatus

You write: "Fred’s no martyr: he’s just another fraud. Surely you can find a better source?"

My response: There are numerous professional engineers who have publicly stated that there were no homicidal gas chambers at any of the German camps. These people include Walter Lüftl, Friedrich Paul Berg, Dr. Arthur Robert Butz, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Dr. Ing Franco Deana, and Richard Krege. In my opinion, these engineers are all credible sources.

Replies: @Incitatus

>Surely you can find a better source?

A 'better source' of what?

Yeah, I guess I can find a better source of a light bulb than Edison.

If Leuchter's analysis of the alleged gas chambers is technically sound and convincing, why do I need a 'better source'?

Look, you seem dumb and vindictive, not to mention semi-literate, and I really shouldn't waste my time on you.

But since it appears it wasn't obvious: I don't care what claims Leuchter may or may not have made about a professional credential he may or may not have possessed -- I don't care.

I'm aware of the legal issue, but have ignored it because it has nothing to do with the technical quality or value of the work he did for Zündel.

From what I know, Leuchter was an independent contractor with a non-technical educational background, so having some kind of professional certification was probably an advantage.

Leuchter was attacked and persecuted by Jews because of the work he did for Zündel -- Leuchter maintained for years he was personally agnostic about the 'Holocaust' -- due to his evaluation, he just didn't think the facilities he'd been shown could have been used as gas chambers -- but that wasn't good enough for the Jews.

Zündel was attacked and persecuted by Jews due to his views on the 'Holocaust', which threaten the status of Jews as the world's preeminent victim group.

Lastly, since you seem to be questioning credentials, I'll suggest another target: Robert Jan van Pelt -- he is often described and promoted as an 'architect' (I have seen this countless times), and exterminationists rely on him as an expert in that capacity, e.g. for his made up models of the structure and functioning of the supposed gas chambers -- but he is not an architect -- he has an undergrad degree in the humanities, and works as a historian of architectural trends, i.e. in his classes, he shows students fotos of buildings to demonstrate how architectural styles have changed over the centuries -- honestly, Leuchter, who has successfully done technical work and owns several patents, is in that sense more qualified to do what he did than van Pelt is to do what he is doing.

Replies: @Incitatus

If you’re indeed a PE, don’t you have qualms about phony PEs? Leaving aside education, internship and exams; annual license registration fees, Continuing Education credits, and Professional Liability Insurance premiums?
 

Replies: @HdC

oy vey I quoted something therefore my argument is true, believe me!

Why did he say only buildings require PEs?
 

Replies: @Pierre de Craon, @Incitatus

You are comparing apples to oranges.
Leuchter was not designing buildings or critical infrastructure systems yet was prosecuted under a law directed at building systems--NOT machinery.
Leuchter did not need an engineering license to design and fabricate machinery.
You are talking about buildings not machines.
Leuchter's prosecution was political at the behest of the jews.

Replies: @Incitatus

Thomas Edison barely made it out of grade school, but he designed all kinds of useful things -- Albert Einstein, perhaps the most famous physicist in history, had only the equivalent of a teaching credential when he wrote his famous Annus mirabilis papers -- credentialism (or 'expertism') is in many ways a modern phenomenon.

The most important question in the Leuchter case, which you seem to ignore, is this: was his legal persecution pushed by Jews as revenge for the work he did for Ernst Zündel? -- the answer is clearly yes.

And the same is true of Zündel himself -- his legal persecution via an old, obscure Canadian law about purveying 'false news' was also instigated by Jews as revenge for his views about the 'Holocaust', specifically for publishing and distributing the pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die?, by Richard Harwood.

Replies: @Incitatus

I’m so glad, at long last!

 

Replies: @incitatus

What a wonderful soliloquy!

 

Replies: @incitatus

What – seriously – do you hope to accomplish?
 

The explanation is much more simple, cretin. English is only my working language. I absolutely needed to improve and maintain my written English for professional reasons, and regularly interacting with real native English-speakers wonderfully does the job. Cretin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8VZX4sHn-4&t=1s

Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave, @incitatus

Ah, Incitatus, ever ready to interject with the sole object to incite some mayhem.

I'm flattered, truly I am, that you thought to mention me in your spiel...

But, of course your groomed potential convert now is ‘Ultrafart the Brave” (231,800 words in 1,293 comments from 2015).

 

Speaking of grooming - shouldn't you be somewhere in Ukraine right about now? Quotas to meet, ladders to climb, etc.

In any case, don't quit your day job. After all, times are hard in the pay-per-post game.

Don’t worry, another aberrant news item will no doubt surface soon, allowing renewed controversial allegations of conspiracy.
 

Professor Konstantin Krutovsky, chair of the laboratory of genomic research at Siberian Federal University and Professor at Goettingen University, is now re-assessing the 2002 SARS-1 and 2012 MERS epidemics under the new bioweapon angle.

The high death rates of the first strains of coronavirus, which were recorded in the early 2000s and in 2012, may indicate that it could have been developed and used as a potential bioweapons, he told Tass.

"It is hypothetically possible to develop a coronavirus as a potential biological weapon, as the mortality rates of the first strains of SARS-Cov-1 and MERS-Cov were very high. During the SARS-Cov-1 outbreak in 2002-2003, about 700 of about 8,000 infected patients died, which is 9%. Along with this, 800 patients died out of 2,500 infected people, which is already 32%," Krutovsky noted.
 

The world is rapidly crumbling over your head: all these Goyim plebs are waking up.

That’s called being held to account, Toronto crackpot.
 

Henceforth, I refuse to engage with someone who has clearly demonstrated bad faith by adopting multiple screen names.

So, go fly a kite, PIZ.

Or better yet, PIZ off, PIZ, LOL.

Trust a first-generation crackpot…
 

Tell us, PEAbrain. Who holds the major positions in Zion Biden’s cabinet?

Replies: @incitatus

Were your parents proud of you?
 

When I alluded to your probably not having offspring, you feigned being offended. But inquiring about my parents is fair game.

“Oh, hypocrite!” LOL

Keep well, Zwiebel, PEAbrain, Incitatus, etc., etc., etc., etc., LOL

Replies: @incitatus

Agree. You’re a 100% cowardly hypocrite.
 

Replies: @incitatus

How do you cope?
 

Replies: @incitatus

Another stellar post that reaffirms the quality of your character.

Keep it up Zwiebel, PEAbrain, Incitatus.

Talk about a split personality, Must be challenging keeping track of all those different voices in your head, LOL

Replies: @incitatus

Compare:

• Foreign born in USA: 13.7%;
• Jews in the USA: 1.9% of total population (2002 est).
 

Incitatus - But drama (“Out dammed spot”) has its limits.

https://www.unz.com/article/retraction-of-my-article-on-jewish-influence/#comment-5444068

iffen - “Out damned spot!”

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-190-russia-ukraine/#comment-5388582
 

Stay well Zwiebel. PEAbrain, Incitatus.

Replies: @incitatus

Translation of Zwiebel, PEAbrain, Incitatus posts:

Listen, goy. Just because your homelands are being systematically destroyed by Jewish supremacists, you’re not supposed to notice. And if you do notice, you’re supposed to keep your mouth shut… understand, goy? Otherwise, you’re just a virulent antisemite! Got it, goy? Now, don’t forget. keep your mouth shut, goy! That’s a good little goy.

… and if you really want to know why you should keep your mouth shut, goy, I’ll tell you, even though I shouldn’t.

When we said Never again! we meant it, goy. So, say “goodbye” to blood and soil and “hello” to multiculti, goy!

It’s an ethno-state for me and South Africa for thee, goy! LOL

Now, don’t forget to keep your mouth shut, goy. Ok?
 

Replies: @incitatus

Or (like Geo) hoping to incite civil war in a country he doesn’t live in.
 

Geo might also appreciate that, but, then again, he (self-appointed guardian of Western Civilization) didn’t have a clue about Æschylus and the ‘Oresteia’ (cornerstone of western law.
 

Replies: @incitatus

In 1980, as a result of a lawsuit in a German court, the German state forensic bureau (Bundes Kriminal Amt [BKA]), forensically examined the original “diary” manuscript. The analysis determined that “significant” portions of the work were written with a fine ballpoint pen. Fine ballpoint pens were not available before 1951; Anne Frank died in March 1945. The BKA also determined that NONE of the “diary” handwriting matched known examples of Anne’s handwriting.

It was written by Meyer Levin. Because the real author of the fictional work took Otto Frank to the court of law in New York for plagiarism! The accusation was that the diary was plagiarized from a book written by Meyer Levin. The court ruled for Levin, but the judgment was set aside
The case was subsequently settled out of court while the appeal was pending

The judge for the case was Hon. Samuel C. Coleman
The file number in the New York County Clerk’s office is 2241 – 1956
 

Replies: @incitatus

Helpful hint: if preaching ‘homeland’, make sure you have one.
 

Replies: @incitatus

Such anger, such resentment. Sad.
 

Replies: @incitatus

Let us know when you leave 51% foreign born Toronto…
 

Replies: @incitatus

I doubt annamaria is a women. Women do not talk the way she talks. She is more like a Johny Jihadist type. She is either Islamist Jihadist nut job, or a Neo Nazi nut job. But I am guessing she is full on Jihadi. It is mostly Islamist that have a denseness with their conspiracies. Like no hair can be out of place. It all must go back to the Jews even the toothpaste was made by Jews. Of course Sean Penn is Jewish. Or who writes something so fucking stupid as this regarding AF's diaries.

If ever file number 2241-1956 in the New York County Clerk’s office is opened to public view (highly unlikely I surmise) and its contents widely publicised, then the true nature of this work will be exposed for all to witness. …
 

In 1944, the German authorities in occupied Holland discovered that Otto Frank’s company had been extensively defrauding them through their Wehrmacht contracts…
 

üri Lina (born on 13 October 1949 in Tartu) is an Estonian journalist, writer, paranormal investigator, music producer, radio host, film director and Ufologist.[1]
Jüri Lina
In 1960s and 1970s he published many works (articles, reviews, translations) which were anti-Soviet. Due to discord with Soviet powers, in 1979 he was expelled from Estonia by Soviet authorities. Since then he has lived mainly in Sweden. In 1991 he was rehabilitated.[1] Lina's works are usually conspiratorial and anti-semitic. He is one of the most well known Holocaust deniers of Estonia.[2]

 

Replies: @incitatus, @mulga mumblebrain

Leo Frank was a rapist and murderer: https://nationalvanguard.org/2022/04/leo-frank-is-guilty-and-more-and-more-people-know-it/
https://nationalvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/mary-and-mattie-phagan-1913.jpg

Otto Frank created a profitable forgery with a ball pen (first produced in 1951)

Scientific analysis of the manuscript supposed to be the original diary of Anne Frank, during WW2 reveals that it could not have been written before 1951, six years after the end of the war. The alleged “diary” was also written in ballpoint pen ink — which was not manufactured for public use until 1951. ...

Otto Frank, a Jewish businessman from Frankfurt, was one of the inmates at the Auschwitz rubber plant manufacturing camp, who survived the Typhus epidemic during 1945. After the War, he tried to get a publishing deal in 1946 with claims of a diary that he said was written by his daughter. The alleged diary he claimed was written by her while the family was in hiding from German police in occupied Holland, and before she died at Auschwitz... while being treated for TYPHUS.
 

Ilya Ehrenburg (of soap and sculps fame) was a genocidal propagandist: https://www.nairaland.com/5418677/ilya-ehrenburg-zionists-chief-propagandist

Nuland-Kagan's contribution to Eastern Europe and humanity at large:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Тернопіль_-_Пам%27ятник_Степанові_Бандері_-_17017439.jpg

On 16 January 2017, the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance stated that since 2015, 34 streets were named after Stepan Bandera. ... [ Since the Nuland-Kagan-run regime change in collaboration with self-proclaimed Nazis.]

In 2018, the Lviv Oblast Council decided to declare the year of 2019 to be the year of Stepan Bandera... In 2021, the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory, under the authority of the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture, included Bandera, among other Ukrainian nationalist figures, in Virtual Necropolis, a project intended to commemorate historical figures important for Ukraine
 

Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert

https://www.australianjewishnews.com/looking-back-on-ukrainian-crimes-in-horror/

The flashpoint for contemporary Ukrainian neo-fascism revolves around the figures of Stepan Bandera and Andriy Melnyk and the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). ...

The great Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who served as America’s UN ambassador and as a US senator, said, “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”

And the indisputable facts are that Bandera was a mass murderer who was motivated by ethnic bigotry against Jews, Poles and anyone else who didn’t meet his arbitrary definition of who was a ‘genuine’ Ukrainian. The 10th OUN commandment instructed its members to “expand the strength, fame, wealth and area of the Ukrainian state, even through the enslavement of foreigners”.

And Bandera in particular, would routinely cloak his murderous antisemitism under the facade of his struggle against Soviet communism. ... On June 30, 1941, Bandera issued a ‘declaration’ of Ukrainian Independence, delivered by his henchman, Yaroslav Stetsko, which pledged allegiance to Hitler and the new Nazi order in Europe. ... In early July 1941, less than a fortnight into the German invasion, OUN militiamen, armed and organised by the Wehrmacht, conducted murderous pogroms in Lviv that claimed 5000 innocent Jewish lives. The SS archives in Berlin contained a report from Ukraine that quoted a slogan being used by OUN activists during the summer of 1941. “Long live Ukraine without Jews” … and “Jews to the gallows”. The OUN assisted the Nazis in murdering hundreds of thousands of Jews in the ‘Holocaust of Bullets’ all over Ukraine.

Other ethnic communities in Ukraine suffered as well. Bandera’s ‘kill order’ of 1941 urged Ukrainians to murder Jews, Poles, Hungarians, Russians and fellow Ukrainians, all described as ‘Muscovites’.