Telegraph Article........three million died after

[phylo_roadking]

that help from the Red Cross got diverted to camps for displaced persons. That was willful withholding food for starving POW's...erm...not longer POW's I mean...thanks to Eisenhower

And of course begs the other side of the question to be asked - why wasn't there enough for displaced persons in the first place i.e. civilians...?

[michael kenny]

.Everyone in here seems to forget the millions of POWs that weren't even accounted for BEFORE the Soviets transferred them East for forced labour in the three months after VE Day...They asked for FIVE million, I've no idea how many were actually transferred - OR how many returned later. Anyone know?

What unacounted for millions?
Here we go again.............

[pzrmeyer2]

I know that there is those franticaly attempting to re-write history so they can say German was not exceptional when it AS AN ACT OF DELIBERATE POLICY murdered millions in WW2.

How about the Allied bombing of civilian targets? was this not an "ACT OF DELIBERATE POLICY" that murdered hundreds of thousands?

this is absolute bull**it. Nothing the Allies did came even close to matching the German totals.

so its only a matter of quantity to you? and are you including the mass murdering Soviets as part of your defintion of "Allies"? or does your arguement then shift to "quality"?

Did German civilians suffer in WW2 ? Yes they did. They suffered as a direct result of the policies of their government.

So a POW starved to death after being placed in the care of the Allied forces AFTER the cessation of hostilites is the fault of the German goverment?
An infant thrown to his death off the bridge over the Elbe at Aussig/Usti nad Labem AFTER the cessation of hiostilities is the fault of the German government?
So a social democratic farmer and his wife beaten to death by Poles as they were expelled from East Prussia AFTER the cessation of hostilites is the fault of the German government?
A surrendered officer shot to death by an Allied solider for not giving him his wristwatch AFTER the cessation of hostilites is the fault of the German government?
Did history begin on 30 January 1933?

When you set out to destroy the 'racialy inferior' better be sure you win because they are going to be mighty pi**ed off about it all.

Hmmm....isnt that along the same line of thinking the Nazis employed to justify the Final Solution Since the Jews passed themselves off as superior?

[michael kenny]

so its only a matter of quantity to you? and are you including the mass murdering Soviets as part of your defintion of "Allies"? or does your arguement then shift to "quality"?

Nobody came close to the Nazis so keep trying...................

So a POW starved to death after being placed in the care of the Allied forces AFTER the cessation of hostilites is the fault of the German goverment?
An infant thrown to his death off the bridge over the Elbe at Aussig/Usti nad Labem AFTER the cessation of hiostilities is the fault of the German government?
So a social democratic farmer and his wife beaten to death by Poles as they were expelled from East Prussia AFTER the cessation of hostilites is the fault of the German government?
A surrendered officer shot to death by an Allied solider for not giving him his wristwatch AFTER the cessation of hostilites is the fault of the German government?
Did history begin on 30 January 1933?

Every German casualty is a direct result of the actions taken by the German Military machine. If they had kept out of all those other countries the war would not have started. As I said earlier if you start a war to the death then you win or you die.
The whole of the blame for the deaths belongs in the lap of the millions of soldiers and party officials who carried out Hitlers insane plans.
Strange that you try place the blame on the shoulders of those who ended the aggression and had to clean up the filth and destruction left in the wake of this evil regime.

Hmmm....isnt that along the same line of thinking the Nazis employed to justify the Final Solution Since the Jews passed themselves off as superior?

I was on about the Slavs actualy but you can't seem to resist disparaging Jews (indirectly of course) at every opportunity. I wonder how many Germans were killed by 'the Jews' between 1939-45?
I won't even try to explain the 'passed themselves off as superior' slur.

[phylo_roadking]

So a POW starved to death after being placed in the care of the Allied forces AFTER the cessation of hostilites is the fault of the German goverment?
An infant thrown to his death off the bridge over the Elbe at Aussig/Usti nad Labem AFTER the cessation of hiostilities is the fault of the German government?
So a social democratic farmer and his wife beaten to death by Poles as they were expelled from East Prussia AFTER the cessation of hostilites is the fault of the German government?
A surrendered officer shot to death by an Allied solider for not giving him his wristwatch AFTER the cessation of hostilites is the fault of the German government?
Did history begin on 30 January 1933?


Every German casualty is a direct result of the actions taken by the German Military machine. If they had kept out of all those other countries the war would not have started. As I said earlier if you start a war to the death then you win or you die.
The whole of the blame for the deaths belongs in the lap of the millions of soldiers and party officials who carried out Hitlers insane plans.
Strange that you try place the blame on the shoulders of those who ended the aggression and had to clean up the filth and destruction left in the wake of this evil regime.

Michael - after May 7th 1945, every death that could in any way be regarded as preventable in the short, medium or long term becomes the responsibility of the Occupying Powers - by default. Its a simple fact of International Law. "Occupying Power" has a VERY strict legal set of obligations to it. The government of Nazi Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Allies and ceased to exist. It as nothing to do with being the "direct result of the actions taken" - it's to do with who as of the surrender of the Nazi German government to the Allies....who has responsibility for the citizens of Occupied Germany whether POWS, civilians or whatever.

Let me use a more modern example....your logic is saying EXACTLY that those Irai citizens beaten to death or to a pulp by American and british Service personnel in Iraq - their deaths WEREN'T the result of physical abuse and torture....but they were murdered by Saddam Hussein because their being in jail under the authority of American and British jailers was because heforced us to invade his country and jail them???

No, I didn't think so..... You can't have it as one set of laws and morals in 1945 and a different one in 2003. You can't have one "right" then...and yet the other be wrong now.....

If they had kept out of all those other countries the war would not have started

Your logic is like saying - the war and those millions of deaths are actually the fault of Chamberlain and Deladier - because they didn't force Poland to give up the Danzig Corridor as they had forced Czechoslovakia to dismember itself!

Is it so hard to understand that as of May 7th, 1945 - Germany stopped being a nation; it no longer had its own government, ALL governmental responsibilities and duties belonged suddenly to the Occupying Powers?What happened after that date became THEIR responsibility, and that anything that could have been done to prevent death by starvation and disease should have been done? What happened before that date technically had NO bearing on how those people should have been treated and looked after WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION of bringing to account ALL those involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity etc. etc. and the removal of any and all systems/institutions/bodies/organisations judged to be illegal.

In effect on THAT date, Germans in the U.S. Zone became Americans, those in the British Zone British, in the Soviet Zone they ahem should have been treated like Soviet citizens...(maybe they were! That's Stalinist Russia for you! )

[phylo_roadking]

Michael - if you have a Rottweiler or Staffordshire Bull Terrier bitch, and you breed a litter out of her and sell the puppies....and a year later one of them savages a kid on the other side of town to death - are YOU responsible?

No. The responsibilty rests with the new owner on the day he or she took their new puppy home.

If instead they take they puppy home - and beat it, starve it and generally mistreat it, and are taken to court by the RSPCA - are YOU responsible? Should it be YOU in court?

No. The responsibility rests with the new owner.....

But if you've beat and starved those puppies, and from the day and hour it leaves you to a new and loving home it grows to enjoy a full life....is that quality of life with a new and loving family and owner anything to do with you and the disgusting start to life you gave it?

No.

[michael kenny]

The entire blame for the deaths in WW2 (and the aftershocks that were a DIRECT result of it) lies with the party officials and servants who carried out the war of aggression on Hitlers behalf.
Blaming the Allies for not being everwhere at once is a bit rich. Destroy a continent, murder millions. Uproot millions more and work them to death as slaves to keep your economy going. Steal all the food from the civilians in the enslaved nations so your people do not suffer too much.
Loot and pillage at will but the moment your own people start to feel the effect of the food shortages cry foul blame everyone in sight but yourself.
Should I I feel guilty because the Allies felt they had more responsibility for the displaced in Germany in 1945?
I hear all all this bleating about POW's being starved as policy so how come the death rate was so low?

[phylo_roadking]

But Michael - go back to the very first page of this thread - its talking about POWs....and civilians....

The entire blame for the deaths in WW2 (and the aftershocks that were a DIRECT result of it) lies with the party officials and servants who carried out the war of aggression on Hitlers behalf.

Erm....wrong. The adequate feeding of the German population in Occupied Germany was an Allied legal obligation under international law: Article 43 of The 1907 Hague Rules of Land Warfare. And there's no question that it was totally inadequate. From 1945 to 1947, the average calorie intake per day for a German adult went down from 1200 to 1050 - in an era when 2000 calories perday was reckoned as survivable for only a short period of time. AND by 1947 the average calorie intake of a U.S. citizen was 32-3300 per day, an American G.I on occupation duty was 4000...and even a British citizen was 2900.

I could talk for an age about the Americans preventing ALL international aid organisations from bringing aid into Germany to ethnic Germans for ALL of 1945....note "preventing" as in intentionally stopping....

Or the German Red Cross being disbanded....yet the International Red Cross being prevented from entering Germany.....there's that word again..."prevented"...

Or even the U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT preventing the VATICAN bringing food aid from Chile....State Department? Hmm, thats taking "prevention" up towards POLICY-MAKING levels, isn't it???

Even Lucius Clay, Eisenhower's deputy, stated - "undoubtedly a large number of refugees have already died of starvation, exposure and disease…. The death rate in many places has increased several fold, and infant mortality is approaching 65 percent in many places. By the spring of 1946, German observers expect that epidemics and malnutrition will claim 2.5 to 3 million victims between the Oder and Elbe."

Ah, but then I'm forgetting - this is the SAME Lucius Clay who ALSO stated - "I feel that the Germans should suffer from hunger and from cold as I believe such suffering is necessary to make them realize the consequences of a war which they caused"

So the Deputy Commander of SHAPE thought starving OAPs and dying babies needed to "realize the consequences of a war which they caused"...

Blaming the Allies for not being everwhere at once is a bit rich.

But don't you understand? After the surrender on May 7th, and PARTICULARLY and legally after the signing of The Declaration Regarding the Defeat of Germany and the Assumption of Supreme Authority by Allied Powers in Berlin on the 5th of June, 1945.....they WERE everywhere - they were the government!

[Reb]

Michael

Unfortunately, yours is an emotional response rather than completely rational. If we consider it your way, we have to identify a threshold which if crossed, allows us to treat our prisoners badly.

Leaving us with two problems:

a) who sets that threshold (churchill? Bush? Hitler? et al)

b) What about the impact on us?

we are ourselves impacted when we are needlessly cruel. eg - while most people in Georgia support Capital punishment for murderers you don't hear anybody suggesting we torture them to death no matter how egregious their crimes. And we treat them fairly well in prison despite our distaste.

This is not for their benefit. It is for ours. To keep us on an even moral keel. In talking to many soldiers over the years from various wars I've met many who admitted shooting after it was no longer right to shoot. Most regret it. But you can't take it back. The same is true for any cruelty. it wall always be a part of you.

When Honecker was on the run in East Germany he found refuge with a pastor from my church (German branch) who had been persecuted deliberately and personally by Honecker himself. Yet the pastor took him in and took care of him. A wicked man can be saved by kindness if he can be saved at all.

Our mistake after world war II was to assume that because Hitler and his maniacs were wicked that all Germans were wicked because the assumption was they all supported AH. Yet we know from our own experience that most folks couldn't give a damn less about politics and most can't even name their local representative. Why would we make the assumption that Germans were different somehow?

Was that not a mistake on our part? To me, it seems like we justify the enemy's bad conduct by perpetrating that same bad conduct on them. do it if you must - but dismount from the old moral high horse - you've just joined the ranks of the enemy. ( I don't mean you personally)

cheers
Reb

[michael kenny]

It isn't emotional its practical. You can not do everything at once. Even today in the same country people die because they live in an area where hospitals are not as good as in other areas. It is a fact of life that there are inequalities and losers. Europe was devestated and lots of choices had to be made with resources. Some people died because of those choices and not only in Germany.
We have the some here complaining that as the absolute letter of international was not applied fron day one of the surrender every death is a wilful murder and thus the Allies are every bit as bad as Nazi Germany.
The same people whinge constantly that this is so unfair whilst completely forgetting who caused all the devastion and disruption in the first place. Frankly they dont care. In there eyes we fought the wrong enemy.
Did innocent Germans die? Yes. They died directly because the were governed by a regime that had as its sole aim the elimination of all opposition to its policies and territorial claims. Instead of blaming the victims of their aggression they should look within and see if they can find any fault with their relatives who served and did the bidding of the madman Hitler.

Killing itself is not always a crime. You can defend yourself by killing he who attacks you. Self defence on a personal level and internationaly is not a crime. Wreak havoc on your neighbours at your peril. If they get the chance they will repay the favour and no one will blame them for it. That I am afraid is human nature.
No matter how spiteful the Allied actions were towards Germany it never experienced the full horror they visited on her neighbours. There was some score settling at the end of the war but it never reached the levels of the repression in the Axis occupied countries.

No doubt I will get the usual wail of the captured criminal........what about my rights, you cant treat me like that. I want my lawer............. I know I killed the old woman but I should be treated with respect.........
Not if it was my mother pal.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the real 'crime' being complained about is Germany lost the war.

[Commissar D, the Evil]

I tend to agree with Phylo, regardless of who started the war, as winners, the Allies were bound to treat any prisoner of war within the Geneva Conventions. If there simply was not enough food to go around, that is one thing, if, on the other hand, there was enough food for the displaced and the German Civilian population and the POW's and it was purposely withheld from German POW's, that is quite another thing and IMHO, a war crime.

Best,
David

[John W. Howard]

Hello Gents:
Well, I have been away for a couple of days and, for the most part you have all behaved well. Some of the new figures posted tend to support the 3 million contention of total deaths following the war, which to me is not surprising considering the conditions in Germany post-war. Lack of food, transportation, shelter, potable water, and the mass deportations from the East undoubtedly took their toll. The sheer numbers of displaced people alone presented a nightmare for any post-war administration. Foreign laborers, POW's of various nationalities, concentration camp inmates, homeless soldiers and civilians, all had to be fed, housed, and relocated. I do not think the Allies were prepared to handle anywhere near the magnitude of problems they faced post-war, nor were they very concerned about it; they were fighting a war and I doubt they had much excess capacity in shipping or supply services to stockpile for post-war eventualities. I know for a fact that the southern French ports on the Med did little more than supply the US 7th Army and French First Army with their needs; there was not much excess capacity. I am not sure about the Channel ports, but I doubt they had much excess either. Add the ongoing war in Asia, which sucked up huge quantities of shipping, and the seeming necessity of an invasion of Japan, and a good case can be made that post-war issues were far down the line from the immediate concerns of winning the war on both fronts for the Allies.
In addition, the concept that the victor in a war was responsible for the rebuilding of a conquered foe and maintenance of her people's health and welfare, had not yet been born as far as I know. I am sure the Allies felt some obligation to those they considered victims of Naziism, but much less so to those they considered as the instigators of the war. In the Allied camp the prevailing view of Germany was "Not those people again", because for the third time in seventy odd years the Germans had launched military campaigns beyond their borders; there was a definite and tangible lack of sympathy for the Germans and their suffering. That is what war does to people; it hardens them and makes them less likely to display "The Better Angels of their Nature".

[Schultz]

Thanks John good post and michael


Schultz

[Cott Tiger]

A good post indeed John.

However, I cannot help but feel somewhat puzzled, as to why it was deemed necessary by the moderators to publicly rebuke questioning of a Veterans opinions as “confrontational”, yet wishing to see the “throat slit” of someone appears to not even illicit a single remark publicly from the moderators of this site.

I have to say I find it very odd, and more than a little disappointing.

Regards,

Andre

[Cott Tiger]

Phylo,

I have read through your many posts on this topic with interest.

However, what is very clear is that you actually never make your own opinion on the mater at all clear. You are happy to try and pick other people’s arguments to pieces and continually pour buckets of ambiguity into the debate, but you never actually state what you believe happened, and of course what evidence you have for those opinions.

So for the third time, I would very interested to hear your responses to the following so we can be a little clearer as to what your position is:

Are you then acknowledging that Bacque is wrong and one million German PoWs were not in fact intentionally starved to death on the orders of Eisenhower?

You appear to be stating that Eisenhower and the Americans did have a policy to murder millions of German PoWs and they did indeed implement it, but the British intervened and stopped the mass murder by starvation. How long and how far do you suggest this policy went? How many PoWs do you suggest were murdered before Britain stopped it?

Do you simply discount all the researched evidence that refutes all of Bacque’s major contentions in “Other Losses”, including the ones you are are re-hashing above?

I look for forward to you responses.

Regards,

Andre