Churchill war criminal, says German historian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
Che, don't you dare even suggest that Hitler could have been contained... perhaps you need to stop and think about what you're saying.

If the French had resisted the re-occupation of the Rhineland, if Europe resisted the occupation of Austria (Hitler tried to occupy Austria once before, and Mussolini, who was not yet an ally, refused to allow it, and Austria was not occupied), if the Western powers refused to partition Czecholsolvakia, Hitler would have been contained.

Hitler's rampage across Europe was not a given. Had the Allies ever shown any backbone, they could have been in Berlin in 1940.

Molly Bloom, my source on British and French investments was B.H. Liddel-Hart's book on the Second World War, the name of which escapes me now.

[Main_Brain]

Germany deployed its entire standing Army and called up its entire reserve Army and deploy. In any sane military textbook that's called full mobilization. They began wageing strategic warfare in the air and on the seas from the beginning. That's what is generally known as "total war".

Yet the Industry was not fully geared for War Production.
TripleDoc is perfectly right, Germany continued to produce Consumer Goods during the War, also you mustn't forget that in 41' Hitler ordered to switch the Economy back to Peace-time production as he thought Russia would soon fall.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If the French had resisted the re-occupation of the Rhineland, if Europe resisted the occupation of Austria (Hitler tried to occupy Austria once before, and Mussolini, who was not yet an ally, refused to allow it, and Austria was not occupied), if the Western powers refused to partition Czecholsolvakia, Hitler would have been contained.

Hitler's rampage across Europe was not a given. Had the Allies ever shown any backbone, they could have been in Berlin in 1940.

Molly Bloom, my source on British and French investments was B.H. Liddel-Hart's book on the Second World War, the name of which escapes me now.

The wizard of ifs...

Wisely eschewing any analysis of how domestic politics in France and Great Britain might dictate embroilment in foreign affairs or otherwise, and any analysis of the war readiness of either the French Armed Forces or the British Armed Forces, we have the spectacle of a browbeaten Hitler giving up his stated ambitions (in various political orations, in 'Mein Kampf') to secure for Germany both Grossraum and Lebensraum in Europe.

Sorry, that just won't wash.

Hitler stated in 1937 that the security and multiplication of the German people was the prime object of German policy- this security to be obtained at the expense of neighbouring states. He explicitly rejected extra-European colonies as a solution, and stated that there could be no resolution of this state of affairs without force. To this end we have the formulation of the Four Year Plan, geared towards putting Germany on a war footing before the outbreak of hostilities in 1939.

"Lost territory is to be regained not through 'polished eloquence' but through 'polished steel."

"We are overpopulated. The definitive solution lies in the extension of our living space. I herewith set the following tasks: i) The German armed forces must be ready for combat within four years. ii) The German economy must be mobilized for war within four years."

"Germany's future is wholly conditional upon the solving of the need for space. The space necessary can only be sought in Europe, not in the exploitation of colonies. Germany's problem can only be solved by means of force and this is never without attendant risk."

- Adolf Hitler

from

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/n...-01-02-02.html :

d) Economic Preparation for War, 1933-1939. April 1936, Goering was appointed Coordinator for Raw Materials and Foreign Exchange and empowered to supervise all State and Party activities in these fields (2827-PS). In this capacity he convened the War Minister, the Minister of Economics, the Reich Finance Minister, the President of the Reichsbank, and the Prussian Finance Minister to discuss inter-agency problems connected with war mobilization. At a meeting of this group on 12 May 1936, when the question of the prohibitive cost of synthetic raw material substitutes arose, Goering said:

"If we have war tomorrow, we must help ourselves by substitutes. Then money will not play any role at all. If that is the case, then we must be ready to create the prerequisites for that in peace." (1301-PS)

At a subsequent meeting of the same men on 27 May 1936, Goering suggested a program of plant construction for the production of synthetic substitutes but warned against the financial strain involved in excessive overexpansion. He opposed any limitations dictated by orthodox financial policy and stated:

"All measures are to be considered from the standpoint of assured waging of war.
"Ready reserves must ordinarily be accumulated already in peace in certain amounts." (1301-PS).

On the Nurnberg Party Day in the fall of 1936, Hitler proclaimed the establishment of the Four-Year Plan, a comprehensive program of national self-sufficiency, and announced the appointment of Goering as "Plenipotentiary" in charge. In October, a decree was promulgated which implemented this announcement and provided for the execution of the plan. (1862-PS)

It is clear from Goering's own statements in an interrogation on 25 June 1945 that the purpose of the Plan was to place Germany on a war footing economically:

"Goering: 'My job was to organize the German economy and my energy was put to work to get things started and carried through ***. My main task was to secure the food supply for Germany for many years ahead and to make Germany self-sufficient. The most important items were iron,
[Page 424]

petroleum and rubber. *** The industry only wanted to have very high grade Swedish iron for business reasons. There was danger that during the war Germany would not be able to get iron from Sweden and there would be no iron.'

Interrogator: 'What war are you talking about? This is 1936 you're speaking of.'

Goering: 'Any possibility of war. Perhaps with Russia, or in case there was war with anyone at any time and anywhere.' "

When asked the reasons why the Four-Year Plan lost importance in 1942, Goering explained that his preoccupation with the Air Force did not allow him the necessary concentration on the affairs of the Four-Year Plan, and stated:

"The main task of the Four-Year Plan had been accomplished. This task was to get Germany ready."
These answers confirm the comment Goering made in 1936, that his chief task as Plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Plan was "to put the whole economy on a war footing within four years." (EC-408) As Plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Plan, Goering was virtually the economic dictator for Germany with control over all other interested Reich agencies. He was the "boss of the economy," and all important decisions had to be referred to him.

Two important conferences show clearly how Goering inspired and directed the preparation of the German economy for aggressive war. On 8 June 1938 he addressed a number of leading German aircraft manufacturers, explained the political situation, and laid the groundwork for a vast increase in aircraft production. After stating that war with Czechoslovakia was imminent and boasting that the German air force was already superior in quality and quantity to the English, he continued:

"If Germany wins the war, she will be the greatest power in the world, dominating the world market, and Germany will be a rich nation. For this goal, risks must be taken. The only thing that matters is increased output regarding quantity and quality. Even if the manufacturers know that their present policies may mean their bankruptcy within three years, they will have to do it all the same *** I want you to be perfectly resolved, today already, how you will run your business when war comes. The earlier the manufacturers make their preparations for mobilization today, the less danger there will be of work being held up. It must be determined for every worker whether he is essential for production upon outbreak of war...'

So whilst Britain and France appeased and dithered, and Soviet Russia increased the supply of raw materials to Germany, the Nazi regime had already made preparations to prosecute an aggressive war to aggrandize their state at the expense of their neighbours.

As regards Tripledoc's assertion of a fall in domestic consumption in Germany and expansion of the war economy- the Four Year Plan was designed to direct the
German economy towards war- at the expense of domestic consumption. Hjalmar Schacht (Minister for Economics) resigned in 1937 because he feared that such a dirigiste militaristic course would bring about economic chaos- his industrialist friends and allies were left in no doubt that if they sought to oppose this policy, they would face summary arrest on the grounds of attempted industrial sabotage. Likewise, the military could hardly oppose an economic policy they had helped bring about. Tripledoc's view of the expansion of the German economy and the seeming inability to expand of the British war machine seems based on the assumption that the same conditions must necessarily apply to each country.
Great Britain did not have access to a supply of slave labour- Allied prisoners of war, and a commandeered workforce from the occupied Allied and neutral territories. Germany cannibalized foreign machinery and factories, sequestrated raw materials, and even after occupation when a small degree of latitude was allowed conquered territories, commanded that export produce be sent to Germany, and in return the occupied countries would receive the equivalent of promissory notes- redeemable in the event of the 'forthcoming' German victory.

That private consumption went up in Great Britain hardly seems to me a shock- one reaction to imminent death is to live in the day and forget tomorrow, an outlook reflected in the way that the birth rate went up in Great , rising sharply in 1942 from its lowpoint in 1941, and that greater sexual licence was accepted (gay men and lesbians openly serving in the Armed Forces, interracial relationships sanctioned and also extra marital relationships) to a degree that would not be maintained in the post-war conservative reaction. The number of illegitimate births for instance, rose from 26,574 in 1940, to 64,743 in 1945.
Along with this was the ability of the ordinary worker in Great Britain to continue to make wage claims to increase their take home pay -not an option open to slave workers in Germany.

[Tripledoc]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

Great Britain did not have access to a supply of slave labour- Allied prisoners of war, and a commandeered workforce from the occupied Allied and neutral territories. Germany cannibalized foreign machinery and factories, sequestrated raw materials, and even after occupation when a small degree of latitude was allowed conquered territories, commanded that export produce be sent to Germany, and in return the occupied countries would receive the equivalent of promissory notes- redeemable in the event of the 'forthcoming' German victory.

While it is true that the occupied countries were financially robbed the Germans did in fact invest in the Scandinavian countries - hydroplants in Norway and roads in Denmark. Most public works went into the Atlantic wall - a bad investment.
The Germans exploited labor. Workers from around Europe were attracted to Germany in promise of higher wages. Also workers were divided into categories which perhaps betrayed a lack of humanity. Norwegian workers were as such divided into light, medium or heavy workers. The calculation was made on - lifting capacity factored into worktime ability minus how many calories were needed to continue capacity.

German food rations:
Wheat remained a stable diet and the weekly rations reached war time maximun in 1944 with 2.525 grams. This meant that either had agricultural produce increased or the number of recipients in Germany had fallen. In meats and fats rations there was a continual decline, which might mean that animals were slaugthered in excess of sustainability.
However the Ukranian agricultural market was laid open to the Germans for wheat import. Also even before the war perhaps Denmark supplied the German people with one-tenth of consumed foodstuffs in Germany. The suppy to England was in any case stopped.

The Germans also had trade deals with Finland (nickel), Rumania (oil), Sweden (steel), Spain (wolfram), Russia (oil and foodstuffs). These countries were not conquered and perhaps benefited from the trade and did believe in a common course.

While an imperialistic policy prescribes the outlay of capital to the periphery, German imperialism had more to do with severing the British trade from the continent and reinstate a new trade-network in Europe. In this they were largely succesful since the post war alliance between France and Germany has come to include the whole of Europe - while dependence on extra European goods are kept at a bare minimum.

The socalled promissory notes have been recieved from most european countries - in that presently Germany is the paymaster og regional development in Europe.

[molly bloom]

Economic exploitation of Europe by the Nazis meant that special economic squads accompanied the invading armies, their primary task being to seize what Germany needed/wanted by way of pillage. This included any desirable raw materials, manufactured goods, gold bullion, specie, foreign currencies, stocks, machinery and rolling stock.

The German war economy could expand because it had been assumed that the war would not be a long one, and thus production was geared to what was initially needed, then later expanded to meet the greater need. Industry in the East was steered towards producing goods and services required by the armed forces and military and civilian administrators, otherwise being allowed to provide only what Goering held to be the bare needs of the local populace. In the West, factories not considered essential to the German war machine were either starved of the necessary raw materials to continue in operation or closed down, and if closed down, the workforce impressed to serve in Germany.

Manufacturing that was allowed to continue had to deliver a grotesquely high proportion of its output to Germany- in some cases these impositions reached almost 100 per cent, especially in the instance of materials such as magnesium, precision machine parts, and castings.

Rationing introduced all over Festung Europa at a lower level than for Germany (excepting Denmark) was in the main not honoured, with only rural inhabitants managing to exist on a diet at times approximating their pre-war level of sustenance. City dwellers frequently had to survive on half or two-thirds of their pre-war intake, with many people's diets becoming wholly or significantly vegetarian in nature. Occupied Europe supplied Germany with 25 million tons of food, for the most part this being requisitioned. During 1941-1943, this increased the civilian ration for Germany by between 20%-25%.
Unsurprisingly, black markets sprang up and flourished everywhere. Bear in mind, that in Athens and the Greek islands the calorific intake per person fell to 600-800 calories in the famine winter of 1941-42, and that during the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944-45 it fell to between 400-500 calories.

As for Nazi Germany exploiting labour- what a delicate turn of phrase . 'Perhaps betraying a lack of humanity', oh, you mean pursuing a racist policy of working to death Slav workers, do you? The conditions under which Polish and Russian prisoners of war were required to work contravened any accepted rules of war, and moreover, any standards of common human decency. Something which in your revisionist zeal to excuse or downplay Nazi war crimes you seem to have overlooked.

Of a calculated 5.5 million prisoners taken captive by German armies in the USSR, three and a half million had been lost (presumably into Nacht und Nebel) by 1944. According to Speer's testimony at Nuremberg, by 1944 40 per cent of Germany's prisoners were servicing, directly or indirectly, arms manufacturing, frequently in unsafe conditions. The Nazis did not recognise Russian commissions, and Russian prisoners were paid half wages.

In a similar inhuman fashion, at the outset of the barbaric Frank regime in occupied Poland, all Jews were officially condemned to forced labour, and gentile Poles were denied any expectation of leisure time, with the threat also of being forcibly removed to work in Germany.

Concentration camp prsoners were forced to work unlimited hours, and the Himmler-Thierack agreement stipulated that 'anti-socials' could be worked until they expired.

As slave drivers, the Nazis must have been satisfied with their labour policy- these foreign workers provided 20% of Germany's labour force during the war, without a cost equivalent to an equal number of German workers. In 1944, there were approximately 7 million 'Gastarbeiten' within the boundaries of the Reich. Albert Speer's testimony shows that western and Italian workers were providing 25-30% of the war effort. Resources for purchasing arms/materiel/equipment amounting to more than 50 percent were thus made available to Germany. Not a bad return for any capitalist...

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Keeping strictly within the supposed economic justification of using the atom bomb. To my mind Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly the centres of Japanese war production which I think was centered further north around Tokyo on the eastern seaboard.
From a purely economic perspective the application of nuclear capability on Hiroshima and Nagasaki made sense, because they were not that important for the American war production capability once Japan had surrendered to be incorporated into the dollar economy.

This answer is inaccurate and shows a lack of understanding as to the conditions in Japan at the time, as well as being revisionist history tripe.

For the A-Bomb strikes, a relativly untouched city was needed, according to to Curtiss LeMay, in his report to General Hap Arnold, 85% of all Japanese industry had been hit BEFORE the A-Bomb strikes, only four relativly large areas had been untouched, these were:
Hiroshima
Nagasakai
Niigata
Kokura
These would be the selections.

That was THE ONLY REASON THEY WERE SELECTED, not some "arcane" post war economic plan.

All you have said in your thread revoles around revisionist history in an attempt to place some grand strategic post war economic plan for WWII, sorry, that's nonsense, whoever is telling you this, whatever source, would be better served to get facts of what acutally happened, instead of inventing a theory to fit events.

People back then wern't that clever or calculating.

[notyoueither]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Stalin requested it [the bombin of Dresden].

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No he didn't. The Allies bombed Dresden because it was in the path of Soviet armies. It was a demonstration to the USSR of the power of the Western Allies before the dropping of the atomic bombs. Even in 1944, the Western allies were already laying the groundwork for the Cold War.

That would be incorrect. Dresden was bombed explicitly at the request of the Soviets. They wanted the Allies to disrupt rail lines to prevent reinforcements against a planned Red Army offensive in the area.

The bad part was that Bomber Harris used a method of bombing that inflicted maximum damage on the civilian population, including refugees which did not have much effect against harder targets. The rails remained. It was sick.

However, it did not define the entire bomber offensive of the USAF and RAF against Germany. It did define the homicidal tendencies of a particular officer of the British forces serving in the RAF. Many wish he had been prosecuted. That does not mean that FDR and Churchill shared his mania.

[notyoueither]

nm

[Chris 62]

He's a communist.

That's really an oxymoron, isn't it?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


Yet German industrial base continued to expand, while the UK did not to the same degree.
Either the Germans were capable of pulling a 'double whammy' or the UK were not putting much of an effort into it.
Or the German economy had simply not fully mobilized - or reached the end of it all until 43-44.

Hey genius, what happened to Canadian and American productive capability after mobilisation? Hint, we had room to expand, where as British home industry did not, under blockades... DUH!

[Chris 62]

NYE, if you read the whole thread, the starter and several others have been spinning a fantasy version of WWII that derives around economic manipulation.

I haven't seen so many false conclusions and misunderstandings of the past since the last time I read Paul Kennedy.

None of them has figured out that Germany was getting more raw materials from Stalin then they EVER got from invasion, or come to the correct conclusion that Hitler's Germany was clueless in reguards to strategic planning.

This thread is a profound example of revisionism run amuck.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
The socalled promissory notes have been recieved from most european countries - in that presently Germany is the paymaster og regional development in Europe.

OMG! We have someone suggesting that today's Germany is honouring the obligations of the Nazis? That somehow, everything is alright, because now they are paying some Deutschmarks?

You are one seriously twisted puppy.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by notyoueither


OMG! We have someone suggesting that today's Germany is honouring the obligations of the Nazis? That somehow, everything is alright, because now they are paying some Deutschmarks?

You are one seriously twisted puppy.

Exactly, nye- this is a perfect example of what happens when the dogmas are let out of the kennel without proper training. Arguments become so twisted, so absurd in attempting to justify an ossified illogical stance, that the most outrageous statements are tossed out, without reference to fact. I don't know which is worse- the revisionists of the right, or the harpies on the old left, who in seeking to downgrade Allied anti-fascist sentiment or ideals are equally likely to believe 105 impossible things before breakfast. The bombing of Dresden as an example to Stalin of Allied air power- yes, I'm sure a regime that had an ambassador in Japan during the American bombing really needed convincing of Allied air superiority....

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Chris 62
NYE, if you read the whole thread, the starter and several others have been spinning a fantasy version of WWII that derives around economic manipulation.

I haven't seen so many false conclusions and misunderstandings of the past since the last time I read Paul Kennedy.

None of them has figured out that Germany was getting more raw materials from Stalin then they EVER got from invasion, or come to the correct conclusion that Hitler's Germany was clueless in reguards to strategic planning.

This thread is a profound example of revisionism run amuck.

I read it. I wish I had not. Actually, I wish it (this thread) had never happened, but that would be naive of me.

In this day and age of moral relativism, what the hell are 50 or 100 million lives? You know the bad-ass capitalists would do it if Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin had not done it...

Only, the capitalists have not done it anywhere near the scale of those murderous bastards, so all these fools are full of sheet!

Now you all can bring it on. I'm waiting.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Hey genius, what happened to Canadian and American productive capability after mobilisation? Hint, we had room to expand, where as British home industry did not, under blockades... DUH!

Yes. I am fully aware that the Canadian and American industry were capable of expanding their industrial base and as such were a great help to the aalied war effort.

However, the British Empire is not an existing entity today, and that is what I am driving at. My claims are not based on revisonism, but seeks to compare the industrial capacity of the UK and Germany. In these developments we surely see general trends for post war Europe. Hence the destruction of German cities and most precisely their workforce was based on the fact that the British needed to destroy German industrial capacity, not to win the war - but to gain an advantage in post war European economy, and in that the British of course failed.

Response to various anti-revisonist statements in this thread.

Germany lost the war, yet is now the dominant industrial power in Europe. How are you to explain that if you continue to stick to anti-revisionist romanticism which for all intents and purposes is just an attempt to
keep people in place and make them think that wars are fought on such intangibles as human rights, freedom and democracy - when in fact evidence in terms of economic development shows that wars are a result of shifts or shocks in the world economy.

The British Empire was exploitative too - there were actually widespread starvation in the Asian parts of the British Empire prior to the second world war. Hitler was of course mad to think that Anglo-Saxon expansionism and imperialism could in any way be transfered to the European continent. He wholly failed to see that the British Empire had a fundamental lack of legitimacy. His world view was cynical and reactonary - the most convincing proof of that is that he actually admirered the English people and their capabiliy in holding millions of Indians, Burmese and Malayans in abject slavery. Read George Orwell for insight on the issue of British imperialism. Hitlers favorite pass-time reading were books on the Indian wars in America. He failed to see that the destruction of the Indians had a lack of legitimacy which could not be used as an excuse for wiping out millions of Jews and Slavs in his eastward expansion which he believed were the 'manifest destiny
' of the German people.

It is so that whenever you question fundamental issues regarding the Second World War people make knee jerk reactions and excuse themselves with such less obvious statements that at least the Germans were more odious than the Western powers. So whenever one critisizes allied policy people can say 'yes, but the Germans were worse than us". People fail to see that such views is following in the footsteps of Hitler.