Theory and practice of the Allied warfare

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002 11:35
Location: Germany

Theory and practice of the Allied warfare

Post by POW » 20 Jun 2003 11:59

The Allies proclaimed their political goals. On 6 January 1941 Franklin D. Roosevelt has send a message to Congress on the State of the Union. "Just as US national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within the gates of the United States, so US national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and dignity of all nations, large and small. All people should get the freedom of speech, freedom to worship God in his own way, freedom from want and freedom from fear [...a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour anywhere in the world.])".

In August 1941 Roosevelt and Churchill had a meeting on the ship "Prince of Wales". The meeting resulted in the well known Atlantic Charter:
First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;
Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;
Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;
Fourth, they will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;
Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security;
Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;
Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;
Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments (2).

The United States was not at war at this time but Churchill saw from the beginning what the meaning was: The basic American-British alliance. While the Charter was signed and the second world war should be a war without aggrandizement, an employee of the judge Samuel Rosenmann (who wrote the speeches of President Roosevelt) had much to do also. His name was Mr. Kaufman. In little coffins he has send his book "Germany must perish" to all higher politicians and journalists. He exemplified his plan of a durable peace among civilized nations by sterilize all Germans to annihilate Germanism. He describes in detail how the plan could be carried out and how Germany should be divided after the war: Munich, Essen and Erfurt should become part of France, Dortmund and Hamburg to the Netherlands, Berlin to Poland, Dresden and Vienna to Czechoslovakia....

War-hysteria one could think. But long after the war the book "Road to Survival" was published by William Vogt. He predicted the end of the world by an excess of population. Instead of development aid all people who volunteer to sterilization should get an award of 50-100 Dollar. Not the Germans only but extermination of all nuisance people. In this book were many suggestions to keep the rich ones rich and the mighty ones mighty and how to protect them of the "greed" by the weakest. No, the ideas of Theodore Kaufman and William Vogt weren't antiquated. In the meantime the birth control pill was developed in the USA and tested somewhere else. Or wasn't it the case that the pill was subsidized by US tax money and tested in Puerto Rico?

One could say: Like Kaufman liked to exterminate the Germans so Hitler with the Jews. Criminals and lunatics are all over the world.

It wasn't just Kaufman's idea that Germany has to disappear from the world map. Georges Clemenceau was President of France when he said in 1917: There are 20 million Germans too much in Europe. One could read in the book "L'Allemange Ennemie" on page 300: "Il y a en Europe vingt millions d'Allemands de top." After all Clemenceau was chairman of the peace conference in Versailles when he changed the words of Clausewitz to the awful phrase: Peace is the continuation of war with other means. It is well known that the treaty of Versailles caused only evil. An evil peace because men with evil thoughts acted like: "Vae Victis".

And what about Robert Gilbert Vansittard? In the years from 1938 to 41 Vansittard was "Chief Diplomatic Adviser to His Majesty's Government" and he published his book "Black Record: Germany's Past and Present" in January 1941. He claimed that Germans are a nation of ripper. 1940 he said on the radio: The Germans are a zymic horde which stayed inwardly wild. In June 1941 he demanded: The entire German Nation and not just the Nazis has to be abolished ... to make sure the world can live in peace. In the magazine "The Nineteenth Century and After" one could read in April 1942 his words: From the British view it is better to know the Russians at the Rhine than the Germans at the Volga.

This people had no effect on sate policy one could say. But is that really true? After the war not only Kaufman and Vansittard liked to see the "Herrenrasse" punished for their deeds. Many people hade the same thought them and therefore consequentially Allied policy was that way. Right, the Germans weren't sterilized but wasn't it possible to abolish Germanism on a different way? The Allied countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other like it was stated in the Atlantic Charter. Nevertheless Germany lost a large part of it's land in the east. A loss of millions of acres agricultural land. The so called granary of Germany was lost. Fishing and the production of fertilizer was forbidden. The needed labourer were held for a unknown time in custody. The dismantling caused more damage to the German industry than years of terror bombing. It wasn't possible to trade with foreign countries - much worse it was not even possible to trade within Germany due to the different zone borders. The banking industry was annihilated. Many people were banned from profession. The first years after WW2 were just chaotic in Germany. Then the affair between Wall street and Moscow (like Colonel Lindbergh called it) crumbled and West-Europe became an isle since it ended about 100 km east of Vienna. West-Europe was clear for a blockade at any time like Raymond Clendenin Miller demanded it (an old crony of President Roosevelt).

Like 1918 thoughts of revenge controlled the decisions how to treat Germany. Then the situation changed. The first showdown in US-Russian relations was in June 1945. It was the first day of the conference of the United Nations. Mexico requested that the US should get the chairmanship. Immediately after that the Argentinean dictator Peron was affiliate against the agreement of Roosevelt and Stettinius with Stalin in Yalta. The articles 51-52 came into force which made possible to arrange regional special agreements for collective defence. As result the "neighbours" Turkey and Norway became part of the NATO. Moscow noticed very well what was going on. At 7 Augustus 1945, one day after the destruction of Hiroshima, Stalin ordered to produce irrespective of any costs an atomic bomb to catch up the American advantage. Then the Marshal Plan came into force. The Russians couldn't agree to the conditions cause they don't wanted to be a satellite of the US. So the plan divided not only Germany but whole Europe.

In 1941 one of the goals was a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour anywhere in the world. No nation except one it seems.

POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002 11:35
Location: Germany

Post by POW » 22 Jun 2003 15:21

Since no one of the 5042 registered members disagree to this I have to consider they support my statements. That's great :D

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Theory and practice of the Allied warfare

Post by Roberto » 22 Jun 2003 17:19

POW wrote:This people had no effect on sate policy one could say. But is that really true?
Well, I don't see what effect a figure as ridiculous as Theodore "Sterilizer" Kaufman could have had on the Allied nations' state policy.
Theodore Kaufman

The ideology of Holocaust denial necessarily must deal in moral equivalencies. The Daily Express headline and Chaim Weizmann’s letter are two of the most salient examples. However, the most interesting and provocative figure is not a Nazi or even a prominent Jew. Rather, it is an obscure Jewish writer named Theodore Kaufman.
Very little is known about Kaufman. The information available on him suggests that he was a loner with no ties to any organization. Kaufman wrote a book entitled Germany Must Perish in 1941. The theme of his book is that most Germans were an inherently warlike and aggressive people who would forever be starting a war unless something was done to stop them. His solution was to sterilize the Germans so that they could not procreate. However, this sterilization plan did not apply to German-Americans.
Kaufman’s book does not appear to have been reviewed in any publications. It is not listed in the Book Review Digest for 1941 and 1942. This is not unusual since he had to publish the book under the Argyle Press, in Newark, New Jersey. The Argyle Press was a creation of Kaufman himself. Nevertheless, denier Paul Rassinier saw Kaufman’s book as constituting a major threat to Germany. Similarly, Wilhelm Stäglich cited Kaufman as justification for Germany’s anti-Jewish policies.
Both Kaufman and his book would probably have gone completely unnoticed if it had not been for a Time article on March 24, 1941. This is where David Irving, ever the inventor of historical desideratum, enters the Kaufman fiasco. Underneath a photograph of Kaufman, Irving states that Time “lauds the book.” Irving writes: “The [book’s] dust cover carried endorsements from Time magazine, the Washington Post and the New York Times. Irving gives Kaufman prominent attention in his Goebbels book. He even goes so far as to quote from Eichmann’s memoirs that “Kaufman ’s plan for the complete Ausrottung of the German people was known to us at the time when the first order was given for the physical destruction of the Jews.” Thus, there is an implication, subtly stated, that Germany’s destruction of the Jews was a defensive measure. Interestingly, here Irving uses the word ausrottung as meaning extermination.
The cover of the book that Irving reproduces states that this is “The Book that Hitler Fears.” However, this cover and the alleged endorsement cited by Irving on the back cover as not from the original book. Germany Must Perish was republished by Liberty Bell Publications in 1980, a printing arm of the neo-Nazi Liberty Lobby. On the inside of the book’s front cover we are told that “[t]his book so completely unnerved Dr. Goebbels that he denounced it on the front of every newspaper in Germany and over the entire German radio network.”
These claims will now be examined.
Time magazine was said to have called the theme of this book “a sensational idea”. Both the book’s back cover and an article by Irving quote this portion of the Time article. The reason for this is obvious: both Liberty Bell and Irving are attempting to give the impression that a significant American media outlet was endorsing Kaufman’s idea. However, not surprisingly, this quote is taken out of context. Time analogized Kaufman’s idea to that of an early 18th century writer, Dean Swift, who proposed that Ireland cure its economic ills by selling “its starving children as dressed meat.” Time also notes: “no less grisly than the Dean’s it [Kaufman’s idea] was not even supposed to be ironic.”
Time article on Kaufman’s book is totally derisive. Kaufman is subjected to ridicule and compared to Nazi Jew-baiter and publisher Julius Streicher. Kaufman’s book is stated to be “[s]trictly a one man job” and he informed Time that he did not have any organization or backers. He had done all of the legwork in promoting the book. However, the most significant part of the Time article deals with Kaufman’s first sterilization plan. In 1939 he advocated sterilizing “Americans so that their children might not become homicidal monsters. In step with the times, Sterilizer Kaufman had simply transferred his basic idea to the enemy.” Thus, any rational person reading this article would have understood that Kaufman was (1) mentally unbalanced (2) spoke only for himself and (3) had a morbid fascination with sterilization.
The so-called endorsement from the New York Times is non-existent. The back cover of the Liberty Bell edition of the book cites the Times as calling Kaufman’s idea “A plan for Permanent Peace Among Civilized Nations”! However, the New York Times only discusses Kaufman twice in 1941 and neither article speaks favorably of the book. As for the Washington Post “endorsement”, it is as apocryphal as that of the New York Times. Using the methodology of Liberty Bell and Irving one could argue that Irving endorsed the book because he calls it “extraordinary.”
Nevertheless, Irving does give some indication that the book was used for propaganda purposes. Irving notes that Goebbels “gleefully” wrote in his diary: “This Jew has done a disservice to the enemy. If he had composed the book at my behest he couldn’t have done a better job.” Goebbels also “issued the book with a photograph showing President Roosevelt apparently dictating the contents.” The German Press was also claiming that Roosevelt supported and inspired the book. At the time Germany and the United States were not at war. We may someday see a denier accusation that Germany’s declaration of war on the United States was because of Kaufman’s book.
[…]
For obvious reasons deniers prefer to ignore Streicher and focus on Kaufman. Thus, Rassinier goes so far as to claim that “Kaufman’s voice was the [sic] tocsin of the forthcoming entry of the United States into the war …” In an attempt to justify Hitler’s Jewish policies, Rassinier quotes Kaufman as stating the German Jews agreed with his sterilization plans. In fact, Kaufman wrote no such thing. Moreover, Kaufman’s book says very little about Jews under Nazi rule.
[…]
The Kaufman saga does not end with Germany Must Perish in 1941. In 1942 Kaufman wrote a pamphlet entitled No More German Wars. In this pamphlet Kaufman says nothing about sterilization. He offers a ten point peace plan for Germany after the war. Among his proposals were: a system of education to inculcate German youth with democratic ideals; a works program for German soldiers returning from the war; and an economic council to strike a balance between German imports and exports. For obvious reasons, no denier has even mentioned this pamphlet. However, these types of ideas, especially inculcation of democratic ideals, were responsible for the post war West German economic and political resurgence. It would seem only fair that if deniers want to blame Kaufman for having a hand in the events of World War II, they should also credit him with bringing about Germany’s post war emergence as a political and economic force in European affairs.
Source of quote:

John C. Zimmerman, Holocaust Denial, pages 166-170.
POW wrote:After the war not only Kaufman and Vansittard liked to see the "Herrenrasse" punished for their deeds. Many people hade the same thought them
Really the same thoughts as Kaufman et al? I think you're exaggerating a bit, POW.
POW wrote: and therefore consequentially Allied policy was that way. Right, the Germans weren't sterilized but wasn't it possible to abolish Germanism on a different way?
Was that a) intended and b) applied as goverment policy?
POW wrote: Like 1918 thoughts of revenge controlled the decisions how to treat Germany.
Was that so? Vengeful statements from Allied policy-makers regarding occupied Germany might be helpful.
POW wrote: In 1941 one of the goals was a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour anywhere in the world. No nation except one it seems.
There has to be a world policeman, don't you think so? :wink:

POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002 11:35
Location: Germany

Post by POW » 22 Jun 2003 20:59

Roberto wrote:Well, I don't see what effect a figure as ridiculous as Theodore "Sterilizer" Kaufman could have had on the Allied nations' state policy.
Really the same thoughts as Kaufman et al? I think you're exaggerating a bit, POW.
Of course I was exaggerating to move some minds. :) Neverthless there can be no doubt that the Allied nations liked to see Germany punished for their deeds. 55 million vitims in WW2 caused unthinkable hate. The idea of revenge was in the mind of most people - and policy makers also of course.
Was that a) intended and b) applied as goverment policy?
In earlier discussions I already pointed out how Allied decisions caused a food problem. Some could get the intension starvation should solve the problem of Germanism. Morgenthau's spirit all around. Fortunately the situation changed and Germans became an Ally of the western nations. Well, one part of Germany. The eradication of Germanism was carried on with other means resulting in the speech of President Rau: 'One can't say I'm proud to be a German. One can be proud on his own achievments and that's it.' Or like the TIMES wrote about the FRG: 'it's a national economy in search of a nation.'
Was that so? Vengeful statements from Allied policy-makers regarding occupied Germany might be helpful.
April 1946: Herbert Clark Hoover critize Field Marshal Montgomery cause he reduced the rations from 2250 to 1550 calories a day. But in reality in the British zone the people got 1040 calories, in the US zone 1275 and in the French zone 927 calories a day.

The Podsdam Converence caused that Germany lost 25 percent of its land which was was agricultural mainly. Further it caused that remaining West-Germany got with the refugees 15 million additional eaters. In West-Germany were 75 percent of all Germans instead of 57 percent like it was before.

Ronald Cross said: We will force the Germans to tight their belt hole for hole until none is left.

Berlin Converence at 28 March 1946: Article III banned the productions of ships of all types, boats for fishery also. The directive Nr. 33, 37 and 44/45 of the Allied Control Council prohibited any navigation at open sea. Remaing German ships were sold.

Now I have to care for my family otherwise I cause the 3'rd worldwar in my house. :wink: Later more if you like.
There has to be a world policeman, don't you think so? :wink:
To be honest I would like to see a powerful UN instead of a world policeman.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23572
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 22 Jun 2003 22:10

POW -- After reading your arguments, I'm having a hard time answering the question "So what?"

POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002 11:35
Location: Germany

Post by POW » 23 Jun 2003 08:26

David Thompson wrote:POW -- After reading your arguments, I'm having a hard time answering the question "So what?"
That's what I'm expected of you.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”