Jump to content

Pre-Marshall Plan food policy

KurtGodel77

By KurtGodel77
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

KurtGodel77 RFA

KurtGodel77

Posted
Posted
The German Red Cross was dissolved, and the International Red Cross and the few other allowed international relief agencies were kept from helping Germans through strict controls on supplies and on travel.[7] The few agencies permitted to help Germans, such as the indigenous Caritas Verband, were not allowed to use imported supplies. When the Vatican attempted to transmit food supplies from Chile to German infants the U.S. State Department forbade it.[8]

 

During 1945 it was estimated that the average German civilian in the U.S. and U.K occupation zones received 1200 calories a day.[9] Meanwhile non-German Displaced Persons were receiving 2300 calories through emergency food imports and Red Cross help.[10] In early October 1945 the U.K. government privately acknowledged in a cabinet meeting that German civilian adult death rates had risen to 4 times the pre-war levels and death rates amongst the German children had risen by 10 times the pre-war levels. [11]

 

General Lucius Clay stated in October 1945 that:

 

Eisenhower and German POWs

undoubtedly a large number of refugees have already died of starvation, exposure and disease…. The death rate in many places has increased several fold, and infant mortality is approaching 65 percent in many places. By the spring of 1946, German observers expect that epidemics and malnutrition will claim 2.5 to 3 million victims between the Oder and Elbe.[12] 

 

Eisenhower and German POWs

 

In early 1946 U.S. President Harry S. Truman finally bowed to pressure from Senators, Congress and public to allow foreign relief organisation to enter Germany in order to review the food situation. In mid-1946 non-German relief organisations were finally permitted to help starving German children.[13]

From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_an...y_after_the_war

Orton's Arm Veteran

Orton's Arm

Posted
Posted
Oh dear God.

:P

822105[/snapback]

I'm glad to know that you, at least, are able to dismiss allegations against Washington Democrats out of hand. As for myself, I haven't researched this topic enough to know what I should believe or disbelieve.

KurtGodel77 RFA

KurtGodel77

Posted
  • Author
Posted
As for myself, I haven't researched this topic enough to know what I should believe or disbelieve.

I'd encourage you to read more, if time allows. But read with an awareness that mainstream historians typically write from the Allied perspective. At times, this can create a very distorted or incomplete view of actual events.

 

Let me give you an example. The NY Times, Chicago Tribune, and other major organizations praised John Toland's book Adolf Hitler. We know that thing's mainstream. In the book, Toland mentioned that one of the reasons Hitler decided to attack Poland was because he felt the Polish were committing atrocities against ethnic Germans. But the only reason Toland brought this up at all was to show that Hitler had made a quick, emotional decision to go to war. He added that the subordinate had multiplied the numbers in the atrocity report by ten, so as to make a greater impression on Hitler. But was the original report (sans multiplication) an accurate one? Toland provides no help in answering this question. Nor have any other mainstream historians which I've encountered.

 

Germany, at least, alleged that the Polish government had embarked on a deliberate policy of atrocities against ethnic Germans, so as to provoke a German attack. Historians generally agree that Poland was eager for war, because they believed that together with the British and French, they could conquer Germany. This leads to a second distrubing question, which the mainstream historians I've seen have left unanswered--and indeed unasked.

 

Why was the Polish government so eager for war? Upon declaring war against Germany, neither Britain nor France initiated a major offensive against Germany. Germany was free to focus nearly its entire military effort on its eastern front. Clearly, the Polish government wouldn't have been eager for war unless it had been promised far more than England and France had delivered. I've read up on this issue, and the Polish were in fact promised a major French offensive according to a specific timetable. Once war came, this promise was ignored, and Poland was left in a hopeless position.

 

Britain and France sacrificed Poland to the Germans and the Soviets, the way a chess player might sacrifice a pawn. Poland remained under hostile foreign occupation until its liberation by Reagan, Thatcher, and Walesa. Britain and France didn't go to war to protect the Polish. On the contrary, a consequence of the British/French decision to go to war was that the Polish people had to endure half a century of brutality and hostile foreign occupation. Why, then, did Britain and France decide to go to war? Was the outcome of the war (a Europe mostly under Soviet control) worth the cost?

true_blue_bill Rookie

true_blue_bill

Posted
Posted
I'd encourage you to read more, if time allows. But read with an awareness that mainstream historians typically write from the Allied perspective. At times, this can create a very distorted or incomplete view of actual events.

 

Let me give you an example. The NY Times, Chicago Tribune, and other major organizations praised John Toland's book Adolf Hitler. We know that thing's mainstream. In the book, Toland mentioned that one of the reasons Hitler decided to attack Poland was because he felt the Polish were committing atrocities against ethnic Germans. But the only reason Toland brought this up at all was to show that Hitler had made a quick, emotional decision to go to war. He added that the subordinate had multiplied the numbers in the atrocity report by ten, so as to make a greater impression on Hitler. But was the original report (sans multiplication) an accurate one? Toland provides no help in answering this question. Nor have any other mainstream historians which I've encountered.

 

Germany, at least, alleged that the Polish government had embarked on a deliberate policy of atrocities against ethnic Germans, so as to provoke a German attack. Historians generally agree that Poland was eager for war, because they believed that together with the British and French, they could conquer Germany. This leads to a second distrubing question, which the mainstream historians I've seen have left unanswered--and indeed unasked.

 

Why was the Polish government so eager for war? Upon declaring war against Germany, neither Britain nor France initiated a major offensive against Germany. Germany was free to focus nearly its entire military effort on its eastern front. Clearly, the Polish government wouldn't have been eager for war unless it had been promised far more than England and France had delivered. I've read up on this issue, and the Polish were in fact promised a major French offensive according to a specific timetable. Once war came, this promise was ignored, and Poland was left in a hopeless position.

 

Britain and France sacrificed Poland to the Germans and the Soviets, the way a chess player might sacrifice a pawn. Poland remained under hostile foreign occupation until its liberation by Reagan, Thatcher, and Walesa. Britain and France didn't go to war to protect the Polish. On the contrary, a consequence of the British/French decision to go to war was that the Polish people had to endure half a century of brutality and hostile foreign occupation. Why, then, did Britain and France decide to go to war? Was the outcome of the war (a Europe mostly under Soviet control) worth the cost?

822512[/snapback]

Oh, you make a great point. Ya, Poland was a joke and seemed ready for war. Chamberlain also believed that Poland was strong and that's why he made an alliance with them instead of the hated USSR, who would have been a great deterant., I don't remember the clowns name who was in charge of Poland, but he thought his country could be a factor in war. Why was Poland eager for war??? Hitler was pressuring the Poles in the Corridore. What was that city where there were riots? Not Danzig, the other one.

KurtGodel77 RFA

KurtGodel77

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Oh, you make a great point. Ya, Poland was a joke and seemed ready for war. Chamberlain also believed that Poland was strong and that's why he made an alliance with them instead of the hated USSR, who would have been a great deterant., I don't remember the clowns name who was in charge of Poland, but he thought his country could be a factor in war. Why was Poland eager for war??? Hitler was pressuring the Poles in the Corridore. What was that city where there were riots? Not Danzig, the other one.

822597[/snapback]

It's funny you should mention the USSR; because that nation was so pivotal to the foreign policies of various nations between the wars. Between 1918 and 1921, a war took place between Poland and the Soviet Union. The British did nothing at all to help Poland due in part to pressure from the Trades Union Congress. The French sent a token force of a few hundred troops. In 1920 it appeared Poland would lose the war, as the Soviets had reached the Polish capital of Warsaw. Both Britain and France advised Poland to surrender.

 

Poland's experience clearly demonstrates that in the period between the wars, neither Britain nor France could be relied on to meaningfully resist Soviet expansionism. Fortunately for the nations of Eastern and Central Europe, Poland didn't need any real help from its supposed Western allies to successfully defend itself from Soviet invasion. It managed to win a decisive victory near its capital, and the next year the two nations signed a peace treaty. The Soviets postponed their expansion plans in order to consolidate their hold over Russia, and to build up their military and industrial might.

 

The Soviet delay created a breathing spell for the nations of Eastern and Central Europe. But while the shadow of Soviet expansionism had temporarily receded, it didn't go away. Lenin believed the Soviet Union couldn't survive unless Germany was communist. Stalin likewise envisioned a communist Germany, and toward the end of his life began planning to launch WWIII to achieve his objective. Nor is it clear that Soviet armies would have halted their march once they got to France.

 

In 1920, Poland was able to fight off the Soviets by itself because the Soviet military was weak, and the nation was still in a state of civil war. This situation wouldn't last forever. By about 1944, the Soviets would have the world's strongest military; a status they more or less would maintain at least until the 1980s.

 

A strong Germany was absolutely essential to counter Soviet expansionism. But under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was only allowed a token military. What would have happened had Germany not broken that treaty? It's quite possible the Soviets would have begun their expansion in the mid to late 1930s, conquering nations such as Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc. It's doubtful either Britain or France would have responded more strongly to these invasions in the 1930s than they did to the invasion of Poland in 1920. Germany would have been the next nation invaded, and with only a token military its fate would have been certain.

 

Hitler hoped to conquer the Soviet Union before the Soviets had completed their militarization and industrialization. Such a victory would save Germany from Soviet invasion, it would allow Germany to farm enough to feed itself, it would destroy communism, and it would prevent Germany from ever again being subjected to the type of humiliating foreign occupation it had endured after WWI. The destruction of the Soviet Union was the central goal of Hitler's foreign policy.

 

However, France signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union. It's not clear to me why France would want to take the Soviet side in its cold war against Germany. Long-term Soviet foreign policy called for global conquest. Long-term German foreign policy merely called for the conquest of the Soviet Union. Moreover, the Soviet Union was a much larger nation than Germany, both geographically and by population size. For this reason, an expansionist Soviet Union was more fearsome than an expansionist Germany.

 

Three times during the 20th century, the U.S. rescued France from its own mistakes. The first time was WWI; which France should have handled differently. The second time was WWII, which France had a lot to do with. And the third time was the U.S. decision to protect France from the fact that it got what it wanted: utter Soviet domination over Germany. Had the U.S. not ended its isolationism, the Soviet victory against Germany in WWII would have resulted in the Soviet conquest of France as well.

Simon Hall of Famer

Simon

Posted
Posted

Yeah, slaughtering millions upon millions of innocents can make a people pretty hungry. I guess we should have sent them some cheesecakes as a reward for their hard work.....

 

Germany, at least, alleged that the Polish government had embarked on a deliberate policy of atrocities against ethnic Germans, so as to provoke a German attack.

Yeah, I put a lot of credence in what the Germans have to say because they were always so honest in their dealings with the Polish. The Poles were obviously eager for war; I was in Gliewitz right before the war started and heard with my own ears a Polish radio broadcast urging everybody to take up arms against the poor innocent Germans.

Those damned war-mongering Poles started the whole thing!

GG Hall of Famer

GG

Posted
Posted
....

 

Those damned war-mongering Poles started the whole thing!

822801[/snapback]

 

Does this mean the Jews are off the hook?

KurtGodel77 RFA

KurtGodel77

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Yeah, slaughtering millions upon millions of innocents can make a people pretty hungry. I guess we should have sent them some cheesecakes as a reward for their hard work.....

Yeah, I put a lot of credence in what the Germans have to say because they were always so honest in their dealings with the Polish. The Poles were obviously eager for war; I was in Gliewitz right before the war started and heard with my own ears a Polish radio broadcast urging everybody to take up arms against the poor innocent Germans.

Those damned war-mongering Poles started the whole thing!

You are correct in implying that we shouldn't place blind faith in the German government's words. Nor should we place blind faith in the words of FDR's administration, nor in the British government's statements. For example, FDR joined the British in claiming that Hitler had plans to take over the U.S. via Mexico. Those alleged plans were a complete fabrication and a deliberate lie. Hitler's plans involved the U.S. staying neutral and isolationist. Later, Allied governments would falsely claim that the Nazis had made lampshades out of human skin. Those allegations were passed along as fact by historians such as Shirer, but have been dismissed as propaganda by more recent mainstream historians.

 

When a given government makes atrocity allegations against an enemy, those allegations should neither be automatically accepted nor rejected. They should be carefully examined by impartial historians. For example, Germany accused the Soviet Union of murdering the Polish officer corps. After having removed eastern Poland from Soviet control, the German government allowed independent Western experts to examine the mass graves the Soviets had left behind. Based on the forensic evidence they examined, the Western experts concluded the German government's accusation was true: the Soviets had clearly engaged in mass murder against the Poles.

 

What makes the atrocity allegations against the Polish government interesting to me is that Hitler himself believed these allegations. Does that mean we should accept them at face value? No. But it's enough to make me want to know more.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...