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

[sid guttridge]

P.S. The French probably need to answer a few questions, though. Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Why does the Morgenthau Plan keep coming up? It was only ever a proposal and was quickly rejected. Surely this shows the US in a relatively good, not a relatively bad light? By contrast Nazi Germany actually implemented something very like the Morgenthau Plan in Poland and intended to extend it ever eastwards.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Annelie]

Why does the Morgenthau Plan keep coming up?

Perhaps because it played into how people thought and maybe
reacted?

He accused Treasury Secretary Morgenthau and Bernard Baruch of "Semetic revenge against Germany,"

Patton...A Genius for War.....Carlo D'Este

[lwd]

...

Yes I have - you've just missed my answer enitely. My position is quite simple, and comes in two parts

A/ even ONE death from intentional, governmental policy is enough to prove the case - IF thyere was a policy in place...which I've shown.
....

Let's just take a look at the ramifications of this one.

Case 1: It's December 1945. The US ellects to send more muntions and weapons to Europe rather than more food and medicine. Consequence civilians in the newly freed regions of Wesern Europe who needed the above will die who would not otherwise have died (note that info I posed earlier indicates that at least parts of France were on a very restricted diet from shortly after the Nazi occupation started). On the otherhand if they switched cargos the war would probably last longer and soldiers and other civilians will die that might otherwise have survived.

Case 2: Similar to one above but it's June of 45 and the US elects to move men and material to the Pacific rather than food and meds to Europe.

Case 3: This one is completly hypothetical. The military govenerof of a small area of occupied Germany has a food budget of 1M calories/ day. He has 750 civilians and 250 POW under his "care". He has two options:
1) Give the POWs 2K calories per day as per the convention which takes up half his food budget so the civilians get >700 calories per person per day. Note that this will lead to more civilian deaths especially among the elderly and young.
2) Declare the POWs to be interned former combatants and restrict their diet to no more than the civilians. This will incrase POW fatalaties (proably) but decrease civilian ones.

All of the cases above will result in "extra" or "unnecessary" deaths and are the consequence of official policy. You have in essence assumed your answer.

[Reb]

Phylo

See Annelie's post. I was surprised you included Patton in your list. He was inclined to outbursts but in the long run he respected the Germans because they put up a good fight.

He noted at one time that his men felt more at home with the Germans (civilians) than with the people in the countries they liberated because they were "more like us - neat and orderly."

Finding the death camps skewed everything obviously - but most folks don't hold onto rage and revenge for long. I think the big shots who got us into the war were the ones who wanted to pretty much smash Germany. Hence unconditional surrender.

That always pissed me off because it gave the Germans exactly no reason to dispose of the Nazis, gave Goebels everything he needed and ended up ceding eastern Europe to the Sovs. And this at a point where even Sepp Dietrich was sick of the Nazi leadership.

cheers
Reb

[Rajin Cajun]

Indeed Reb it was actually Patton who suggested several times we were on the wrong side. He didn't like Hitler and would let you know it but he figured once they got rid of him they could arm the Germans and kick the Russkies all the way back to Moscow. Unfortunately no one considered it seriously even though it should have been.

[lwd]

Read something recently where it stated that Patton was against truning any German POWs over to the French. Something about them being worked to death on starvation rations.

[phylo_roadking]

Finally, it is not true that German POWs were used as slave labour in scores of Allied countries. (Again you are overstating a case). Slave labour was employed only by the Totalitarian powers such as the USSR (and Nazi Germany). POWs may volunteer for work and be paid in luxury items that were beyond the ration laid down by international law. Being an inactive POW on basic rations is a soul destroying lifestyle, especially once the war is over, and so the great majority of German POWs in Western hands chose the option of activity over inactivity and volunteered for work

Sid, I'm afraid that on this you're completely wrong; I'll have full detail for you later, that's another dusty essay file I have to find...

[phylo_roadking]

I was surprised you included Patton in your list

Reb, I may be of the opinion he was a son of a bitch...but when he had insight - a rare thing for him - he did have it. Isn't that what you do in a debate? Even if your worst enemy has an incisive observation about a subject you include him - it's only fair, he wasn't always...even personality-wise...a d1ck!

[phylo_roadking]

Case 1: It's December 1945. The US ellects to send more muntions and weapons to Europe rather than more food and medicine. Consequence civilians in the newly freed regions of Wesern Europe who needed the above will die who would not otherwise have died (note that info I posed earlier indicates that at least parts of France were on a very restricted diet from shortly after the Nazi occupation started). On the otherhand if they switched cargos the war would probably last longer and soldiers and other civilians will die that might otherwise have survived.

LWD, two things -

A/ I take it you mean December 1944....

B/ And youre forgetting something; as of December 1944...there weren't actually very many Germans in Allied hands!!! The whole point about the Allies applying the policies they had agreed ONLY kicks off from the end of the war/assumption of full governmental powers...WHEN they became responsible for the Germans by law. December 1944 and feeding the other liberated but NON-German peoples of Western Europe...don't apply. THAT was done voluntarily - as allies; the "responsibility" aspect for the citizens of a defeated and occupied country hadn't cut in as of December 1944.
(even if it did...its a terrible analogy; the Americans and British worked with the French to ensure the minimum French ration was 2900 cals per day, same as the "refugee" allowance. AND they worked hard flying food into starving Holland.)

Case 3: This one is completly hypothetical. The military govenerof of a small area of occupied Germany has a food budget of 1M calories/ day. He has 750 civilians and 250 POW under his "care". He has two options:
1) Give the POWs 2K calories per day as per the convention which takes up half his food budget so the civilians get >700 calories per person per day. Note that this will lead to more civilian deaths especially among the elderly and young.
2) Declare the POWs to be interned former combatants and restrict their diet to no more than the civilians. This will incrase POW fatalaties (proably) but decrease civilian ones.

But you're forgetting something in your hypothetical case - down the road he has a camp full of refugee foreign workers waiting to be repatriated, and he's given enough food to give THEM their 2900 cals perday!

THAT's point that Reb made earlier about freedom of action meanting local variations...BUT hwne it comes to the ethnic Germans/POWs the only choice he's given FROM ABOVE is a choice of the lesser of two evils Still doesn't make either of them "right".
[/quote]

[gerhard2]

Andre,
I really don't have the time but I will answer your post in order of your response.
It is uncomfortable for me but when I see these what in my opinion are either gullible or misleading statements I put my two cents in.
Next, Bacque calls it murder, I am more polite - I call it wilful neglect. Remember too you merely quote some ones numbers that's all you do, numbers you like and showing the Allies as the righteous avenger. I also quote numbers, the numbers Bacque found after extensive research. Having seen some of those camps and spoken to quite a few men who also been there, why would I doubt any of his findings ?. The only reason you and your supporters claim otherwise is - to deny the vengeance driven policy of the victorious Allies.
As I mentioned in another post, reports and accounts for or by the German government are simply designed not to upset the victorious allies, at the expense of the truth. They have learned not to rock the boat, not in 1945/50 and still not today. They are what I see as Politically Correct.
Have you any idea how many people or what the death rate was in my camp ? I am sure my guess would be a lot more accurate then yours. Incidentally I met a couple of guys later in England who were in my camp somewhat longer then I was and they told me of all the compounds two were bulldozed out. I guess like me everybody getting thinner they were able to put 20 men per tent instead the 12 while I was there.
About Russian prisoners I have no idea what the death rate was but I suspect you will likely inflate the numbers to shift our attention away from Bacque. You certainly don't have to worry about Ivan - did he ever get his revenge. The book "As far as my feet will carry me" may help you to understand. There is also a write up under Vae Victis on the Internet, try it. The justifications (or white wash) have been written into history already, perhaps you should start protecting it with the law too to stop anybody question it.
One of our posters here likes to talk about the shootings, I assume he means the Einsatz Gruppen or Sicherheits Dienst. I am positive if any were left at wars end they have long been found and received their just rewards. No matter what you say, the officers were well known and the no or low ranks did not have the means to hide themselves. Another poster wrote:
"Finally, it is not true that German POWs were used as slave labor in scores of Allied countries", let me assure him I was sent to work and never given a choice or received any benefits for it.
I am sorry if you find the comparison between a suicide bomber and a bomber in a war plane distasteful, I guess I forgot to mention the real difference - the former gives up his life and the latter operates in relative safety, unless of course he encounters friendly fire. Naturally both are convinced they doing the right thing. Why even the Wehrmacht had "God with us" on their belt buckle.
Gerhard

[Cott Tiger]

Wow I've been offline for a bit and look what happens. The typical leftist scum pop out of the woodwork and start throwing bottles, stones, parking meters, baby elephants, etc. Oh well this will be closed down soon enough our good "FRIEND" Andre will make sure of that won't you? Nothing like pushing an agenda.

I do not appreciate being called “scum”.

Rajin Cajun, you are obviously inadequate enough to join in the debate on any intellectual level whatsoever, so you feel the need to resort to name calling.

You obviously didn’t have your wrists slapped hard enough by a moderator last time.

This interesting thread doesn’t need shutting down, you just need to take a hike. You are out of your depth son.

Regards,

Andre

[phylo_roadking]

Hmm, just realised I'd left out two more very important areas - the one Andre raised...transport, and of course fuel, as there was also a tremendous fuel shortage in all of Europe, and another greater one anticipated for 1946...

..."In May [1945], a group of U.S. and British experts, the Potter-Hyndley Mission, surveyed the European coal requirements and concluded, "Unless drastic steps are taken, there will occur in Northwest Europe and the Mediterranean next winter a coal famine of such severity as to destroy all semblance of law and order, and thus delay any chance of reasonable stability."...The Potter-Hyndley Mission recommended taking coal from Germany "without any regard for the consequences to Germany."...The miners had to be fed much more than the average 1,000 calories a day if they were to do their work; and even if they dug the coal, Germany would have last claim on it. If the coal famine was going to result in acute unrest somewhere, the Potter-Hyndley Mission preferred to see it in Germany and said so in its report: "Should it become necessary to preserve order by shooting, it would surely be better for this to occur in Germany than elsewhere."

hmm....at government level, once again, not much care for the well-being of the Germans they were respobsibile for...

However, contrast this with what the same source has to say about the apparent lack of transport...

Third Army, by using central repair and strict surveillance, raised the number of vehicles available for civilian transport in its area from 7,500 in May to 25,000 in June

A three hundred per cent increase in the availablity of road transport ...in only a month ??? Hardly a transport famine.....

For those not familiar with the quotes - they come from the U.S. ARMY'S own official history of the Occupation Government!!!

[John W. Howard]

Hello Folks:
I think enough has been said about this subject. There is enough here for people to form their own opinions and explore further. I thank Annelie for posting it. Best wishes.