American & French (post) War Crimes

[Roberto]

In any case, Ambrose certainly doesn't have to write under pseudonyms to prevent his arrest for Thoughtcrime, your beef with Germar Rudolf, who is in exile from Germany for daring to look through the telescope.

I don't have more of a beef with Mr. Rudolf than with any other of those "Revisionist" punks, and I consider it hilarious that Smith keeps maintaining that Rudolf uses pseudonyms in order to "prevent his arrest for Thoughtcrime", even though, as Smith well knows, the fellow himself provided quite a different explanation for his dishonest practice of invoking fake "authorities":

My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and a perhaps even an barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, we decided to mock it by inventing a person with all these features, but then we realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many.

Source of quote:

http://www.h-ref.de/ar/rudolf/werke.shtml

A statement against better knowledge is called a lie, Mr. Smith.

And if you make it although you know I can easily refute it, the lie is a rather stupid one.

[Roberto]

Bacque has some points, which have been conceded by his critics.

I would, for instance, consider the decision to deprive German prisoners of war of their status a violation of the Geneva Convention, for obvious reasons: if it were left up to the custodian power who it wishes to treat as a prisoner of war and who not, the convention would be meaningless.

Hmmm, this is basically what I have said about Bacque and yet Roberto howls and brings up impedimentia about "Revisionist gurus" and whatnot. Interesting.

This is another of the frequent occasions when I feel sorry for poor Smith.

My "impedimentia", as he well knows, were related not to his argument that depriving German prisoners of war of their status was a breach of the Geneva Convention (to which I agree, except that Smith maintains that "sovereign nations" can breach what they like and I think this contention sucks like most other stuff he produces), but to his hypocritical whining about the intellectual dishonesty of Mr. Ambrose.

I know little and care even less about the man, but I felt like pointing out that who looks up to creatures like Rudolf, Berg or Bradley Smith should refrain from such complaints, lest his double standards become too obvious.

[Scott Smith]

Bacque has some points, which have been conceded by his critics.

I would, for instance, consider the decision to deprive German prisoners of war of their status a violation of the Geneva Convention, for obvious reasons: if it were left up to the custodian power who it wishes to treat as a prisoner of war and who not, the convention would be meaningless.

Hmmm, this is basically what I have said about Bacque and yet Roberto howls and brings up impedimentia about "Revisionist gurus" and whatnot. Interesting.

This is another of the frequent occasions when I feel sorry for poor Smith.

Feeling sorry for yourself would be more appropriate. I don't see what "Revisionist gurus" have to do with the thread. It was merely an attempt at discrediting me because I have written favorably about people like Fritz Berg and Ted O'Keefe, and have said that it is wrong to censor Bradley Smith on campuses and to indict Germar Rudolf for Thoughtcrime, forcing him to publish under pseudonyms and to flee Germany.

My "impedimentia", as he well knows, were related not to his argument that depriving German prisoners of war of their status was a breach of the Geneva Convention (to which I agree, except that Smith maintains that "sovereign nations" can breach what they like and I think this contention sucks like most other stuff he produces),

Sovereign nations can scrap treaties (like the Geneva convention) but then they shouldn't make the argument, as Bunch did, that they are doing so to avoid breaching, and even to comply with, the letter of so-called International Law. This is quite hypocritical, AFAIC.

but to his hypocritical whining about the intellectual dishonesty of Mr. Ambrose.

I never really whined about Ambrose and his intellectual dishonesty. Others brought him up. I just despise his flag-waving. I call him an "Apple-Pie Historian," as Roberto well-knows. I'll let others quibble over his scholarship.

I know little and care even less about the man, but I felt like pointing out that who looks up to creatures like Rudolf, Berg or Bradley Smith should refrain from such complaints, lest his double standards become too obvious.

And none of these are relevant to the topic, except that Roberto thinks they are liars because he disagrees with their views.

As far as Rudolf, again, I'll try to explain to the Believer. As with any heresy, you have to show a number of personalities that agree with you. If you are the odd-man-out, the heretic, you can expect to get persecuted by the orthodoxy. Rudolf published under pseudonyms to tweak the nose of the Thoughtpolice in the Bundestablishment, and even footnoted himself. Big deal. A man can cite his own work, even if he has published with pseudonyms. And he has admitted doing so. He did not call himself Doktor Ernst Gauss or anything like that. Besides, I never said that I endorsed his work. I just said that I found it interesting and affirmed his right to dissent and to make empirical observations on Holocaust matters that some would like to suppress without the proper spin-control.

You'll have to do better than that, Roberto.

[Hans]

Scott, Roberto, so here we are again. What's so special with the Holocaust Denier Germar Rudolf that he has to come up in every War Crime thread! One of you will have to make the first step to avoid that - if you don't want me or Marcus to push it through with certain means.

Please get back on topic and drop Rudolf.

[Roberto]

This is another of the frequent occasions when I feel sorry for poor Smith.

Feeling sorry for yourself would be more appropriate.

Very feeble, old boy.

Let me tell you something, straight from the bottom of my heart:

If I were religious, I would thank the Lord every day for not being like Mr. Smith.

I don't see what "Revisionist gurus" have to do with the thread.

Nothing, except that who looks up to such creatures shouldn't shoot off his mouth at Ambrose or anyone else.

It was merely an attempt at discrediting me because I have written favorably about people like Fritz Berg and Ted O'Keefe, and have said that it is wrong to censor Bradley Smith on campuses and to indict Germar Rudolf for Thoughtcrime, forcing him to publish under pseudonyms and to flee Germany.

An attempt at discrediting Smith?

Let me tell you another thing, my dear boy: all it takes to discredit Scott Smith is Scott Smith hitting the keyboards.

And better cut out that stuff about Rudolf having been forced by the "Thoughtcrimes laws" to publish under pseudonyms. As you well know, the clown himself stated that his reason for doing this was quite another. See my last post.

My "impedimentia", as he well knows, were related not to his argument that depriving German prisoners of war of their status was a breach of the Geneva Convention (to which I agree, except that Smith maintains that "sovereign nations" can breach what they like and I think this contention sucks like most other stuff he produces),

Sovereign nations can scrap treaties (like the Geneva convention) but then they shouldn't make the argument, as Bunch did, that they are doing so to avoid breaching, and even to comply with, the letter of so-called International Law. This is quite hypocritical, AFAIC.

Absolute cream-cheese, my dear boy. If sovereign nations break treaties, conventions or other elements of international law, their representatives will be faced with criminal prosecution if they suffer total defeat in war, or at least with historical ignominy (sooner or later) if they win.

Unless, as was the case with the change of the POWs' legal status by their US captors, the breach served to obtain a greater humanitarian benefit without inflicting disproportionate hardship on those affected by it and thus complied with the spirit if not with the letter of the convention.

but to his hypocritical whining about the intellectual dishonesty of Mr. Ambrose.

I never really whined about Ambrose and his intellectual dishonesty.

And what was this, Mr. Smith?

Well, I do get annoyed when I see his pious mug on the History Channel or PBS anymore, which is often, and the plagiarism controversy has not endeared me to him either.

Emphasis is mine.

I know little and care even less about the man, but I felt like pointing out that who looks up to creatures like Rudolf, Berg or Bradley Smith should refrain from such complaints, lest his double standards become too obvious.

And none of these are relevant to the topic, except that Roberto thinks they are liars because he disagrees with their views.

Cut out that “because he disagrees” – rhetoric, Smith, it’s wearing thin by now. Anyone other than the true believers in our audience should have understood at this stage that the issue is not “disagreement” but deliberate distortion, misrepresentation, dismissal or denial of facts.

As far as Rudolf, again, I'll try to explain to the Believer.

What Believer, Mr. Smith?

Are you now talking to yourself?

If so, it’s time you look up a good shrink.

As with any heresy,

Don’t call it “heresy”, Mr. Smith, because that’s an insult to the heretics of old, who contested nonsense on the basis of facts. Your gurus are doing the exact opposite: they contest facts on the basis of nonsense. They are not heretics, they’re just lying propagandists.

you have to show a number of personalities that agree with you. If you are the odd-man-out, the heretic, you can expect to get persecuted by the orthodoxy. Rudolf published under pseudonyms to tweak the nose of the Thoughtpolice in the Bundestablishment, and even footnoted himself. Big deal.

He made believe that there were other “scholars” supporting his theories in order to give them academic weight and authority.

In other words, he cheated his readers about there being an academic support to his junk that in fact did not exist, because those he quoted were pseudonyms of himself.

If that is not a big deal, then only due to the fact that most of his readers are gullible and uncritical suckers who like to take it in the ass.

A man can cite his own work, even if he has published with pseudonyms.

Certainly so – as long as he makes clear that he is citing himself.

And he has admitted doing so.

Exactly, Mr. Smith, especially in the passage I quoted. Yet Smith still tries to tell us that he did it to evade the “Thoughtcrimes laws”.

He did not call himself Doktor Ernst Gauss or anything like that.

That’s hardly relevant. What matters is that he made believe that Ernst Gauss (or Manfred Köhler, Dr. Werner Kretschmer, Dr. Christian Konrad, Dr. Dr. Rainer Scholz, Jakob Sprenger, Wilhelm Schlesinger, Tuisco, Dr. Manfred Gerner, Dr. Lennard Rose, etc.) was an academic other than himself who supported his theories.

Besides, I never said that I endorsed his work.

You don’t have to, Mr. Smith. It’s all to obvious that you do, from the baloney you repeat every day on this forum.

I just said that I found it interesting and affirmed his right to dissent and to make empirical observations on Holocaust matters that some would like to suppress without the proper spin-control.

Well, I agree to the right of Rudolf and others to voice their nonsense any way they like.

But Smith’s calling that fathomless nonsense “interesting” disproves his previous, somewhat less than honest contention that he does not endorse it.

You'll have to do better than that, Roberto.

Better then what, Mr. Smith?

Better than helping you bury “Revisionism” on this forum by pointing out the fallacies of your argumentation?

I don’t think I’ll have to make more of an effort.

Smith is too great a help for that.

[Scott Smith]

Hans,

Roberto is sorry that he brought-up Rudolf. Aren't you, Roberto?

[Scott Smith]

If sovereign nations break treaties, conventions or other elements of international law, their representatives will be faced with criminal prosecution if they suffer total defeat in war or at least with historical ignominy (sooner or later) if they win.

Yeah, so people like Eisenhower would have been "lawfully" hung, as I suggested.

Unless, as was the case with the change of the POWs' legal status by their US captors, the breach served to obtain a greater humanitarian benefit without inflicting disproportionate hardship on those affected by it and thus complied with the spirit if not with the letter of the convention.

I see, and perhaps it was more "humanitarian" to let Soviet POWs and enemies in occupied countries "go without" than to let loyal Germans starve.

[Roberto]

Hans,

Roberto is sorry that he brought-up Rudolf. Aren't you, Roberto?

Did I?

Ambrose can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

Smith seems to have become increasingly embittered over the last two years:

Well, I do get annoyed when I see his pious mug on the History Channel or PBS anymore, which is often, and the plagiarism controversy has not endeared me to him either.

I guess that’s because he’s not one of Smith’s gurus.

If he were, not even demonstrable lies and falsehoods (such as using numerous pseudonyms to invoke fake “authorities”) would matter to Smith.

[Roberto]

If sovereign nations break treaties, conventions or other elements of international law, their representatives will be faced with criminal prosecution if they suffer total defeat in war or at least with historical ignominy (sooner or later) if they win.

Yeah, so people like Eisenhower would have been "lawfully" hung, as I suggested.

Nobody was, except in the twisted minds of Smith et al.

And Eisenhower had a reason to do what he did that would have exculpated him before an international tribunal - unless of course that was composed by Freisler et al.

Unless, as was the case with the change of the POWs' legal status by their US captors, the breach served to obtain a greater humanitarian benefit without inflicting disproportionate hardship on those affected by it and thus complied with the spirit if not with the letter of the convention.

I see, and perhaps it was more "humanitarian" to let Soviet POWs and enemies in occupied countries "go without" than to let loyal Germans starve.

Except that the choice, as Smith well knows, was to lower the standard of living of the home front a little bit (like Germany's British opponents had been doing for quite a while) or to let POWs and harmless civilians in the occupied territories (Smith calls them "enemies") starve to death in their millions.

Guess what Smith's beloved Nazis chose.

[Roberto]

Scott, Roberto, so here we are again. What's so special with the Holocaust Denier Germar Rudolf that he has to come up in every War Crime thread! One of you will have to make the first step to avoid that - if you don't want me or Marcus to push it through with certain means.

Please get back on topic and drop Rudolf.

Gladly so, Hans.

As you know, I'm as interested in Smith's nonsense as you are.

It's just that I enjoy taking advantage of the chances provided by Smith's ramblings to demonstrate the imbecility of "Revisionism".

If Smith is too dumb to realize how counterproductive his interventions are, I can't help him.

[Scott Smith]

Hans,

Roberto is sorry that he brought-up Rudolf. Aren't you, Roberto?

Did I?

Ambrose can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

Smith seems to have become increasingly embittered over the last two years:

Well, I do get annoyed when I see his pious mug on the History Channel or PBS anymore, which is often, and the plagiarism controversy has not endeared me to him either.

I guess that’s because he’s not one of Smith’s gurus.

If he were, not even demonstrable lies and falsehoods (such as using numerous pseudonyms to invoke fake “authorities”) would matter to Smith.

Did you mean someone besides Rudolf, my dear Roberto?
Dr. Martin Luther King, perhaps...

[Roberto]

Hans,

Roberto is sorry that he brought-up Rudolf. Aren't you, Roberto?

Did I?

Smith seems to have become increasingly embittered over the last two years:

Well, I do get annoyed when I see his pious mug on the History Channel or PBS anymore, which is often, and the plagiarism controversy has not endeared me to him either.

I guess that’s because he’s not one of Smith’s gurus.

If he were, not even demonstrable lies and falsehoods (such as using numerous pseudonyms to invoke fake “authorities”) would matter to Smith.

Did you mean someone besides Rudolf, my dear Roberto?
Dr. Martin Luther King, perhaps...

In fact the freak was on my mind as an exemplary guru of the kind that Smith, who can whine so loudly about the mistakes and shortcomings of historians, piously and uncritically looks up to.

But it was Smith who picked up the hint and lashed out in defense of his hero, thus confirming both his faithful followership and his awareness of the fellow's intellectual dishonesty.

[Scott Smith]

If sovereign nations break treaties, conventions or other elements of international law, their representatives will be faced with criminal prosecution if they suffer total defeat in war or at least with historical ignominy (sooner or later) if they win.

Yeah, so people like Eisenhower would have been "lawfully" hung, as I suggested.

Nobody was, except in the twisted minds of Smith et al.

Your premise was that the nation suffered total defeat in war; that of course didn't happen--hence Eisenhower was not hung or even placed on the dock of a Victor's show-trial.

Unless, as was the case with the change of the POWs' legal status by their US captors, the breach served to obtain a greater humanitarian benefit without inflicting disproportionate hardship on those affected by it and thus complied with the spirit if not with the letter of the convention.

I see, and perhaps it was more "humanitarian" to let Soviet POWs and enemies in occupied countries "go without" than to let loyal Germans starve.

Except that the choice, as Smith well knows, was to lower the standard of living of the home front a little bit (like Germany's British opponents had been doing for quite a while) or to let POWs and harmless civilians in the occupied territories (Smith calls them "enemies") starve to death in their millions.

Perhaps Roberto has some figures as to what this "lowering of the standard of living of the home front" would have entailed in order to feed the enemy. A popular measure, I'm sure. And one that likely would not have been followed if the shoe were on the other foot and the Allies were not winning or had not already won the war. Besides, the British had access to bursting American granaries. The Germans did not.

[Scott Smith]

In fact the freak was on my mind as an exemplary guru of the kind that Smith, who can whine so loud about the mistakes and shortcoming of historians, piously and uncritically looks up to.

But it was Smith who picked up the hint and lashed out in defense of his hero, thus confirming both his fellow followership and his awareness of the fellow's intellectual dishonesty.

I never said that I endorsed Rudolf's work. All I said was that he has the right to intellectual dissent and that he has been treated shabbily by the German Bundestablishment for Thoughtcrime.

[Roberto]

Your premise was that the nation suffered total defeat in war; that of course didn't happen--hence Eisenhower was not hung or even placed on the dock of a Victor's show-trial.

What "Victor's show trial", Mr. Smith?

In the face of your utter inability to demonstrate that the trial in question was a show trial, your rhetorical phrases look sillier with every repetition.

Before a tribunal like the IMT, Eisenhower would not have been been condemned on account of his breach of the Geneva Convention to the extent that it was required to feed the civilian population and did not inflict excessive and disproportionate hardships on the POWs.

The Rheinwiesenlager, on the other hand, would have been hard to justify.

Unless, as was the case with the change of the POWs' legal status by their US captors, the breach served to obtain a greater humanitarian benefit without inflicting disproportionate hardship on those affected by it and thus complied with the spirit if not with the letter of the convention.

I see, and perhaps it was more "humanitarian" to let Soviet POWs and enemies in occupied countries "go without" than to let loyal Germans starve.

Except that the choice, as Smith well knows, was to lower the standard of living of the home front a little bit (like Germany's British opponents had been doing for quite a while) or to let POWs and harmless civilians in the occupied territories (Smith calls them "enemies") starve to death in their millions.

Perhaps Roberto has some figures as to what this "lowering of the standard of living of the home front" would have entailed in order to feed the enemy. A popular measure, I'm sure.

Exactly, Mr. Smith.

It would have been unpopular and was thus to be avoided.

But it was not to be avoided because otherwise starvation threatened - unless you can show us a statement by Nazi officials in this direction.

What I have is the following:

1. Protocol of a meeting of the secretaries of state on 21.5.1941
Source: International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg 1948, Volume 31, page 84

[…]1.) Der Krieg ist nur weiterzuführen, wenn die gesamte Wehrmacht im 3. Kriegsjahr aus Rußland ernährt wird.
2.) Hierbei werden zweifellos zig Millionen Menschen verhungern, wenn von uns das für uns Notwendige aus dem Lande herausgeholt wird.
3.) Am wichtigsten ist die Bergung und Abtransport von Ölsaaten, Ölkuchen, dann erst Getreide. Das vorhandene Fett und Fleisch wird voraussichtlich die Truppe verbrauchen.[…]

My translation:

[…]1.) The war can only be continued if the whole Wehrmacht is fed out of Russia in the 3rd war year.
2.) Due to this umpteen million people will doubtlessly starve to death when we take what is necessary for us out of the land.
3.) Most important is the collection and shipment of oil seeds and oil cake, only thereafter of grain. The available fat and meat will presumably be consumed by the troops.[…]

Emphasis is mine.

2. “Wirtschaftspolitische Richtlinien für die Wirtschaftsorganisation Ost vom 23.5.1941, erarbeitet von der Gruppe Landwirtschaft”
(“Guidelines of Economic Policy for the Economic Organization East, prepared by the Agriculture Group”)
Source: Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, RW 31/144

Damit ist das wesentlichste des Problems gekennzeichnet. Die Überschüsse Rußlands an Getreide werden entscheidend nicht durch die Höhe der Ernte, sondern durch die Höhe des Selbstverbrauchs bestimmt. Selbst eine geringe Herabsetzung um 30 kg je Kopf der Bevölkerung (220 kg statt 250 kg) und eine Herabsetzung der Pferderation um 25 % erzeugen einen Exportüberschuß, der fast an die Friedenshöhe heranreicht. […]
b) Da Deutschland bzw. Europa unter allen Umständen Überschüsse braucht, muß also der Konsum entsprechend herabgedrückt werden. Wie groß durch Drosselung des Verbrauchs die Überschussmengen werden können, zeigen die obigen Beispiele.
c) Dieses Herabdrücken des Konsums ist im Gegensatz zu den bisherigen besetzten Gebieten auch durchführbar deshalb, weil das Hauptüberschußgebiet räumlich scharf getrennt ist.
[…]Die Überschußgebiete liegen im Schwarzerdegebiet (also im Süden, Südosten) und im Kaukasus. Die Zuschußgebiete liegen im wesentlichen in der Waldzone des Nordens (Podsolböden). Daraus folgt: Eine Abriegelung der Schwarzerdegebiete muß unter allen Umständen mehr oder weniger hohe Überschüsse in diesen Gebieten für uns greifbar machen. Die Konzequenz ist die Nichtbelieferung der gesamten Waldzone einschließlich der Industriezentren und Petersburg. […]
1. Aufgabe der gesamten Industrie im Zuschußgebiet, im wesentlichen der Verarbeitungsindustrie im Moskauer und Petersburger Industriegebiet, desgleichen des Industriegebiets im Ural. Man kann wohl annehmen, daß diese Gebiete heute einen Zuschuß aus der Produktionszone von 5-10 Mill.t [Getreide] beziehen. […]
3. Jede weitere Ausnahme zwecks Erhaltung dieses oder jenes Industriebezirks oder Industrieunternehmens in der Zuschußzone muß abgelehnt werden.
4. Erhalten werden kann die Industie nur, soweit sie im Überschußgebiet liegt. […]
Aus dieser Lage, die die Billigung der höchsten Stellen erfahren hat, […] ergeben sich folgende Konzequenzen:
I. für die Waldzone: […]
b) Ein deutsches Interesse an der Erhaltung der Erzeugungskraft dieser Gebiete ist, auch hinsichtlich der Versorgung der dort stehenden Truppen, nicht vorhanden. […] Die Bevölkerung dieser Gebiete, insbesondere die Bevölkerung der Städte, wird größter Hungersnot entgegensehen müssen. Es wird darauf ankommen, die Bevölkerung in die sibirischen Räume abzulenken. Da Eisenbahntransport nicht in Frage kommt, wird auch dieses Problem ein äußerst schwieriges sein. […]
Aus all dem folgt, daß die deutsche Verwaltung in diesem Gebiet wohl bestrebt sein kann, die Folgen der zweifellos eintretenden Hungersnot zu mildern und den Naturalisierungsprozeß zu beschleunigen. Man kann bestrebt sein, diese Gebiete intensiver zu bewirtschaften im Sinne einer Ausdehnung der Kartoffelanbaufläche und anderer für den Konsum wichtiger, hohe Erträge gebender Früchte. Die Hungersnot ist dadurch nicht zu bannen. Viele 10 Millionen Menschen werden in diesem Gebiet überflüssig und werden sterben oder nach Sibirien auswandern müssen. Versuche, die Bevölkerung dort vor dem Hungertode dadurch zu retten, daß man aus der Schwarzerdezone Überschüsse heranzieht, können nur auf Kosten der Versorgung Europas gehen. Sie unterbinden die Durchhaltefähigkeit Deutschlands im Kriege, sie unterbinden die Blockadefestigkeit Deutschlands und Europas. Darüber muß absolute Klarheit herrschen. […]
I. Armeeversorgung. Die Ernährungslage Deutschlands in dritten Kriegsjahr erfordert gebieterisch, daß die Wehrmacht in ihrer Gesamtverpflegung nicht aus dem großdeutschen Raum bzw. angegliederten oder befreundeten Gebieten, die diesen Raum durch Ausfuhren versorgen, lebt. Dieses Minimalziel, die Versorgung der Wehrmacht aus Feindesland im dritten und evtl. weiteren Kriegsjahren, muß unter allen Umständen erreicht werden.
II. Versorgung der deutschen Zivilbevölkerung
1) Erst nach der Abdeckung dieses Heeresbedarfs, der unter allen Umständen aus den Osträumen bereitgestellt werden muß, haben Lieferungen nach Deutschland zur Deckung des Zivilbedarfs einzusetzen. Hiebei ist jede Verzettelung auf Nebengebiete unter allen Umständen zu unterlassen. Im Vordergrund steht der Transport von Ölsaaten – insbesondere Sonnenblumenkerne, aber auch Leinsaat, Baumwollsaat, Sojabohnen – nach Deutschland, um die Fettbilanz zu verbessern. […]
2) Erst nach der Bewältigung des Transports der Ölsaaten kann eine Getreideausfuhr stattfinden, die selbstverständlich außerordentlich erwünscht ist, da ja Großdeutschland in steigendem Maße die besetzten Gebiete beliefern muß und auch selbst für die Zukunft seiner Reserven nach der schlechten Ernte 1940 und der bestenfalls zu erwartenden mittleren Ernte in diesem Jahr auffüllen muß. […]
3) […]
V. Diese Ausführungen zeigen, worauf es ankommt. Das Minimalziel muß sein, Deutschland im 3. Kriegsjahr völlig von der Versorgung der eigenen Wehrmacht zu befreien, um der deutschen Ernährungswirtschaft die Möglichkeit zu geben, einerseits die bisherigen Rationen beizubehalten, andererseits gewisse Reserven für die Zukunft anzulegen. Außerdem wird es notwendig sein, auf den drei entscheidenden Lebensmittelgebieten – Ölsaaten, Getreide und Fleisch – Zufuhren in einem größtmöglichen Umfang für Deutschland freizumachen, um die Ernährung nicht nur Deutschlands, sondern auch der besetzten Gebiete im Norden und Westen zu gewährleisten. […]
Abschließend sei nochmals auf das Grundsätzliche hingewiesen. Rußland hat sich unter dem bolschewistischen System aus reinen Machtgründen aus Europa zurückgezogen und so das europäische arbeitsteilige Gleichgewicht gestört. Unsere Aufgabe, Rußland wieder arbeitsteilig in Europa einzubeziehen, bedeutet zwangsläufig die Zerreißung des jetzigen wirtschaftlichen Gleichgewichts der UdSSR. Es kommt also unter keinen Umständen auf eine Erhaltung des Bisherigen an, sondern auf bewußte Abkehr vom Gewordenen und Einbeziehung der Ernährungswirtschaft Rußlands in den europäischen Rahmen. Daraus folgt zwangsläufig ein Absterben sowohl der Industrie wie eines großen Teils der Menschen in den bisherigen Zuschußgebieten.
Diese Alternative kann nicht hart und scharf genug herausgestellt werden.

My translation:

Thus the essence of the problem has been outlined. The grain excesses of Russia are primarily determined not by the quantities harvested but by the amounts they consume themselves. Even a small reduction of 30 kg per head of the population (220 kg instead of 250 kg) and a reduction of the horse ration by 25 % will create an export excess almost reaching peacetime levels. […]
b) As Germany and Europe need excesses under any circumstances, consume must be reduced accordingly. How large the excess amounts resulting from a restriction of consume may become is shown by the above examples.
c) Contrary to the situation in the hitherto occupied areas this reduction of consume is feasible also because there is a clear geographical separation of the main excess region.
[…]The excess regions are located in the black earth region (i.e. in the south and southeast) and in the Caucasus. The food importing regions are mainly located in the northern forest zone (podsol[?] soil). This means that sealing off the black earth regions must under any circumstances make more or less high excesses available to us in these areas. The consequence is the non-supply of the entire forest zone including the industrial centers and Petersburg. […]
1. We will give up all industry in the food importing region, mainly the manufacturing industry in the Moscow and Petersburg industrial area and the Ural industrial region. It can be assumed that these regions are currently importing an excess from the production zone in the amount of 5-10 million tons of grain. […]
3. Any further exception for maintaining this or that industrial district or enterprise in the importing area must be rejected.
4. Industry can be maintained only insofar as located in the excess region. […]
From this situation, which has been approved by the highest entities, […] there result the following consequences:
II. for the forest zone: […]
b) There is no German interest in maintaining the productive capacity of these regions, also in what concerns the supplies of the troops stationed there. […] The population of these regions, especially the population of the cities, will have to anticipate a famine of the greatest dimensions. The issue will be to redirect the population to the Siberian areas. As railway transportation is out of the question, this problem will also be an extremely difficult one. […]
From all this there follows that the German administration in these regions may well attempt to milder the consequences of the famine that will doubtlessly occur and accelerate the naturalization process. It can be attempted to cultivate there areas more extensively in the sense of an extension of the area for cultivating potatoes and other high yield fruits important for consume. This will not stop the famine, however. Many tens of millions of people will become superfluous in this area and will die or have to emigrate to Siberia. Attempts to save the population from starvation death by using excesses from the black earth zone can only be made at the expense of the supply of Europe. They hinder Germany’s capacity to hold out in the war, they hinder the blockade resistance of Germany and Europe. This must be absolutely clear.[…]
III. Army food supplies. The food situation of Germany in the third year of the war makes it mandatory that the Wehrmacht does not take its food supply out of the greater German area or the annexed or allied areas supplying this area through exports. This minimal goal, the supply of the Wehrmacht out of enemy territory in the third and eventually further years of the war, must be achieved under any circumstances.
IV. Food supplies for the German civilian population
1) Only after covering the army’s needs, which under any circumstance must occur out of the eastern areas, may there be shipments to Germany to cover civilian needs. Deviations to secondary areas are to be avoided under any circumstances. Priority is to be given to the shipment of oil seeds – especially sunflower seeds, but also linen seed, cotton seed and soy beans – to Germany in order to improve the fats balance. […]
2) Only after the transport of the oil seeds has been handled can there be shipments of grain, which of course are extremely desirable as Greater Germany must increasingly supply the occupied areas and also stock up its own reserves after the bad harvest of 1940 and the at best average harvest to be expected this year. […]
3) […]
V. These considerations show what the key issues are. The minimal goal must be to completely free Germany from the feeding of its own Wehrmacht in the 3rd year of the war in order to give German food economy the possibility of on the one hand keeping the rations so far issued and on the other to create certain reserves for the future. It will further be necessary to make available supplies for Germany to the greatest extent possible in the three key fields of nourishment – oil seeds, grain and meat – in order to guarantee the feeding not only of Germany, but also of the occupied areas in the north and west. […]
Finally the basics must be again pointed out. Russia under the Bolshevik system has withdrawn from Europe for pure reasons of power and thus disturbed the European work-sharing balance. Our task of reintegrating Russia into this balance necessarily implies tearing apart the present-day economic balance of the USSR. There is no question of maintaining what is there, but we are consciously moving away from it and integrating the food economy of Russia in the European area. This will necessarily lead both the industry and a great part of the people in the hitherto food importing areas to die off.
This alternative cannot be pointed out clearly and harshly enough.

Emphasis is mine.

3. File note on a meeting about economic policies and organization of the economy in the newly occupied territories with Hermann Göring on 8.11.1941
Source: Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, WI ID/1222

[…] Hinsichtlich der Ernährung bemerkte er [Göring], daß die Truppe ihren Bedarf an Konserven wesentlich einschränken müsse. Der Wehrmacht machte er den Vorwurf, dass sich im Gebiet um Minsk in den Wäldern noch grosse Viehherden herumtreiben, die aber wegen der Partisanen nicht geborgen werden können. Einsatz von Truppen sei unbedingt notwendig.
Das Schicksal der Grosstädte insbesondere Leningrads sei ihm völlig schleierhaft. In diesem Kriege werde das grösste Sterben seit dem dreissigjährigen Krieg sein.
Wenn das Getreide nicht abbefördert werden kann, soll dieses zur Schweinezucht verwandt werden. Ab 1943 verlange er eine Höchstausnutzung der Ukraine. Die Versorgung ganz Europas müsse dann sichergestellt sein. […]

My translation:

[…] In regard to food matters he [Göring] remarked that the troops must significantly reduce their consume of conserves. To the Wehrmacht he addressed the reproach that in the area around Minsk there are still huge herds of cattle running around in the woods which cannot be collected due to the partisans. The deployment of troops was absolutely necessary.
The fate of the major cities, especially Leningrad, was completely indifferent to him.[Translator’s note: the German term “schleierhaft” literally means “veilful” and may also be translated as “unexplainable”. Translating the term as “indifferent” (in the sense of “I don’t know what will happen to them, and I couldn’t care less”) was considered to better fit the context, however.] This war would see the greatest dying since the Thirty Years War.
If the grain could not be shipped off it should be used for raising pigs. From 1943 onward he required a maximum exploitation of the Ukraine. The food supply for the whole of Europe must then be guaranteed. […]

Emphasis is mine.

4.

[…]Obtaining foodstuffs from the East was one of the principal objectives of the German Reich in the war against Soviet Russia. The breakdown of Germany in 1918 had been a traumatic experience for the German leaders, and it was still remembered by Hitler and his generals. The merciless exploitation of food resources in the East was designed to make it possible for the German people for enjoy food consumption as in peacetime and, thus, to stabilise wartime morale.
The bureaucrats involved in planning this exploitation were perfectly aware of the fact that this implied “without doubt the starvation of umpteen million people”. From the very beginning, the rations handed out to the Soviet prisoners of war were far below the minimum required for subsistence.[…]

Source of quote:

Christian Streit, “The Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War”, published in: A Mosaic of Victims. Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis. Edited by Michael Berenbaum. New York University Press, 1990.

Emphasis is mine.

And one that likely would not have been followed if the shoe were on the other foot and the Allies were not winning or had not already won the war.

Says Smith.

What has he got to show for this contention?

And what difference would it make if he had anything to show?

Besides, the British had access to bursting American granaries.

Since when, Mr. Smith?

The Germans did not.

Hardly a justification for starving to death “umpteen million people” so as “to make it possible for the German people for enjoy food consumption as in peacetime and, thus, to stabilise wartime morale” (Streit, as above).