Japanese Broadcast Official: We Didn’t Commit War Crimes

[Thanas]

Interesting. Would any of these studies happen to be in English? Who is doing them?

Anthony Beevor touches upon them in D-Day. One I have seen cited and which was well received by historians (but which I have not read myself) is Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe in World War II by the american criminologist J.R. Lilly. He estimates about 3500 rapes though the extensive sources quoted by Beevor seem to suggest much more cases. The testimony out of Le Havre alone is something I would have expected out of occupied Warsaw instead of liberated Le Havre.

Some reviews of the book here and here (not done by a historian but with quotes from the book).

New studies actually show that the USmight have had the worst rape problem of all, especially in France were they raped at will.

OK, here we go again - I wasn't talking specifically about Germany, now you're bringing in France. Before, I was addressing the situation in Western Europe as a whole and you took that to mean Germany. You are usually better than this.

I suppose we could also discuss all the raping that went on as well, which was wrong, but it did occur. I don't any army was free of that stain although I've always heard the Soviets did the lion's share of raping German women when invading.

My counter was to the point of your claim that the soviets did the lions share when invading. The western forces did plenty of that as well - in territories they liberated and in those they occupied and proportionally might not have been better at all.

You still don't get it. It was not a question of sending aid more promptly. It was the deliberate withholding of all aid from Germany as well as the prohibition of trade. It was a deliberate policy of starving Germany to teach the Germans a lesson. The US engaged in a vindictive plan to starve Germany. That is the point. The US had no interest in feeding Germany, they wanted them to starve.

Thanas, there is a difference in at least my mind between withholding all help and actively destroying someone.

By that logic there is a difference between letting people starve to death by withholding food when they are in your power or just shooting them from the start. That statement is ludicrous.

The Allies didn't want to destroy Germany so much as leave the Germans to their own devices. It's not like the Allies razed the buildings and fields and salted the earth.

No, they "just" prohibited exports and imports while also not allowing freely given aid to come in or even prohibited given out surplus food that was otherwise destroyed.

If you want to suggest that this was okay then you also have to say that the German occupation of most of Europe was a-ok in your book since that is exactly what the Germans did to conquered territories as well (without added genocide, but still).

Seriously, WHY would the people Germany had spent six years rolling over and occupying want to help the Germans before helping their own? Why would the US want to help the aggressors in the war? You seem to be expecting a level of sainthood among the nations of the world that just doesn't exist.

I expect the US to obey the rules of law which clearly state that the occupying power has to feed the occupied territories. See the Hague Rules of Land warfare on that. And it was not as if there was a lack of resources.

When it became apparent that the Germans needed the help and there would be mass death if it weren't provided opinions changed

Bullshit. This was apparent long before. In fact Churchill protested in 1943 against such plans. Roosevelt then forced him to go along with that under threat of stalling financial securities in arms deals.

but I don't see how anyone could expect an immediate outpouring of aid to Germany just after their surrender when so much of the rest of Europe was still fucked up because of Germany.

No, I don't think so either. But the allies did not just go "oh no, we got no resources". They actively tried to prevent Germany from having adequate resources, even destroying surplus food instead of feeding it to the Germans. Really, how can you defend the latter?

[Broomstick]

Anthony Beevor touches upon them in D-Day. One I have seen cited and which was well received by historians (but which I have not read myself) is Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe in World War II by the american criminologist J.R. Lilly. He estimates about 3500 rapes though the extensive sources quoted by Beevor seem to suggest much more cases. The testimony out of Le Havre alone is something I would have expected out of occupied Warsaw instead of liberated Le Havre.

OK, I'll look into that. Meanwhile, I've seen quoted over and over a figure of 100,000 women raped by Soviet troops in Berlin alone, much less the rest of Germany.

Not that I expect complete accuracy in any war time rape stats, but there's a couple orders of magnitude difference there.

I suppose we could also discuss all the raping that went on as well, which was wrong, but it did occur. I don't any army was free of that stain although I've always heard the Soviets did the lion's share of raping German women when invading.

My counter was to the point of your claim that the soviets did the lions share when invading.

Correct - the lion's share when invading Germany. You quoted me accurately. I definitely said GERMANY, not the whole of Europe, or France, or Belgium or Spain, or wherever.

Seriously, WHY would the people Germany had spent six years rolling over and occupying want to help the Germans before helping their own? Why would the US want to help the aggressors in the war? You seem to be expecting a level of sainthood among the nations of the world that just doesn't exist.

I expect the US to obey the rules of law which clearly state that the occupying power has to feed the occupied territories. See the Hague Rules of Land warfare on that. And it was not as if there was a lack of resources.

Again, you're expecting a level of ethical conduct that just doesn't exist in the world. Given that Germany had twice been the aggressor in devastating war I'm frankly surprised the treatment of the German people post WWII wasn't worse than it was. Given that the Nazis had engaged in genocide of several groups is it surprising that so many had so little trouble leaving them to starve, or even encouraging their suffering?

As I have stated multiple times it was not right but it was certainly understandable why this would happen.

When it became apparent that the Germans needed the help and there would be mass death if it weren't provided opinions changed

Bullshit. This was apparent long before. In fact Churchill protested in 1943 against such plans. Roosevelt then forced him to go along with that under threat of stalling financial securities in arms deals.

Again, Roosevelt was DEAD by the time of German surrender. Truman reconsidered the policies he had set up and changed them. It was not, however, just Roosevelt who would have been happy to see the Germans starve and suffer for years and Truman had to win over sufficient numbers of those people, at least of the ones in Congress, to get those policies changed. A US president is not all powerful,

but I don't see how anyone could expect an immediate outpouring of aid to Germany just after their surrender when so much of the rest of Europe was still fucked up because of Germany.

No, I don't think so either. But the allies did not just go "oh no, we got no resources". They actively tried to prevent Germany from having adequate resources, even destroying surplus food instead of feeding it to the Germans. Really, how can you defend the latter?

I'm not defending it, I just saying it's hardly surprising that something like that would occur. I've often said that by the end of the war everyone's hands were not just dirty but filthy. It was wrong. There was a shit-ton of wrong things before, during, and after WWII.

[Thanas]

OK, I'll look into that. Meanwhile, I've seen quoted over and over a figure of 100,000 women raped by Soviet troops in Berlin alone, much less the rest of Germany.

Not that I expect complete accuracy in any war time rape stats, but there's a couple orders of magnitude difference there.

Depends on the statistics and how you are looking at it. I don't think the Russians were worse per se.

Correct - the lion's share when invading Germany. You quoted me accurately. I definitely said GERMANY, not the whole of Europe, or France, or Belgium or Spain, or wherever.

This is disingenuous and dishonest. You cannot just focus only on Germany when rapes are discussed while claiming that one cannot do the same thing where food is concerned.

Again, you're expecting a level of ethical conduct that just doesn't exist in the world.

Then that is more an indictment of americans than anything else posted in this thread given that none of their population was ever subjected to great terrors of war. The Soviets at least had good reason to want revenge. The USA lost little and even less in the context of civilian casualties.

Given that Germany had twice been the aggressor in devastating war I'm frankly surprised the treatment of the German people post WWII wasn't worse than it was.

Please enlighten me as to what other devastating war Germany was the aggressor in.

Again, Roosevelt was DEAD by the time of German surrender. Truman reconsidered the policies he had set up and changed them. It was not, however, just Roosevelt who would have been happy to see the Germans starve and suffer for years and Truman had to win over sufficient numbers of those people, at least of the ones in Congress, to get those policies changed. A US president is not all powerful,

When it comes to telling the army what to do, yes he is. Occupation firmly falls under the executive branch unless congress set the laws, which it did not.

I'm not defending it, I just saying it's hardly surprising that something like that would occur. I've often said that by the end of the war everyone's hands were not just dirty but filthy. It was wrong. There was a shit-ton of wrong things before, during, and after WWII.

So you agree that the earlier statement you made that the USA prevented people from starving was flat out wrong and that the US in fact caused mass starvation in the first place where Germany is concerned?

[stormthebeaches]

At metahive: Your claims that the West "gave" Stalin North Korea is incorrect. It is true that part of the post war agreement was that Korea would be divided among the Soviets and Western troops, but this arrangement was suppose to be temporary. Elections were suppose to be held in 1950, followed by a free and independent Korea. Things didn't work out when Stalin gave North Korea the go ahead to invade the South and bring the whole country under Communist rule, but your claims that the West let the Soviets take North Korea are incorrect.

Remember, the West was in some ways outrageously clueless about the Soviet Union. They thought the Moscow Trials were completely legit for example.

Funny, I heard the opposite. That the west tended to blow Soviet crimes out of proportion due to a general mistrust of Communism. Maybe we shouldn't regard the "west" as a collective entity.

Anthony Beevor touches upon them in D-Day. One I have seen cited and which was well received by historians (but which I have not read myself) is Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe in World War II by the american criminologist J.R. Lilly. He estimates about 3500 rapes though the extensive sources quoted by Beevor seem to suggest much more cases. The testimony out of Le Havre alone is something I would have expected out of occupied Warsaw instead of liberated Le Havre.

Some reviews of the book here and here (not done by a historian but with quotes from the book).

Did you read the second link you provided? Because it states that Soviet troops were responsible for more rapes than American troops. From the link:

Whilst Stalin’s soldiers raped from 8 to 80, Eisenhower’s raped from 14 to 40

Looks like Broomsticks claim that Soviet soldiers did the Lion's share of the raping might be correct.

Again, Roosevelt was DEAD by the time of German surrender. Truman reconsidered the policies he had set up and changed them. It was not, however, just Roosevelt who would have been happy to see the Germans starve and suffer for years and Truman had to win over sufficient numbers of those people, at least of the ones in Congress, to get those policies changed. A US president is not all powerful,

Actually, a lot of figures in the Roosevelt administration were not happy with the Morgenthau Plan. Even Roosevelt himself was having his doubts about it towards the end of his life. This is why it was quickly abandoned.

By that logic there is a difference between letting people starve to death by withholding food when they are in your power or just shooting them from the start. That statement is ludicrous.

No, they "just" prohibited exports and imports while also not allowing freely given aid to come in or even prohibited given out surplus food that was otherwise destroyed.

No, I don't think so either. But the allies did not just go "oh no, we got no resources". They actively tried to prevent Germany from having adequate resources, even destroying surplus food instead of feeding it to the Germans. Really, how can you defend the latter?

The army destroying surplus food was due to the police of no fraternization(dont give them food, dont talk to them, dont shake hands, etc etc because they might be nazis). It was not out of a desire to see German's starve. The restrictions of aid and trade were to keep German standards of living in line with the rest of Europe (meaning that since Germany had a higher standard of living it would not get much aid because it was needed elsewhere). This was again, not part of an attempt to intentionally starve Germans. You are assuming conspiracy when simple incompetence would suffice.

I would also like to add that link provided earlier in the thread about the American food policy in occupied Germany states that the prohibition on food relief shipments to Germany ended in December 1946, and the restriction on CARE packages ended in June 1946. So blaming America for food shortages in Germany in 1947 seems to be misplaced.

[stormthebeaches]

prohibition on food relief shipments to Germany ended in December 1946

This is a typo. I meant to say 1945.

[Flagg]

I feel like I owe Metahive a bit of an apology. I think I was too harsh in my statement made earlier in the thread as far as the west liberating South Korea and attempting to unite the entire peninsula under capitalist freedom rah rah rah! I didn't take into account that he's lived his entire life under the threat of invasion by psychotic dictators who regularly threaten to destroy his country and way of life. And the past decade under threat of psychotic dictators with nukes.
As an American this idea is pretty foreign to me and while I was alive during the Cold War, aside from one duck and cover drill in kindergarten which was as much about tornadoes as nukes, I don't remember living under the threat of total annihilation.

So I apologize for being so harsh in my response.


Ps: In case anyone is wondering this is totally voluntary and was not cajoled out of me by anyone, mod or otherwise.

[Metahive]

Well, not my entire life since I and my parents are living in Germany now. But most of my family still resides in SK so this is appreciated.

At metahive: Your claims that the West "gave" Stalin North Korea is incorrect. It is true that part of the post war agreement was that Korea would be divided among the Soviets and Western troops, but this arrangement was suppose to be temporary. Elections were suppose to be held in 1950, followed by a free and independent Korea. Things didn't work out when Stalin gave North Korea the go ahead to invade the South and bring the whole country under Communist rule, but your claims that the West let the Soviets take North Korea are incorrect.

For the umpteenth time, I blame FDR's decision to invite the Russians into the war in East Asia in the first place for this. Everything beyond was a consequence of this one decision.

Funny, I heard the opposite. That the west tended to blow Soviet crimes out of proportion due to a general mistrust of Communism. Maybe we shouldn't regard the "west" as a collective entity.

That would fall under "clueless" as well, wouldn't it? You had the rabid burgeois like Churchill who thought the USSR was evil incarnate and wanted to immediately wage war against them before the ink under the Potsdam treaties had even dried and you had the gullible buffoons like FDR who wanted to build a new world order together with his best bud Uncle Joe. Clueless, the lot of them.

[Thanas]

Anthony Beevor touches upon them in D-Day. One I have seen cited and which was well received by historians (but which I have not read myself) is Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe in World War II by the american criminologist J.R. Lilly. He estimates about 3500 rapes though the extensive sources quoted by Beevor seem to suggest much more cases. The testimony out of Le Havre alone is something I would have expected out of occupied Warsaw instead of liberated Le Havre.

Some reviews of the book here and here (not done by a historian but with quotes from the book).

Did you read the second link you provided? Because it states that Soviet troops were responsible for more rapes than American troops.

Looks like Broomsticks claim that Soviet soldiers did the Lion's share of the raping might be correct.

Yes that quote from a MP is contradicted by several things, even the next paragraphs which you clearly did not read. American GIs did rape everything, no matter the age.

Actually, a lot of figures in the Roosevelt administration were not happy with the Morgenthau Plan. Even Roosevelt himself was having his doubts about it towards the end of his life. This is why it was quickly abandoned.

It was not quickly abandoned. The restrictions imposed by it were in effect for a large time and only the majority of it (but not all) was replaced in July 1947, after the starvation winters. I don't know how you can call something that was in effect for over two years "quickly replaced".

The restrictions of aid and trade were to keep German standards of living in line with the rest of Europe (meaning that since Germany had a higher standard of living it would not get much aid because it was needed elsewhere).

This is a lie. Germany by the end of 1945 did not have a higher standard of living as up to 95% of cities were destroyed. Meanwhile, Germans were starving while nutritional levels of the rest of Europe had returned to prewar standards.

This was again, not part of an attempt to intentionally starve Germans. You are assuming conspiracy when simple incompetence would suffice.

The intent does not matter if that is the well recognized outcome of said plans. After all, when Roosevelt was informed about the mass starvation that would cause, he thought the huns (his preferred word for Germans) might very well starve for all he cared. On the local level, it is also not incompetence when you see people starving in front of your eyes and then destroy surplus food. That is a whole level of evil normally associated with the likes of scum like the SS.

I would also like to add that link provided earlier in the thread about the American food policy in occupied Germany states that the prohibition on food relief shipments to Germany ended in December 1946, and the restriction on CARE packages ended in June 1946. So blaming America for food shortages in Germany in 1947 seems to be misplaced.

Did you even read the link? It shows how the allied did not allow countertrade which meant that the food could not be bought as Germany was not allowed to trade industrial products. It also shows how relief shipments did little to alleviate the situations as calories levels were at 1000 calories a day. So I fail to see how the americans could not be held responsible for what happened according to their control, their plans, their experiences and their predictions.

[Replicant]

Did you even read the link? It shows how the allied did not allow countertrade which meant that the food could not be bought as Germany was not allowed to trade industrial products. It also shows how relief shipments did little to alleviate the situations as calories levels were at 1000 calories a day. So I fail to see how the americans could not be held responsible for what happened according to their control, their plans, their experiences and their predictions.

I have to wonder how much of this animosity was caused first by the fact that the United States and allies were forced to fight a SECOND horrible warn in less than 30 years which makes one a bit sympathetic. Now add to that the mindset one would develop while liberating Concentration and Extermination Camps.

I am not trying to justify the starving of Germany but I would certainly have a hard time controlling my emotions, turning the other cheek, and shipping in food after learning how Germany was spending its idle time at home turning mass murder into an art form.

[Replicant]

Broomstick and Replicant, please quote where I either say "the West should have waged war against the USSR right after WW2" or "the entire imperial japanese family should have been executed". O wait, you can't because I never did.[/i]!

Question regarding your first point. How do you suggest that the United States remove the Soviet forces from North Korea? I am thinking a polite letter with lots of "pretty please" will not get anywhere. The soviets were not leaving without a fight.

I am pretty sure that after the incredible sacrifices the soviet people made during the war, that the Soviet government felt that it deserved basically anything that it could lay its hands on.

[stormthebeaches]

For the umpteenth time, I blame FDR's decision to invite the Russians into the war in East Asia in the first place for this. Everything beyond was a consequence of this one decision.

FDR's decision to invite the Russians was to bring a swift end to the Pacific war. It is widely agreed that the Soviet invasion of Japanese occupied China played a big factor in convincing Japan to surrender unconditionally. Or perhaps you would rather Korea was left under Japanese control?

Yes that quote from a MP is contradicted by several things, even the next paragraphs which you clearly did not read. American GIs did rape everything, no matter the age.

Here is the quote in context, along with the next several paragraphs.

Whilst Stalin’s soldiers raped from 8 to 80, Eisenhower’s raped from 14 to 40, while the world rejoiced the German people shed a tear: Taking into account the estimated rapes per country[15] many more tears were shed in Germany than in England and France. In England the estimated number of rapes was 2,420, France 3,620 and Germany 11,040 which demonstrates how the military concentrated on more pressing issues. Executing American soldiers under conditions chaos and catastrophe was a last lingering dirty detail, too insignificant to matter in the larger scheme of things[16].

For its limitations in source material it demonstrates that in every army there is good and bad, that in every army there are criminals and heroes, the morality of which is accepting that Americans fighting the good fight during World War II could, and did commit such actions. But its main failing, even though he does broach the subject, is to recognise the Germanophobia within the judicial system and the racism that existed within the ranks of the American Armed Forces. Much more could have been said about the disparity in sentences, executions and the prosecution of alleged rapes upon German women. Nevertheless Taken by Force is a testament to the unseen and forgotten victims of a war fought in morality between good and bad.

Nobody who hasn’t been violated in this heinous manner can truly understand what goes through the mind of a rape victim. However, Taken by Force: Rape and American GI’s in Europe during World War II, goes some way towards the road to justice for those thousands of victims of American rape, committed under cover of liberation.

Would you be kind enough to point out where quote is contradicted?

It was not quickly abandoned. The restrictions imposed by it were in effect for a large time and only the majority of it (but not all) was replaced in July 1947, after the starvation winters. I don't know how you can call something that was in effect for over two years "quickly replaced".

I'd say two years is "quickly replaced". Most bad government policies tend to last a lot longer than that before they are finally gotten rid of.

This is a lie. Germany by the end of 1945 did not have a higher standard of living as up to 95% of cities were destroyed. Meanwhile, Germans were starving while nutritional levels of the rest of Europe had returned to prewar standards.

The wikipedia article cited seems to imply otherwise. Bare in mind that we are referring to Eastern Europe as well.

The intent does not matter if that is the well recognized outcome of said plans. After all, when Roosevelt was informed about the mass starvation that would cause, he thought the huns (his preferred word for Germans) might very well starve for all he cared. On the local level, it is also not incompetence when you see people starving in front of your eyes and then destroy surplus food. That is a whole level of evil normally associated with the likes of scum like the SS.

Roosevelt made that quote regarding the Morgenthau plan, which largely abandoned in favor of directive 1067 when it became clear that the Morgenthau plan was unpopular. But lets talk about intent. The American desire to deindustrialize Germany and turn it into agricultural nation came from the Potsdam Conference where all the major allied powers (American, British, French and Soviet) agreed to destroy German industry after the war to destroy Germany's ability to wage war. The restrictions of trade and attempts to reduce German infrastructure was part of this plan, not the desire to starve Germans. I should add that even when the Joint Chiefs of Staff directive 1067 was in place (it was abandoned in mid 1947 in favor of full economic restoration of Germany) it still required allied investment into German agriculture, hardly the actions of people out to starve the German people. Now, I know that you are going to point out Churchill's opposition to the Morgenthau plan as a counter argument, but Churchill was in favor of reducing German industry, he was against the Morgenthau plan because he thought that it went too far.

Oh, and on a local level, many did disobey orders and give food to hungry Germans anyway.

Did you even read the link? It shows how the allied did not allow countertrade which meant that the food could not be bought as Germany was not allowed to trade industrial products. It also shows how relief shipments did little to alleviate the situations as calories levels were at 1000 calories a day. So I fail to see how the americans could not be held responsible for what happened according to their control, their plans, their experiences and their predictions.

Again, not allowing countertrade was part of the plan to reduce German industry, not to starve Germans. And as I mentioned earlier, the link shows that restrictions on relief shipments was dropped in December 1945, meaning that your claim that the starvation was due to the America refusing to allow food relief into Germany is false. And America predictions of mass starvation was based on the Morgenthau plan, which was largely abandoned, not Joint Chiefs of Staff directive 1067, which it what was implemented.

The fact is, the US implemented a horrible plan for post war Germany, realized that the plan was horrible after two years and replaced it with a plan that enabled Germany to economically recover. Incompetence combined with some callous indifference, not a conspiracy to starve Germans.

[Broomstick]

OK, I'll look into that. Meanwhile, I've seen quoted over and over a figure of 100,000 women raped by Soviet troops in Berlin alone, much less the rest of Germany.

Not that I expect complete accuracy in any war time rape stats, but there's a couple orders of magnitude difference there.

Depends on the statistics and how you are looking at it. I don't think the Russians were worse per se.

Frankly, I'm not sure determining who was the champion rapists really helps anything. All the data is questionable, everyone has incentive to slant the data towards their personal bias, and who did what will vary depending on where their troops were stationed.

Correct - the lion's share when invading Germany. You quoted me accurately. I definitely said GERMANY, not the whole of Europe, or France, or Belgium or Spain, or wherever.

This is disingenuous and dishonest. You cannot just focus only on Germany when rapes are discussed while claiming that one cannot do the same thing where food is concerned.

One more time and I'm done responding to this. When we were discussing food I said WESTERN EUROPE. That doesn't bar there being more localized problems but I was talking about WESTERN EUROPE as a whole, not a specific country. You were the one who distilled it down to be being about Germany.

Again, I mentioned rape IN GERMANY, not in Western Europe as a whole. You were the one who switched the area under discussion, not me.

Again, you're expecting a level of ethical conduct that just doesn't exist in the world.

Then that is more an indictment of americans than anything else posted in this thread given that none of their population was ever subjected to great terrors of war.

So, you're OK with everyone else who engaged in that sort of thing, it's just the Americans that are the bad guys here?

The Soviets at least had good reason to want revenge. The USA lost little and even less in the context of civilian casualties.

First of all, "good reason to want revenge" doesn't justify crimes. If you're saying what happened immediately post-war to Germany was a crime of some sort then "wanting revenge" doesn't excuse it and doesn't make it OK. It can explain why it happened, but it's not what we over here would call a mitigating circumstance.

Second, it wasn't just about revenge, it was about making sure that we wouldn't have to come back and kick ass again in short order. Even defeated Germany was seen as threatening, that's yet another reason it was split, it's scientists shuffled off to other nations, and some of its industry dismantled.

Given that Germany had twice been the aggressor in devastating war I'm frankly surprised the treatment of the German people post WWII wasn't worse than it was.

Please enlighten me as to what other devastating war Germany was the aggressor in.

WWI. Or do you deny that Germany invaded Belgium and Luxembourg, then marched on France?

Of course, Germany was not the sole aggressor in WWI any more than it was in WWII. On the other hand, nobody wanted a three-peat in 20-30 years.

Again, Roosevelt was DEAD by the time of German surrender. Truman reconsidered the policies he had set up and changed them. It was not, however, just Roosevelt who would have been happy to see the Germans starve and suffer for years and Truman had to win over sufficient numbers of those people, at least of the ones in Congress, to get those policies changed. A US president is not all powerful,

When it comes to telling the army what to do, yes he is. Occupation firmly falls under the executive branch unless congress set the laws, which it did not.

The post-war aid required Congressional approval and funding, it was NOT something the Executive branch could just pull out of its ass because it wasn't considered under military jurisdiction even if the military wound up having a lot to do with distributing it.

I'm not defending it, I just saying it's hardly surprising that something like that would occur. I've often said that by the end of the war everyone's hands were not just dirty but filthy. It was wrong. There was a shit-ton of wrong things before, during, and after WWII.

So you agree that the earlier statement you made that the USA prevented people from starving was flat out wrong and that the US in fact caused mass starvation in the first place where Germany is concerned?

I was discussing WESTERN EUROPE as a whole, not just Germany. Your the one who wants to make this about Germany and Germany alone, except when it comes to rape, then it's OK to make it about France.

[Thanas]

Would you be kind enough to point out where quote is contradicted?

Did you somehow not read the first paragraphs where they talk about the rape of a 3 year old?

It was not quickly abandoned. The restrictions imposed by it were in effect for a large time and only the majority of it (but not all) was replaced in July 1947, after the starvation winters. I don't know how you can call something that was in effect for over two years "quickly replaced".

I'd say two years is "quickly replaced". Most bad government policies tend to last a lot longer than that before they are finally gotten rid of.

And I say you are full of it and there is no such thing as a quick replacement that takes two years.

By the same token you might just as well excuse every nazi occupation ever, as the calories levels assorted to those people starved to death were the same. Oh no, nobody noticed starvation in Washington despite FDR CLEARLY BEING INFORMED ABOUT IT IN ADVANCE. How stupid can you be, really, to think this was a case of trial and error?

The wikipedia article cited seems to imply otherwise. Bare in mind that we are referring to Eastern Europe as well.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto ... entid=5166

Official report about nutritional calories, see third paragraph which notes that the nutritional situation elsewhere is almost back to pre-war levels. Eastern Europe is immaterial as it was outside allied control.

Roosevelt made that quote regarding the Morgenthau plan, which largely abandoned in favor of directive 1067 when it became clear that the Morgenthau plan was unpopular.

Directive 1067 was an implementation of the Morgenthau plan.

But lets talk about intent. The American desire to deindustrialize Germany and turn it into agricultural nation came from the Potsdam Conference where all the major allied powers (American, British, French and Soviet) agreed to destroy German industry after the war to destroy Germany's ability to wage war. The restrictions of trade and attempts to reduce German infrastructure was part of this plan, not the desire to starve Germans.

The starvation was a direct consequence of such plans and everyone knew it. What, did they think a nation which was depended on food imports throughout her existence would suddenly grow self-sufficient after the country had been laid to waste? Are you that naive?

I should add that even when the Joint Chiefs of Staff directive 1067 was in place (it was abandoned in mid 1947 in favor of full economic restoration of Germany) it still required allied investment into German agriculture, hardly the actions of people out to starve the German people.

German agriculture has never been able to feed Germany on its own as everyone well knew.

Now, I know that you are going to point out Churchill's opposition to the Morgenthau plan as a counter argument, but Churchill was in favor of reducing German industry, he was against the Morgenthau plan because he thought that it went too far.

He was in favor reducing some industries, he was not in favor of destroying the industrial base of the whole nation, nor was he in favor of starving people. He was not in favor of being chained to a dead Germany and wanted to have none of the Morgenthau plan.

Oh, and on a local level, many did disobey orders and give food to hungry Germans anyway.

Sure, but that did little to help alleviate the problem.

Again, not allowing countertrade was part of the plan to reduce German industry, not to starve Germans. And as I mentioned earlier, the link shows that restrictions on relief shipments was dropped in December 1945, meaning that your claim that the starvation was due to the America refusing to allow food relief into Germany is false.

The decision to destroy countertrade immediately destroyed food imports, which Germany always needed. It did not matter if food relief was sent (according to historians too little and of too low quality anyway) if the overall problem is the destruction of German food imports as well as no industry. Heck, Hoover mentioned this as a huge problem.

And America predictions of mass starvation was based on the Morgenthau plan, which was largely abandoned, not Joint Chiefs of Staff directive 1067, which it what was implemented.

The main problems of the Morgenthau plan are in place in 1067 anyway. What element of the Morgenthau plan was not present in 1067 which by its abscence helped alleviate starvation?

The fact is, the US implemented a horrible plan for post war Germany, realized that the plan was horrible after two years and replaced it with a plan that enabled Germany to economically recover. Incompetence combined with some callous indifference, not a conspiracy to starve Germans.

Everyone knew the plan was horrible, they went ahead with it anyway. That is vindictiveness. The only thing which stopped the US in the end was public opinion, the need to compete with the Soviets and the protests of the British. Heck, Roosevelt himself expressed many times the need to be tough on Germany and he got his wish.

[Thanas]

One more time and I'm done responding to this. When we were discussing food I said WESTERN EUROPE. That doesn't bar there being more localized problems but I was talking about WESTERN EUROPE as a whole, not a specific country. You were the one who distilled it down to be being about Germany.

Come on, you ignoramus. You were the one who claimed western Europe would starve had it not been for Americans who saved it from that fate. You cannot counter "but a huge part of western europe did starve due to Americans" with "don't focus on this huge part of Western Europe".

So, you're OK with everyone else who engaged in that sort of thing, it's just the Americans that are the bad guys here?

It does not make it ok, but I can understand the British to want revenge. the French too after the stuff done in France. But the USA suffered little and was the one among the western allies pushing for the harshest plans in existence. It does not reflect well on the character of a nation if the one who had little incentive to avenge people and suffered the least is the one who pushes for far more heavy repercussions than its allies who lost far more.

Second, it wasn't just about revenge, it was about making sure that we wouldn't have to come back and kick ass again in short order. Even defeated Germany was seen as threatening, that's yet another reason it was split, it's scientists shuffled off to other nations, and some of its industry dismantled.

Are you ignorant about basic history again? Germany was not split because it was threatened, but because the allies could not agree with the soviets. The scientists were shuffled off because the allies wanted knowledge and did not care for their Nazi past, especially not the USA.

WWI. Or do you deny that Germany invaded Belgium and Luxembourg, then marched on France?

Oh, so you think Germany is to blame for WWI? That is cute. I thought we were past Versailles.

Of course, Germany was not the sole aggressor in WWI any more than it was in WWII. On the other hand, nobody wanted a three-peat in 20-30 years.

How stupid can you be? Germany was the sole aggressor in WWII. Nobody disputes that.
Germany was not an aggressor in WWI. No sensible historian ascribes to the Versailles theory.

I was discussing WESTERN EUROPE as a whole, not just Germany. Your the one who wants to make this about Germany and Germany alone, except when it comes to rape, then it's OK to make it about France.

Broomstick apparently is unaware WESTERN EUROPE AS A WHOLE means Germany as well. It is not saved from starvation if a significant portion (about a quarter) of the population is starving from policies enacted by those allegedly saving whole western europe from starvation.

[Thanas]

In fact, Broomstick, I will make it simple for you.

If you say the food situation in Sudan is great and I counter with "people in Darfur are starving" then "I was talking about whole sudan and you want to talk about one province only" is not a viable rebuttal.

[Simon_Jester]

I should point out one thing:

The British and French also had the most to lose from Germany ceasing to exist as a potential trading partner, and as a potential barrier between them and the Soviets. I can see how, without any major difference in cynicism level between the three countries, the US might be concentrating on how to remove the threat of Germany, while Britain and France concentrated on reconstructing it.

Is it morally better to concentrate on reconstruction? Yes. But I'm not sure how much of it is due to superior national moral character* and how much is due to different perspectives on what is necessary or desirable as a way to shape the postwar world.

*I mean, you attributing superior moral character to a group that includes Churchill? I'm surprised by that...

[K. A. Pital]

Morality of Churchill? You must be kidding me. Churchill's opposition to the Morgenthau plan was entirely pragmatic. He was more than willing to let millions starve, die, be massacred or tortured elsewhere in the colonial domains of the British Empire so as long as these mud people's lives weren't important in the "Great Game" (and I am always tempted to go vomit whenever someone says this "great game" thing with admiration).

[wautd]

He said those crimes included the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Posh, that was done by dolphins and whales

But seriously

“These are Abe’s cronies, they agree with his revisionist views, and now he’s putting them in positions of power and influence,” says Kingston. “What they don’t realize is that the right-wing revisionists are not convincing many people in Japan, and they are not convincing people outside Japan. What they are doing is creating a huge diplomatic problem.”

While it's worrying these ultranationalists seem to be infecting the national broadcasting network, the bolded part is hopeful.
Hopefully it gets properly dealt with before their poison can fester any furhter because when you repeat a lie long enough...

How stupid can you be? Germany was the sole aggressor in WWII. Nobody disputes that.
Germany was not an aggressor in WWI. No sensible historian ascribes to the Versailles theory.

In the eyes of the Belgians it sure as hell was

[Purple]

If I may play devils advocate for a moment.

What is actually the harm in this? After all, the global social, military and economic situation has changed so much that if Japan ever tried to pull 1% of what they did in WW2 it would be instant suicide. It's not like they can up and invade China. And they know it as well. So what's the big deal with their tea party equivalents shouting this stuff? Or hell, even if their entire population bought it? It's not like any physical action is going to come out of it.

[Tiriol]

If I may play devils advocate for a moment.

What is actually the harm in this? After all, the global social, military and economic situation has changed so much that if Japan ever tried to pull 1% of what they did in WW2 it would be instant suicide. It's not like they can up and invade China. And they know it as well. So what's the big deal with their tea party equivalents shouting this stuff? Or hell, even if their entire population bought it? It's not like any physical action is going to come out of it.

One major reason is that it makes the diplomatic situation even more tense in Asia than it already is with those countries who had the pleasure of being Imperial Japan's protected territories crying foul at Japanese leadership's claims and becoming less likely to treat Japanese well in diplomacy, trade and politics AND as inviduals travelling elsewhere. It will also, if not challenged and debunked, let ultra-nationalists and revanchists spread their idiocy among the Japanese even further and wider, allowing the government to take even more extreme stance on some national and international issues. Whaling? Bah! Western Powers simply trying to bully us even more, remember how they destroyed the shining beacon of hope for all of Asia that was Imperial Japan! Racism? Bah! Those ignorant foreigners should be thankful that we tried to protect them from Western powers/that we allow them to even sully our ground with their barbaric feet. And so on.

North Korea has no chance in hell of actually winning a war if they initiate one. However, people are still afraid that North Koreans could initiate one and unleash untold devastation in their corner of the world, because they are unpredictable, their government's actions shrouded in mystery (and suspected insanity) and their nationalist creed so strong. I suspect that most people don't want another "insane" country there.

[Purple]

One major reason is that it makes the diplomatic situation even more tense in Asia than it already is with those countries who had the pleasure of being Imperial Japan's protected territories crying foul at Japanese leadership's claims and becoming less likely to treat Japanese well in diplomacy, trade and politics AND as inviduals travelling elsewhere.

Thing is, that was what 70 years ago? By now surely any such tensions are simply empty nationalism that governments spit out to appease their people. No one except maybe North Korea is going to seriously base their foreign policy on a 70 year old grudge?

It will also, if not challenged and debunked, let ultra-nationalists and revanchists spread their idiocy among the Japanese even further and wider, allowing the government to take even more extreme stance on some national and international issues. Whaling? Bah! Western Powers simply trying to bully us even more, remember how they destroyed the shining beacon of hope for all of Asia that was Imperial Japan! Racism? Bah! Those ignorant foreigners should be thankful that we tried to protect them from Western powers/that we allow them to even sully our ground with their barbaric feet. And so on.

But unless the global situation changes radically the worst Japan would be able to do without committing suicide, be it military or just economic is spout nonsense and occasionally insult a foreign nation so much that the newspapers might publish a story about it. It's not like Japan can invade anyone or invoke sanctions or blockade China. At worst they turn from being the closet idiot in the corner to the idiot in the corner that's come out.

North Korea has no chance in hell of actually winning a war if they initiate one. However, people are still afraid that North Koreans could initiate one and unleash untold devastation in their corner of the world, because they are unpredictable, their government's actions shrouded in mystery (and suspected insanity) and their nationalist creed so strong. I suspect that most people don't want another "insane" country there.

But the overall situation is vastly different. North Korea has a land border with a nation they hate which makes pulling off acts of war much easier. They also have atomic weapons and a powerful backer in China. Japan on the other hand can't invade anyone without a serious naval buildup which would newer be allowed by the international community. It has no atomic weapons. And it's powerful backer is rather keen on holding them back from unleashing WW2 b.

[stormthebeaches]

Did you somehow not read the first paragraphs where they talk about the rape of a 3 year old?

Which does nothing to contradict the statement that the Soviets were responsible for more rapes that the Americans.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto ... entid=5166

Official report about nutritional calories, see third paragraph which notes that the nutritional situation elsewhere is almost back to pre-war levels. Eastern Europe is immaterial as it was outside allied control.

The third paragraph only focuses on Western Europe. Eastern Europe is not immaterial as the US did sent aid to Eastern Europe.

And I say you are full of it and there is no such thing as a quick replacement that takes two years.

Relatively speaking, two years is quick for a change in government in policy. I might also like to add that according to some historians the Morgenthau plan (the heavily watered down version of it that was implemented) was formally abandoned in September 1946.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 ... 3379028411

So that's one year, not two. And your in now position to accuse anyone of being full of it seeing as you vaguely implied that the average American World War 2 soldier was a pedophile.

By the same token you might just as well excuse every nazi occupation ever, as the calories levels assorted to those people starved to death were the same. Oh no, nobody noticed starvation in Washington despite FDR CLEARLY BEING INFORMED ABOUT IT IN ADVANCE. How stupid can you be, really, to think this was a case of trial and error?

Nazi atrocities went far beyond failing to provide enough food in the occupied territories. This is a false equivalence fallacy.

Directive 1067 was an implementation of the Morgenthau plan.

Directive 1067 had elements of the Morgenthau plan in it, but most of the plan itself was abandoned. Think of it as the implementation of a heavily watered down version of the plan.

The starvation was a direct consequence of such plans and everyone knew it. What, did they think a nation which was depended on food imports throughout her existence would suddenly grow self-sufficient after the country had been laid to waste? Are you that naive?

German agriculture has never been able to feed Germany on its own as everyone well knew.

Germany was dependent on food exports. Which is why they attempted to bolster German agriculture and why the restrictions on food imports were lifted in December 1945.

He was in favor reducing some industries, he was not in favor of destroying the industrial base of the whole nation, nor was he in favor of starving people. He was not in favor of being chained to a dead Germany and wanted to have none of the Morgenthau plan.

That's exactly what I was saying. Churchill was in favor of reducing German industry but was opposed to the Morgenthau plan because he felt that it went too far. This does not contradict my claim that attempts to deindustrialize Germany were part of an agreement by all the allied powers, rather than some American plot to make Germany starve.

Sure, but that did little to help alleviate the problem.

But it debunks your claim about Americans have an SS morality on a local level.

The decision to destroy countertrade immediately destroyed food imports, which Germany always needed. It did not matter if food relief was sent (according to historians too little and of too low quality anyway) if the overall problem is the destruction of German food imports as well as no industry. Heck, Hoover mentioned this as a huge problem.

Again, my claim here was strickly to counter your claim that American refusal to allow aid into the country caused Germany to starve, and was part of some plot to allow Germany to starve.

The main problems of the Morgenthau plan are in place in 1067 anyway. What element of the Morgenthau plan was not present in 1067 which by its abscence helped alleviate starvation?

The Morgenthau plan called for all of German's heavy industry to be dismantled or destroyed. Directive 1067 watered this down, saying that German industry was to be reduced, but not completely destroyed. Also, the Morgenthau plan called for the Ruhr area to be partitioned from the rest of Germany. This was not included in Directive 1067.

Everyone knew the plan was horrible, they went ahead with it anyway. That is vindictiveness. The only thing which stopped the US in the end was public opinion, the need to compete with the Soviets and the protests of the British. Heck, Roosevelt himself expressed many times the need to be tough on Germany and he got his wish.

Except the Morgenthau plan was only implemented in a heavily watered down form.

[K. A. Pital]

Which does nothing to contradict the statement that the Soviets were responsible for more rapes that the Americans.

There are no reliable statistics to prove that some armies raped more than other armies, to be frank. It seemed a persistent problem with the research, and has been discussed before. The problem with the estimates is that there are hardly any reliable ones. The Johr and Reichling numbers are hardly convincing (the methods also contradict each other).

Relatively speaking, two years is quick for a change in government in policy. I might also like to add that according to some historians the Morgenthau plan (the heavily watered down version of it that was implemented) was formally abandoned in September 1946.

The very fact that a plan like this was chosen to be implemented at the end of the war when most of the population was already on the brink of starvation is telling. It continuing for a year or more is damning. Sorry. Even I find this brutal. And you should know I'm not a person who'd shed a single tear for dead Nazis and Japanese militarists.

Germany was dependent on food exports. Which is why they attempted to bolster German agriculture and why the restrictions on food imports were lifted in December 1945.

Germany was dependent on food imports - even at the height of Hitler's autarky program in the mid-1930s Germany failed to achieve any food security. Actually, this was one of the reasons for the sidelining of Schacht and the complete turn to the "economics of plunder" that Tooze excellently described in Wages of Destruction.

This does not contradict my claim that attempts to deindustrialize Germany were part of an agreement by all the allied powers, rather than some American plot to make Germany starve.

Quebec Conference was a US-British meeting. The details of the meeting are on Wikipedia, and Churchill spoke about it himself:

At first I was violently opposed to the idea. But the President and Mr. Morgenthau — from whom we had much to ask — were so insistent that in the end we agreed to consider it

The partitioning was abandoned after the original talks, since none of the powers seemed willing to go forward with it - but core deindustrialization plans remained.

[stormthebeaches]

There are no reliable statistics to prove that some armies raped more than other armies, to be frank. It seemed a persistent problem with the research, and has been discussed before. The problem with the estimates is that there are hardly any reliable ones. The Johr and Reichling numbers are hardly convincing (the methods also contradict each other).

Neither of those sources argue that American soldiers committed more rapes than Soviet soldiers. Rather, they argue that the amont of Soviet rapes was exaggerated. Either way, I'm not really that interested in a discussion about which army raped more than which. I was merely calling at Thanas for using a source that argued that opposite of what he claimed.

The very fact that a plan like this was chosen to be implemented at the end of the war when most of the population was already on the brink of starvation is telling. It continuing for a year or more is damning. Sorry. Even I find this brutal. And you should know I'm not a person who'd shed a single tear for dead Nazis and Japanese militarists.

Even in its more extreme form the Morgenthau plan never called for forced starvation upon Germany. It was suppose to reduce German industry to turn Germany into an agricultural state. The prohibition of food relief was a separate policy that was dropped in December 1945. So any claims that German starvation in 1946-1947 because of American prohibition of food relief is nonsense.

Germany was dependent on food imports - even at the height of Hitler's autarky program in the mid-1930s Germany failed to achieve any food security. Actually, this was one of the reasons for the sidelining of Schacht and the complete turn to the "economics of plunder" that Tooze excellently described in Wages of Destruction.

I already said that Germany was dependent on food imports. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Quebec Conference was a US-British meeting. The details of the meeting are on Wikipedia, and Churchill spoke about it himself:
Quote:
At first I was violently opposed to the idea. But the President and Mr. Morgenthau — from whom we had much to ask — were so insistent that in the end we agreed to consider it

The partitioning was abandoned after the original talks, since none of the powers seemed willing to go forward with it - but core deindustrialization plans remained.

I was referring to the Potsdam conference, where the allied powers agreed that Germany was to be deindustrialised. And Churchill was in favor of deindustrialisation. He was against the Morgenthau plan because he thought it went too far.

[K. A. Pital]

I was merely calling at Thanas for using a source that argued that opposite of what he claimed.

The quote you used refered to the age, and it was contradicted by the rape of a 3-year old which seems to be way below the arbitarily announced "limits" of 8 or 14 that were presented. I'm not sure how you can say the source argued the opposite of what he claimed.

Even in its more extreme form the Morgenthau plan never called for forced starvation upon Germany. It was suppose to reduce German industry to turn Germany into an agricultural state. The prohibition of food relief was a separate policy that was dropped in December 1945. So any claims that German starvation in 1946-1947 because of American prohibition of food relief is nonsense.

Are you dense, crazy or simply borderline psychotic and sociopathic as not to understand that reducing Germany to an agricultural state was bound to kill of perhaps over a third of its population, since it was never self-sufficient, and "agriculture" alone could not provide even for the people inside the country, much less for exports! That's like deindustrializing modern Japan - once you do that, most of its population will horribly die. The market works that way.

I already said that Germany was dependent on food imports. I'm not sure what your point is here.

See above.

I was referring to the Potsdam conference, where the allied powers agreed that Germany was to be deindustrialised. And Churchill was in favor of deindustrialisation. He was against the Morgenthau plan because he thought it went too far.

Decartelization - the initial Potsdam ideas - were already probably affected by the Morgenthau, since the drafts were developed during the entirety of 1944. But they weren't going as far as what was later "cleared" during Quebec and in 1946. This is Potsdam:

In order to eliminate Germany's war potential, the production of arms, ammunition and implements of war as well as all types of aircraft and sea-going ships shall be prohibited and prevented. Production of metals, chemicals, machinery and other items that are directly necessary to a war economy shall be rigidly controlled and restricted to Germany's approved post-war peacetime needs to meet the objectives stated in Paragraph 15.

They even left a special paragraph about "peaceful domestic industries" to avoid referring to a completely agricultural Germany which would be nonsense. Contrast this with this:

Within a short period, if possible not longer than 6 months after the cessation of hostilities, all industrial plants and equipment not destroyed by military action shall either be completely dismantled and removed from the area or completely destroyed.

So it is clearly progressing from milder to harsher terms, and it's America's plan which is the harsher one. The Potsdam agreement centered on demilitarization and deindustrialization as a side objective. This is just deindustrialization for the sake of crushing Germany.