michael mills wrote:Roberto has subjected us all to another snow job, apparently in an attempt to support the proposition, introduced by "witness" who may or may not support it, that the 1939-45 war in East Europe was a racial war between Germans and Slavs.
If Mills had read my post more thoroughly, he might have discovered a statement of mine that the evidence shown did not
support the notion of a general racial war between Germans and Slavs, although it shows an attitude of racist contempt in regard to Poles and even more so the Slavic peoples of the Soviet Union.
But then, what would this matter to Mills, eager as usual to pin convenient labels on his opponents by misrepresenting their statements?
michael mills wrote:I will comment on the more relevant points. But it needs to be borne in mind that the issue is not one of a war between Germany and Poland, or between Germany and the Soviet Union, but one of a general race war between germans and Slavs per se. I have already shown that the proposition put forward by "witness" is unlikely to be true, on the one hand because Germany was not at war with all Slavs but was allied with some, eg Slovaks, Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Bulgarians, (and parts of some with which it was otherwise at war, eg Poles in Belorussia and Ukraine, Vlasov Russians, Cossacks etc) and on the other because a lot of the violence during the war was perpetrated by Slavs on other Slavs, eg Croats on Serbs, Ukrainians on Poles etc.
As Mills, in his usual rat-like manner, has also taken recourse to misrepresenting my statements, I would like him to produce exact quotes of the statements of witness from which he concluded that "general race war between germans and Slavs per se" was witness’ contention.
Shall we see the quotes, or shall we conclude that Mills was again displaying his well-known intellectual dishonesty?
michael mills wrote:Thus it is likely that most of the material dumped on us by Roberto is not really relevant to the essential issue.
Careful with such statements, Mills. Readers may consider the material I "dumped" quite interesting and see Mills in an accordingly unfavourable light.
michael mills wrote:Now to comments on Roberto's material.
Part 1: This consists of 14 quotations, the majority of which are examples of a German Government policy of ruthless economic expoitation of occupied Poland and the occupied Soviet Union for the purpose of providing the material resources for Germany to prosecute the war in the face of the Allied Blockade. Thus they demonstrate the ruthlessness of the German Government in responding to the exigencies of wartime conditions, but hardly a policy of waging racial war against the Slavs.
What they demonstrate, my dear Mills, is that the German Government adopted especially ruthless policies in regard to Poles and inhabitants of the Soviet Union, policies they would not have applied in regard to e.g. Western Europeans, and that they did this because they considered the Slav inhabitants of Poland and especially the Soviet Union lesser human beings.
michael mills wrote:Indeed, quotation 5 is a complaint from a senior official of the Ostministerium, Braeutigam, about the ruthlessness with which the peoples of the Occupied Eastern Territories were being treated, on the basis that such treatment would turn those people against Germany. If a racial war against Slavs were being waged, then the question of winning over the local people would not have arisen.
Nonsense. If war and occupation had not been not influenced by racist considerations, the subject matter of Bräutigam’s complaint, i.e. the brutal and contemptuous treatment of the occupied Slav populations as "whites of Class 2, who apparently have only the task of serving as slaves for Germany and Europe", would not have existed.
michael mills wrote:Quotation 1 is an example of tough talk by Hans Frank, reminiscent of similar tough talk by officials on both sides during the war, concerning what they would like to do to the enemy. United States officials were not too gentle in their attitutde toward the Japanese, for example.
More junk. Frank was not talking about military enemies, but about an occupied population for which he had the deepest hatred and contempt. His statement was that, while the labour force of these inferior beings was unfortunately needed during the war, they could be disposed of, as far as he was concerned, when they were no longer needed. One might see his statements as the Nazis’ utilitarian-racist approach to the occupied peoples of Poland and the Soviet Union in a nutshell.
michael mills wrote:Quotation 2 is a call to annihilate the Bolshevik intelligence and Commissars, not Slavs per se. No doubt many millions of Slavs welcomed the annihilation of the Bolshevik intelligence (which was largely Jewish anyway).
Looks like Mills expects the audience to rely on his distortions and not read the quote, which speaks not only about Commissars and Bolshevik intelligence but also about the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war as being beyond the "standpoint of soldierly comradeship", about the coming war being a "fight to annihilation" and about a general policy of "harshness", which can hardly be explained by the antagonism between Nazism and Bolshevism alone. What this quote shows, in connection with the others, is that the Nazis considered the Slav inhabitants of the Soviet Union particularly worthless because, apart from their perceived racial inferiority, they were also tainted by Bolshevism.
michael mills wrote:Quotation 3 permits violence against the civilian population under wartime conditions, to the extent that such violence will not be automatically prosecuted. However, prosecution is not entirely ruled out. The order is a recognition of the nature of the expected partisan warfare, in which guerillas would hide among the civilian population and could be easily distinguished from them. It is not an indication of racial war.
Yeah, sure. Assuming that Mills can show us in what Nazi campaign other than "Barbarossa" the civilian population was deprived of the protection of law
and declared fair game, as it was under this directive.
michael mills wrote:Quotation 4 is likewise a measure to suppress opposition, not a measure of racial war.
Of course, if Mills can show us that similar ruthlessness was mandated and/or applied as standard procedure anywhere else than in the Soviet Union, Poland and Yugoslavia.
michael mills wrote:Quotation 5 has been dealt with. It shows that ruthless measures were being perpetrated in a situation of total war, but does not indicate that that war was a racial one.
Looks like Mills hasn’t read it, otherwise he might have stumbled upon passages like
[…]In the prevailing limitless abuse of the Slavic humanity, "recruiting" methods were used which probably have their origin only in the blackest periods of the slave trade.[…]
[…]This system in no way considered that these methods would of necessity have their effect on the power of resistance of the Red Army, since these methods were used only in the Soviet Union of course, and in no way remotely resembling this form in enemy countries like Holland or Norway.[…]
[…]With a presumption unequalled we put aside all political knowledge and to the glad surprise of all the colored world treat the peoples of the occupied Eastern territories as whites of Class 2, who apparently have only the task of serving as slaves for Germany and Europe.[…]
michael mills wrote:Quotations 6, 7 and 8 illustrate the German policy of taking food supplies out of the Occupied Eastern to feed the German people and Army, with a ruthless disregard for the consequences for the native population, which would inevitably entail mass starvation. But that policy was driven by a need to feed Germany, not by a specifically anti-Slavic attitude, and the ruthless atttitude toward the population of the occupied territories arose not because they were Slavs, but because they were competitors for the food supplies that the Germans wanted.
Looks like for Mills the war would have been a racial war only if Slavs had been killed or left to starve just because they were Slavs.
I don’t remember having stated that this was so.
What I did state and what the quotes clearly show, however, is that the Germans held the Slav inhabitants of the Soviet Union in such a deep contempt that they considered to let "umpteen million" of them starve to death in carrying out their food supply policies
, which to me is a racist policy in that it would not have been applied against peoples not deemed "subhuman", like the Slav inhabitants of the targeted "food importing areas" were
michael mills wrote:Quotation 9 represents an extreme version of the ruthless policy of exploitation. It does not present starvation as the inevitable fate of the conquered nations; living in prosperity is equally possible, under the condition that that is compatible with the interests of the German people.
Mills conveniently ignores what kind of "prosperity" Himmler accorded to those "nations": the “prosperity” of a slave’s existence, at the very best. If the "nations" were not useful as "slaves for our culture", they could go to hell.
michael mills wrote:Quotation 10 does mention a "racial struggle", but I would like to know the reliability of the source.
That’s my Mills. When he stumbles upon evidence he can’t try to twist his way, he questions "the reliability of the source".
michael mills wrote:That is, do the words quoted come from an actual record of what Himmler said at the meeting (ie a transcription or tape-recording), or do they come from someone's post-war recollection, which might well be tainted.
"Might be" doesn’t mean "is", and the "is" must be demonstrated by who so alleges. A simple rule that "sceptics" like Mills often forget.
michael mills wrote:I note that Browning's footnote refers only to confirmation of the date of the meeting, not to its content.
I recall from Gerlach's "Kalkulierte Morde" that the words attributed to Himmler derive from a post-war interrogation of Bach-Zelewski, a most unreliable source. As I recall, Gerlach says that Bach-Zelewski even got the date of the meeting wrong by a year or so.
Mills is invited to explain why he considers Bach-Zelewski a "most unreliable source", and to transcribe the passage from Gerlach’s book where it is stated that the witness got the date wrong "by a year or so", whatever this is supposed to matter. The date of the meeting seems to be confirmed by Himmler’s Terminkalender
, the spirit of the statement tallies with that of others made by Himmler himself and other Nazi bigwigs like Göring (as quoted by Count Ciano, presumably also a "most unreliable source" for Mills), and both Browning and Gerlach, two historians of note, seem to consider whatever records on the Wewelsburg speech they consulted reliable enough. So it looks like Mills will have to do better.
michael mills wrote:Quotation 11 documents Hitler's ideas about German colonisation of the conquered Russian territory. The German colonists would constitute a ruling class, served by the native population. What is unsaid but implicit in Hitler's words is that the German colonists would replace the existing Bolshevik ruling class, whom Hilter believed to be largely Jewish. Thus the forseen establishment of a German ruling class would be the result of a war waged against the existing Jewish Bolshevik ruling class, rather than against the already subjugated Slavs.
Mills seems to think that a war conducted for the purpose of turning a people deemed as racially inferior into helots, whose fate would be serving their German masters at best, is not a racial war. As I have said on occasion, the greatest weakness of creatures like Mills is their inability to stop being themselves.
michael mills wrote:Quotation 12 has Hitler talking about a "racial war". But against whom? Is Hitler talking about a "racial war" waged by Germany, or is he saying that all wars are now racial in nature? He also talks about waging war for economic resopurces, so it is unclear exactly what he means. Perhaps Roberto should give the full context of the speech from which he has excerpted this very small snippet.
Hitler doesn’t say against whom the "racial war" was to be directed, otherwise I would have quoted the respective passage. But I consider it worth noting that Hitler applied this term, "racial war", to a war he was principally waging for the purpose of increasing Germany’s "living space" and obtaining related resources at the expense of peoples deemed inferior. Who other than those inferior Eastern Slavs does Mills think the Führer expected to obtain "oilfields, rubber, raw materials etc." from?
Here's the context, as requested by Mills.
Excerpt from Hitler’s Speech before the Wehrmacht’s Supreme Commanders on 23 November 1939, as quoted in Max Domarus, Hitler Reden 1932-1945, after IMT 789-PS
23 November 1939, 12 Uhr
Besprechung beim Führer, zu der alle Oberbefehlshaber befohlen sind.
Der Führer trägt folgendes vor: [...]
Die steigende Volkszahl erfordert größeren Lebensraum. Mein Ziel war, ein vernünftiges Verhältnis zwischen Volkszahl und Volksraum herbeizuführen. Hier muß der Kampf einsetzen. Um die Lösung dieser Aufgabe kommt kein Volk herum oder es muß verzichten und allmählich untergehen. Das lehrt die Geschichte. Zuerst Völkerwanderung nach Südosten, dann Anpassung der Volkszahl an den geringen Raum durch Auswanderung. In den letzten Jahren Anpassung der Volkszahl an den ungenügenden Raum durch Verminderung der Geburten. Dies würde zum Volkstod, zur Ausblutung führen. Geht ein Volk diesen Weg, so werden alle Schwächen mobilisiert. Man verzichtet auf Gewalt nach außen und wendet die Gewalt gegen sich selbst an durch Tötung des Kindes. Das bedeutet die größte Feigheit, Dezimierung der Zahl und Entwertung.
Ich habe mich zum anderen Weg entschlossen: Anpassung des Lebensraums an die Volkszahl. Wichtig ist eine Erkenntnis: der Staat hat nur dann einen Sinn, wenn er der Erhaltung seiner Volkssubstanz dient. Bei uns handelt es sich um 82 Millionen Menschen. Das bedeutet größte Verpflichtung. Der, der diese Verpflichtung nicht auf sich nimmt, ist nicht wert, dem Volkskörper anzugehören. Dies gab mir die Kraft zum Kampf. Es ist ein ewiges Problem, die Zahl der Deutschen in Verhältnis zu bringen zum Boden. Sicherung des notwendigen Raumes. Keine geklügelte Gescheitheit hilft hier, Lösung nur mit dem Schwert. Ein Volk das die Kraft nicht aufbringt zum Kampf, muß abtreten.
Die Kämpfe sind anders geworden als vor 100 Jahren. Heute können wir von einem Rassenkampf sprechen. Heute kämpfen wir um Ölfelder, Gummi, Erdschätze usw. Nach dem Westfälischen Frieden war Deutschland zerfallen. Zersplitterung, Ohnmacht des deutschen Reiches war vertraglich festgelegt. Diese deutsche Ohnmacht wurde durch die Reichsgründung wieder beseitigt, als Preußen sich auf seine Aufgabe besann. Dann begann der Gegensatz gegen Frankreich und England. Seit 1870 ist England gegen uns. Bismarck und Moltke waren sich klar, daß noch einmal angetreten werden müßte. Damals war die Gefahr des Zwei-Fronten-Krieges. Moltke war zeitweilig für den Präventivkrieg. Ausnutzung der langsameren Mobilmachung der Russen. Deutsche Wehrkraft war nicht voll ausgenutzt. Ungenügende Härte der führenden Persönlichkeiten. Der Grundgedanke der Moltkeschen Pläne war die Offensive. Er hat niemals an die Defensive gedacht.
Nach Moltkes Tod wurden zahlreiche Gelgenheiten verpaßt. Die Lösung war nur möglich durch Angriff gegen einen Staat bei günstigster Gelegenheit. Politische und militärische Leitung haben Schuld daran, daß die Gelegenheiten verpaßt wurden. Die militärische Leitung erklärte immer wieder, daß sie noch nicht fertig sei. 1914 kam der Mehr-Fronten-Krieg. Er brachte nicht die Lösung des Problems.
Heute wird der zweite Akt dieses Dramas geschrieben. Zum ersten Male seit 67 Jahren muß festgestellt werden, daß wir keinen Zwei-Fronten-Krieg zu führen haben. Es ist das eingetreten, was man sich seit 1870 gewünscht hat und tatsächlich für unmöglich hielt. Zum ersten Male in der Geschichte haben wir nur gegen eine Front zu kämpfen, die andere ist z.Zt. frei. Aber niemand kann wissen, wie lange es so bleibt.
Ich habe lange gezweifelt, ob ich erst im Osten und dann im Westen losschlagen sollte. Grundsätzlich habe ich die Wehrmacht nicht aufgestellt, um nicht zu schlagen. Der Entschluß zum Schlagen war immer in mir. Früher oder später wollte ich das Problem lösen. Zwangsläufig wurde entschieden, daß der Osten zunächst zum Ausfall gebracht wurde.
Wenn der Polenkrieg so schnell gelang, so lag es an der Überlegenheit unserer Wehrmacht. Ruhmvollste Erscheinung in unserer Geschichte. Unerwartet geringe Verluste an Menschen und Material. Jetzt wird die Ostfront mit wenigen Divisionen gehalten. Es ist eine Lage, wie wir sie früher als unerreichbar ansahen. Jetzt ist die Lage folgende: Der Gegner liegt im Westen hinter seinen Befestigungen. Es ist keine Möglichkeit, ihn anzugreifen. Entscheidend ist: wie lange können wir die Lage aushalten?
Rußland ist z.Zt. ungefährlich. Es ist heute geschwächt durch viele innere Vorgänge. Außerdem haben wir den Vertrag mit Rußland. Verträge werden aber nur so lange gehalten, wie sie zweckmäßig sind. Rußland wird sich nur so lange daran halten, als es Rußland selbst für sich für gut hält. Auch Bismarck hat so gedacht. Man denke an den Rückversicherungs-Vertrag. [Fußnote: Der Hinweis ist völlig deplaziert. Der Rückversicherungsvertrag (gegenseitiger Neutralitätsvertrag zwischen Deutschland und Rußland, 1887 von Bismarck geschlossen) wurde nicht von Rußland, sondern von Deutschland fallengelassen, und zwar nicht von Bismarck, sondern von dessen Nachfolger Caprivi.] Jetzt hat Rußland noch weitgehende Ziele, vor allen Dingen Stärkung seiner Position in der Ostsee.
Wir können Rußland nur entgegentreten, wenn wir im Westen frei sind. Ferner strebt Rußland Stärkung seines Einflusses auf dem Balkan an und strebt nach dem Persischen Golf. Das ist auch das Ziel unserer Außenpolitik. Rußland wird das tun, was es für sich für gut hält. Augenblicklich ist der Internationalismus zurückgetreten. Falls Rußland darauf verzichtet, wird es zum Panslawismus übergehen. Es ist schwer, in die Zukunft zu sehen.
Tatsache ist, daß zur Zeit russische Wehrmacht geringen Wert hat. Für die nächsten ein oder zwei Jahre wird der jetzige Zustand bestehen bleiben.
Viel hängt ab von Italien, vor allem von Mussolini, dessen Tod alles ändern kann. Italien hat große Ziele für Befestigung seines Imperiums. Träger dieser Idee sind ausschließlich der Faschismus und der Duce persönlich. Der Hof steht ablehnend dem gegenüber. Solange der Duce lebt, so lange kann damit gerechnet werden, daß Italien jede Möglichkeit wahrnehmen wird, seine imperialistischen Ziele zu erreichen. Es ist aber von Italien zu viel verlangt, wenn es eingreifen soll, bevor Deutschland die Offensive im Westen ergriffen hat; ebenso hat Rußland erst eingegriffen, als wir in Polen einmarschiert waren. Sonst denkt Italien, daß Frankreich sich nur mit Italien beschäftigt, da Deutschland hinter seinem Westwall sitzt. Italien wird erst eingreifen, wenn Deutschland selbst gegen Frankreich offensiv vorgegangen ist. Ebenso wie der Tod Stalins kann der Tod des Duce uns Gefahren bringen.[…]
23 November 1939, 12 Uhr
Meeting with the Führer, which all supreme commanders are ordered to attend
The Führer refers the following: [...]
The growing number of people requires greater living space. My goal was to bring about a reasonable relation between the number of people and the space available to it. Here the fight must commence. No people can go around solving this task, lest it wants to do without and gradually vanish. This is what history teaches us. First the peoples’ migration to the Southeast, then the adaptation of the number of people to the scarce space through emigration. In the last years adaptation of the number of people to the insufficient space by reducing the number of births. This would lead to the death of the people, to its bleeding dry. If a people takes this way, it renounces violence towards the outside and applies it against itself by killing its infants. This means greatest cowardice, decimation and devaluation.
I decided to take the other way: Adapt the living space to the number of people. One realization is important: the state makes sense only if it serves to maintain the substance of the people. In our case it is 82 million people. This means greatest responsibility. He who doesn’t take this responsibility upon himself is not worth belonging to the body popular. This gave me the strength to fight. It is an eternal problem to bring the number of Germans in relation to the soil. To secure the necessary space. No windy smartness helps here, a solution is only possible by the sword. A people that doesn’t put together the strength to fight must leave the stage.
Fighting is different today from what it was 100 years ago. Today we can speak of a fight of races. Today we fight for oilfields, rubber, raw materials etc. After the Peace of Westphalia Germany had fallen apart. This German impotence was again removed by the foundation of the Reich, when Prussia took conscience of its task. Then the antagonism towards France and England began. England stands against us since 1870. Bismarck and Moltke saw clearly that there would be another round. At that time there was the danger of a two-front war. Moltke for some time favored a preventive war, taking advantage of the slower mobilization of the Russians. The German striking power was not fully taken advantage of. Insufficient toughness of the leading personalities. The basic thought of Moltke’s plans was offensive. He never thought of defensive.
After Moltke’s death numerous chances were missed. The solution was only possible by attacking a state at the most favorable opportunity. The political and military leadership were to blame for this chance having been missed. The military command was always declaring that it was not yet ready. In 1914 the war on several fronts broke out. It didn’t bring the solution of the problem.
Today the second act of this drama is being written. For the first time in 67 years it must be verified that we don’t need to wage a war on two fronts. We have the situation that was desired since 1870 and actually considered impossible. For the first time in history we have to fight only against one front, the other is currently free. But no one can no how long things will stay this way.
For a long time I was in doubt whether I should strike first in the East or in the West. As a matter of principle I didn’t create the Werhmacht in order not to strike. The decision to strike was always in me. Sooner or later I wanted to solve the problem. Necessarily it was decided to make our first move in the East.
If the Polish war succeeded so quickly, this was due to the superiority of our Wehrmacht. The most glorious achievement in our history. Unexpectedly low losses in men and material. Now the Eastern Front is held with few divisions. It is a situation such as we considered impossible to achieve in the past. Now the situation is the following: the enemy in the West lies behind his fortifications. It is not possible to attack him. What is decisive is: how long can we bear this situation ?
Russia is currently harmless. It is weakened these days by many internal occurrences. Besides, we have an agreement with Russia. Agreements, however, are held only as long as they are useful. Russia will stick to this agreement only as long as she considers it good for herself. Bismarck thought so as well. Remember the Reinsurance Agreement [Footnote: this remark is completely out of place. The Reinsurance Agreement (a mutual neutrality agreement between Germany and Russia, signed by Bismarck in 1887) was dropped not by Russia, but by Germany; this was done not by Bismarck, but by his successor Caprivi.] Now Russia still has far-reaching goals, principally reinforcing her position on the Baltic.
We can oppose Russia only when we are free in the West. Russia furthermore strives for strengthening her influence in the Balkans and for the Persian Gulf. This is also the goal of our foreign policy. Russia will do what she considers good for herself. At the moment Internationalism has stepped back. If Russia should renounce it, she will go over to Pan-Slavism. It is difficult to look into the future.
The fact is that the Russian armed forces are currently of little value. For the next one or two years the current situation will stay the same.
Much depends on Italy, especially on Mussolini, whose death can change everything. Italy has great goals for the consolidation of her empire. The bearers of this idea are Fascism and the Duce personally. The court is in a position of rejection. As long as the Duce lives, we can count on Italy taking advantage of every possibility to reach her imperialist goals. It is asking to much of Italy, however, to expect her to intervene before Germany has taken to the offensive in the West; Russia also intervened only after we had invaded Poland. Otherwise Italy will think that France is busy only with Italy because Germany is sitting behind its West Wall. Italy will only intervene after Germany herself has proceeded offensively against France. Just like the death of Stalin the Duce’s death can bring danger for us.[…]
michael mills wrote:Quotations 13 and 14 refer to measures to crush Polish resistance, which involved eliminating the anti-German elements in Polish culture and education.
Yeah, sure. Let’s repeat my translation of quote 14, containing the statement that Poles are inferior beings fit only for unskilled labour and must be made to obey their German masters only, so that our readers may wonder whether Mills has simply not read the quote or is an inveterate liar dumb enough to expect readers to blindly rely on his statements.
[…] On 2.10.1940 there was a conversation about the character of the General Government and the treatment of the Poles at the Führer’s place after the meal[…]
The Führer pointed out that, contrary to the German worker, the Pole is well-neigh born for low jobs; our German worker must be granted all possibilities of advancement, but for the Pole this is out of the question. The living standard in Poland must even be or be kept low. The General Government shall by no means become a closed and uniform economic region producing all or a part of its industrial products itself. The General Government is our reservoir of labor force for low jobs (brick factories, street building etc. etc.). One cannot, the Führer emphasized, put more into the Slav than what he is by nature. While our German worker is by nature generally ambitious and hard-working, the Pole is by nature lazy and must thus be propelled to work. Furthermore the conditions are lacking for the General Government to become an economic region of its own, because it has no mineral resources and even if such were available the Poles would not be able to exploit them.[…]
Under all circumstances it must be observed that there must be no "Polish masters"; where the are Polish masters, as harsh as this may sound, they must be bumped off.
Of course we must not mix our blood with that of the Poles, for which reason it is also right that beside the Polish male harvesters female harvesters come to the Reich. What these Poles then do among each other in their camps can be completely indifferent to us; no eager protestant should stick his nose into such things.
Again the Führer must point out that for the Poles there may be only one master, and that is the German; two master alongside each other there may not be and thus all representatives of the Polish intelligence are to be bumped off. This sounds harsh, but it is the law of life.[…]
michael mills wrote:
Roberto finally wrote:
Hitler’s "New Order" in the East was to be something like ancient Sparta, with the Germans the Spartans and the Slavs the Helots.
In fact, Hitler's model for German rule over Russia was British rule over India. Although the British certainly had a racially-based attitude toward the Indians over whom they ruled, it cannot be said that they waged a racial war against the Indians, certainly not a war of extermination, even though there were occasions when many millions of Indians died of starvation.
Cheerfully mixing apples with oranges, Mills conveniently ignores the fact that the Slav inhabitants of the Soviet Union were to be starved to death, displaced to inhospitable regions or, at best, turned into slaves for whom "the word ‘liberty’ means the right to wash on feast days" (see my quote no. 11).
Not that I have a soft spot for the Brits, but did they deliberately endeavour to exploit India in such a way as to bring about massive starvation, and was starvation in India related to such deliberate policies?
Did they pursue a policy of keeping the Indians dumb and docile, not according them any rights and not caring for their welfare, to the point of letting their cities "die away completely" without remorse, because they thought they had "no obligations whatsoever towards these people"?
Last but not least, did they wage a large-scale war of aggression and conquest against India for the purpose of bringing about a system under which the lot of Indians would have been what Hitler had in store for the Slavs, and did they do this also because they considered the Indians inferior being below the level of humanity?
Let’s see if our Nazi-apologist Mills can show us evidence to such parallels.