Hitler's Peace Treaties

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28868
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Hitler's Peace Treaties

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
You know that no country from Poland to France to Czechoslovakia to the British posed a military threat to Germany. So you dodge dealing with Nazi aggression to all of Germany's neighbours by playing word games with bits of what I have said.
The bolded part sounds a lot like this...
The British, as shown no longer believed Hitler's supposed offers after he had breached the Munich Agreement and then invaded Poland.
I'll take this as a concession that deep down you know I am right to throw your own words back against you in order to answer your own question from before like this:
Where did I say that because Hitler made a few gains that alone proves his offers?
Which of course you couldn't handle so you accused me of ignoring the context of your words.
:lol:
Mixed up crap to try and smoke screen your inability to deal with my points and evidence your claims. Hitler kept on invading countries which posed no threat to Germany to impose his political system on them/gain land for lebensraum/go after the Jews of Europe.
Werd wrote:Dodging Udo Walendy, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, and Jurgen Rieger again I see. Since you start from a false premise, I will not dignify the rest of your argument. I'll just move to the next issue.
What false premise?
That France and Poland and England were NOT agitating for war with Germany and were only pursuing protection. Because you are AGAIN dodging Walendy Schultze-Rhonof and Rieger. It's all that you can do to maintain your ridiculous narrative.
The policy of appeasement was clearly to avoid war. Once Hitler had shown appeasement was not going to work by invading the rest of Czechoslovakia war became an odds on certainty.

Werd wrote:
You call Churchill the war monger because he wanted to stand up and fight Nazi aggression and invasions of numerous countries.
And,
Claiming Germany was forced to attack all of its neighbours when none posed a credible military threat is you lying.
Once again, you are dodging proof that churchill and the British were two faced. What is contained in Walendy, Schultze-Rhonof and Rieger is what I summarized already. So I will post it again.
So I finished the War that had Many Fathers. I think the highlight of the book was at the end where he lists in detail every correspondence on record between the German, British, and Polish governments in the couple of weeks leading up to the 9/1/39 attack on Poland. Hitler actually canceled the attack order 3 times in order to give more time to negotiate with Poland. But he kept coming to a roadblock. The British government kept telling the Germans that they needed to negotiate the return of Danzig and the protection of German minorities directly with the Poles. Meanwhile the British were telling Poland that they should not negotiate with Germany and that they should dig in their heels because if there was a war Britain and France would have their back. So when Germany kept trying to negotiate with Poland, Poland would never agree to direct negotiations and would delay. This happened over a period of 2 weeks. During this time there was a crisis in which there were about 80,000 German refugees from Poland, the German (and Ukrainian and Jewish) minorities in Poland were being discriminated against and kicked out of their jobs, there were several border skirmishes between Polisha and German troops, and the Polish military fired anti-aircraft battery's at German commercial aircraft at least 3 times! Hitler's generals told him that the absolute latest date that he could attack Poland was September 1st, because they might get bogged down due to weather if they attacked later than that. So Hitler delayed as long as he could and then gave the attack order.

My conclusion, after reading all that, is that Hitler was really trying to diplomatically resolve this crisis, but the British wouldn't let him do so, because they were sick of Germany growing stronger without having to spill blood.
You keep ignoring my responses to you and that claim . Appeasement was giving Hitler ample opportunity to grow stronger, gain land without blood shed and to find a diplomatic solution. Once Hitler abandoned diplomacy by invading the rest of Czechoslovakia he went on an invasion spree and you keep dodging that none of those countries posed a military threat to Germany.
Werd wrote: Plus, later on, the Soviets ended up being neighbours with Germany after the division of Poland. And Stalin intended to run over Germany aggressively before they could do anything to the Soviet Union. You have to dodge Bunich, Suvorov, and Hoffmann to maintain that the SU had no plans but it's clearly wrong and I am clearly wasting my time with you since you refuse to budge on that issue about the Soviet Union.
How many times do you have to be told that I accept that the Soviet Union did have plans? Why do you keep ignoring that all the major powers had various plans and were re-arming?
Werd wrote:
It also shows how you think violence is the justifiable way to deal with anyone who you do not like. Hence you are so forgiving of Hitler.
Hence, you are so forgiving of Stalin.
If Stalin had invaded Germany he would have been in the wrong for starting a Soviet Nazi war.
Werd wrote:
Thankyou for admitted you think lebensraum was justified.
You're welcome.
That completes the case you are an out and out Nazi apologist who cannot accept they did anything wrong by invading the rest of Europe. So long Hitler did it , it was OK
This completes the case that you are an out and out Stalin and Churchill apologist who cannot accept Soviets did anything wrong or the British did anyting wrong that cost many innocent Germans their lives.
If the war had started with a British invasion of the Netherlands with the intention of marching on Berlin, or a Soviet invasion of Poland with the intention of marching on Berlin, I would not be forgiving Churchill nor Stalin.
Werd wrote:
East front: the official lie is that Germany attacked ‘unsuspecting peace-loving USSR’ in search for Lebensraum. All baloney. It is true that when Hitler was a nobody and was doing time in Landsberg prison in 1923 and had time to write his Mein Kampf pamphlet, that he was dreaming of acquiring ‘Lebensraum‘ in the East, notably in the Ukraine. Why? Because the murderous British food blockade during the Winter of 1918/1919, which forced Germany on its knees and got nearly one million Germans killed, brought Hitler the conviction that Germany did not have the means to feed itself and that it needed to acquire new land. And since the other European powers had colonized almost the entire world, there was nothing else left than land in the East.
My response:
the point is that earlier, it was at one specific point in time. But thanks to sneaky British behaviour at a different place in a different time, things changed. What is Germany supposed to do? Take a chance at letting it's people starve? And I'm the one who ignores the context of things?
So long as Stalin or Churchill did it, it was OK.
No. No country can justify invading another to secure food supplies for war time. You are making a strawman that I forgive and justify Churchill and Stalin for everything and anything. Fact is you are the forgiver here with Hitler.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28868
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Hitler's Peace Treaties

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:...... Can someone seemingly quite intelligent also display simultaneously really quite stupid behaviour?? :?
.....
Yes, you, regularly.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9227
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hitler's Peace Treaties

Post by been-there »

Classic! :)
An argument based upon reading an excerpt from a biased wikipedia entry, which in turn is based soley on a British propaganda agent's unverified/unverifiable, anecdotal negative allegation from an unsubstantiated rumour claiming Hitler's reaction to negotiating:
"Hitler exclaimed furiously soon after the meeting with Chamberlain: "Gentlemen, this has been my first international conference and I can assure you that it will be my last".[26]
Hitler now regarded Chamberlain with utter contempt. A British diplomat in Berlin was informed by reliable sources that Hitler viewed Chamberlain as "an impertinent busybody who spoke the ridiculous jargon of an outmoded democracy. The umbrella, which to the ordinary German was the symbol of peace, was in Hitler's view only a subject of derision".[27] Also, Hitler had been heard saying: "If ever that silly old man comes interfering here again with his umbrella, I'll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers."[26] In one of his public speeches after Munich, Hitler declared: "Thank God we have no umbrella politicians in this country".[26]"
All of the above allegations come from the primary source of Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick's 1959 memoir. Any honest and impartial reader will be able to judge for themselves whether Sir Ivone was a neutral source, when they learn that he was a professional British governmental war-time psy-op propaganda agent and spymaster.

Consequently anyone who is genuinely, honestly and intelligently investigatinginto the truth of WW2 should not base their understanding on negative unsubstantiated tittle-tattle coming from the likes of such a man. Now if a German diplomat or key player had confirmed any of these claims, we then could give them some credence. But to my knowledge, NONE of them do. So unless anyone can a substantiating source, it seems not a single person involved in the negotiations from either the German contigent or the British, ever claimed anything remotely like what Sir Ivone put in the mouth of the elected German Chancellor Herr A. Hitler.
Therefore we can safely assume this is deliberate victor propaganda, and only either a stupid person, or a naively delusional person, or a deliberately deceitful person would use such propaganda to buttress a refuted belief system.
Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick was first secretary at the British Embassy at Berlin from 1933 to 1938.
During the last year of the war he was stationed in the Netherlands from where he worked as a Spymaster, running a network of British agents operating in German-occupied territory.

During the Second World War Kirkpatrick was once again employed in the propaganda and information work which he had so relished twenty-five years earlier.
Appointed Director of the Foreign Division of the Ministry of Information in April 1940, he became Controller of the European services of the BBC in October 1941.
During this time, he made a major contribution which included the task of interviewing Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess, following Hess's flight to Scotland in May 1941. His report on Hess was shown only to the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, Lord Privy Seal Clement Attlee and Minister of Aircraft Production Lord Beaverbrook.

After the war, he became Permanent Under-Secretary for the German Section at the Foreign Office in 1949.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28868
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Hitler's Peace Treaties

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:.......
Consequently anyone who is genuinely, honestly and intelligently investigatinginto the truth of WW2 should not base their understanding on negative unsubstantiated tittle-tattle .........
You do it all the time in the threads where you cherry pick quotes to claim the Jews are evil and started WWII.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9227
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hitler's Peace Treaties

Post by been-there »

Nessie wrote:
been-there wrote:.......
Consequently anyone who is genuinely, honestly and intelligently investigating into the truth of WW2 should not base their understanding on negative, unsubstantiated tittle-tattle .........
You do it all the time in the threads where you cherry pick quotes to claim the Jews are evil and started WWII.
Ho ho. :ugeek:
That is a quite outrageous lie and strawman misrepresentation of my actual views. So what an inadvertently excellent demonstration of your level of contribution to genuine debate here at RODOH, you have now provided.

Just for the record, I have NEVER ever written and claimed ANYONE is evil.
I don't believe anyone IS such a thing. I am of the opinion that actions or motivations can be described as "evil" but not any person.
So I have NEVER ever claimed "the Jews are evil" and I don't think that.
Nor have I ever claimed that "the Jews started WWII", and neither do I think that either.

You have here demonstrated how desperately unsupportable your arguments are, if you to need to stoop to such low levels of gross and dishonest misrepresentation, in order to defend them.
Nice work Nessie. :)
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3376
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Hitler's Peace Treaties

Post by blake121666 »

Nessie wrote:Hitler kept on invading countries which posed no threat to Germany to impose his political system on them/gain land for lebensraum/go after the Jews of Europe.
Why even bother continuing a discussion with someone who says things like this? Evidence these assertions Nessie. Quit running on propaganda movie script fumes with this stuff you post.

Werd
Posts: 10026
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Hitler's Peace Treaties

Post by Werd »

Recall this from me:
You know that no country from Poland to France to Czechoslovakia to the British posed a military threat to Germany. So you dodge dealing with Nazi aggression to all of Germany's neighbours by playing word games with bits of what I have said.
The bolded part sounds a lot like this...
The British, as shown no longer believed Hitler's supposed offers after he had breached the Munich Agreement and then invaded Poland.
I'll take this as a concession that deep down you know I am right to throw your own words back against you in order to answer your own question from before like this:
Where did I say that because Hitler made a few gains that alone proves his offers were hollow?
Which of course you couldn't handle so you accused me of ignoring the context of your words.
:lol:
Which leaves Nessie no other option but to say:
Mixed up crap to try and smoke screen your inability to deal with my points and evidence your claims.
I quoted your points and threw them back at you. :lol:
NOTE: I was missing the words "were hollow" from before...
Hitler kept on invading countries which posed no threat to Germany to impose his political system on them/gain land for lebensraum/go after the Jews of Europe.
And,
Once Hitler had shown appeasement was not going to work by invading the rest of Czechoslovakia war became an odds on certainty.
And,
Once Hitler abandoned diplomacy by invading the rest of Czechoslovakia he went on an invasion spree and you keep dodging that none of those countries posed a military threat to Germany.
In other words, Hitler was a bad boy by violating the Munich agreement. Yet Rieger refuted this already.
:roll:
Here we go round and round
No. No country can justify invading another to secure food supplies for war time.
Let's revisit again:
East front: the official lie is that Germany attacked ‘unsuspecting peace-loving USSR’ in search for Lebensraum. All baloney. It is true that when Hitler was a nobody and was doing time in Landsberg prison in 1923 and had time to write his Mein Kampf pamphlet, that he was dreaming of acquiring ‘Lebensraum‘ in the East, notably in the Ukraine. Why? Because the murderous British food blockade during the Winter of 1918/1919, which forced Germany on its knees and got nearly one million Germans killed, brought Hitler the conviction that Germany did not have the means to feed itself and that it needed to acquire new land. And since the other European powers had colonized almost the entire world, there was nothing else left than land in the East.
My response:
the point is that earlier, it was at one specific point in time. But thanks to sneaky British behaviour at a different place in a different time, things changed. What is Germany supposed to do? Take a chance at letting it's people starve? And I'm the one who ignores the context of things?
I await proof that the Nazis left any civilians dead from starvation in their wake, and did not plan to feed themselves at the expense of the local populace. The Nazis were such badasses according to Nessie...yet how do we explain the Nazis struggle to try and feed the Russian population as they advanced into Russia? The scorch earth policy of the Soviets led by Stalin had them rip up gardens, tear down factories, rip up railway lines, shut down electrical plants and move them further and further east so the nazi army would be stretched thinner and thinner. Apparently Stalin did this WITHOUT CONCERN for his local population. The Germans saw this and were horrified. They struggled to feed the populace that Stalin was putting on a sacrificial altar.

http://codoh.com/library/document/2112/
#1
After the Polish defeat, the Soviet government immediately exerted heavy pressure on Germany for a revision of the treaty. In order to maintain peace, Hitler agreed in the second treaty, the so-called Border and Friendship Agreement of 28 September 1939, that Germany would relinquish its interest in most of Lithuania in exchange for the area between the Vistula and the Bug rivers with a population of about 3.5 million, including more than 300,000 Jews.[2] This area had been occupied by the Soviets for only a few days, but the Red Army had taken the area's food supplies and livestock with it as it departed. As a result the Germans actually had to bring in large quantities of food to forestall starvation in this agricultural area.[3] This episode should have been a lesson to Germany. It was not.
#2
The measures taken by the Soviet Union between 1940 and 1942 aimed not only at furthering the Soviet war effort, but also at harming the German enemy even at the cost of huge losses of life among Soviet civilians. The Soviet scorched-earth strategy included the deportation of millions of men, women and children; the resettlement and reestablishment of thousands of factories; the withdrawal of almost the entire railway rolling stock; the annihilation of raw material depots; the removal of most of the agricultural machinery, cattle and grain stocks; the systematic destruction, burning and blowing up of the immovable infrastructure, inventories of all kinds, factory buildings, mines, residential areas, public buildings, public records, and even cultural monuments; and the intentional starvation of the civilian population which remained behind to face German occupation. It was basically a policy which unscrupulously used the civilian population as a strategic pawn. The extent and timing of this policy action is confirmed by so many sources that no real difference of opinion exists in this regard. What is strange is how scantily it has been covered so far in the scholarly literature.
#3
An interdepartmental proposal of the Economic Staff dated 3 October 1941 on the supplies needed for Russian cities even went so far as to suggest that the remaining larger cities not yet in German hands should be cut off and encircled, and that their capitulation should not be accepted.

This, of course, was militarily quite out of the question, but it shows the desperation with which the German authorities of the conquered areas viewed the effects of the Soviet strategy of leaving it up to the occupying armies to feed millions of starving Soviet citizens! The report continued:

It has been our experience that the Russians remove or destroy systematically all of the food supplies before retreating. The urban population of the conquered cities thus will either have to be fed by the Wehrmacht or it will have to starve. Obviously, by forcing us to provide additional food to the Russian population, the Russian leadership intends to worsen the already difficult food situation of the German Reich through a reduction of the domestic German food supply. As a matter of fact, the present food situation permits us to feed the Russian urban population from our own stocks only if we reduce the supplies to the Army or if we lower the rations at home.[24]

During the very early period of the war, Soviet destruction in the agricultural sector was confined to the machine and tractor stations. As a rule, these stations were found empty and the machines and vehicles left behind had been made unusable. At first, cattle stocks were relatively intact. But this changed rapidly during the following weeks. As the war progressed from west to east, almost no cattle, grain and gasoline supplies were found. The Luftwaffe and prisoners of war reported that the Soviets busily harvested the fields as they retreated. After the Ukraine was liberated, it became obvious that the food situation would slowly but surely become catastrophic. In many cases even seed grains had to be distributed to help the starving Ukrainians. This, in turn, reduced the acreage that could be planted at a time when the lack of tractors, gasoline, and draft horses had already made its negative effects felt. It is estimated that the so-called Occupied Eastern Territories produced 43 million tons of grain under Soviet rule in 1940. Under German administration the recorded harvest in 1941 was not more than 13 million tons. One reason for this small harvest was the fact that the German drive into Russia was swiftest in the northern and center sections of the theater of war, thus enabling the Soviets to take with them or destroy considerable parts of the harvest in the Ukraine. In 1942 even less was harvested, only 11.7 million tons. According to Dallin, the German administration succeeded in seeding not more than three quarters of the prewar acreage. Fertilizer was practically unavailable and the yield per acre was correspondingly lower in 1942. Compared to the average yields per hectare of approximately 2200 pounds (14 bushels/acre) in the Ukraine in the late 1930s, the Germans managed to obtain just 1500 pounds (10 bushels/acre).[25] Furthermore, the Soviet scorched earth policy now began to show its full effects: The use of seed grains to relieve the worst hunger in the cities, the increasing partisan menace and the dearth of personnel and machinery reduced the harvest potential drastically.

German supervisory personnel in the countryside were much too thinly spread to enforce effectively a strict delivery of agricultural products. To be sure, at the expense of the goodwill and the pro-German attitude of the peasant population, it was possible to locate and requisition some additional agricultural produce for the cities, but, judging by the misery in the cities, this was by far not rigorous enough. Of course, the Germans periodically tried to "comb through" the countryside to find these hoarded stocks but their efforts were marked with little success. The retreating Red Army had removed the entire organization necessary to collect and distribute the harvest of the collectivized agriculture system, and the German administration was forced to set up its own collection and distribution system for agricultural products – not an easy task considering the harrowing wartime conditions. Not only was time much too short and wartime conditions simply too severe to organize such an administration successfully, but the brutality with which the Bolsheviks had enforced their claims on agricultural production was simply not in keeping with the German mentality or German policy which – contrary to Allied and Soviet propaganda – aimed at finding a basis of mutual understanding with the liberated Slavic and Baltic populations.
Those bastard Nazis! Trying to feed the local populace that Stalin didn't give two damns about!

P.S.
15-35 minute mark is the best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBLgZAv_Iqo

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28868
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Hitler's Peace Treaties

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:
Nessie wrote:
been-there wrote:.......
Consequently anyone who is genuinely, honestly and intelligently investigating into the truth of WW2 should not base their understanding on negative, unsubstantiated tittle-tattle .........
You do it all the time in the threads where you cherry pick quotes to claim the Jews are evil and started WWII.
Ho ho. :ugeek:
That is a quite outrageous lie and strawman misrepresentation of my actual views. So what an inadvertently excellent demonstration of your level of contribution to genuine debate here at RODOH, you have now provided.
It was a criticism of your hypocrisy and summation of your position which is not to be taken literally. :roll:
been-there wrote:Just for the record, I have NEVER ever written and claimed ANYONE is evil.
I don't believe anyone IS such a thing. I am of the opinion that actions or motivations can be described as "evil" but not any person.
So I have NEVER ever claimed "the Jews are evil" and I don't think that.
Nor have I ever claimed that "the Jews started WWII", and neither do I think that either......
Will you finally answer questions you have dodged on many occasions? To what extent do you think that the Jews caused WWII? Are they more to blame or less than the Nazis?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28868
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Hitler's Peace Treaties

Post by Nessie »

blake121666 wrote:
Nessie wrote:Hitler kept on invading countries which posed no threat to Germany to impose his political system on them/gain land for lebensraum/go after the Jews of Europe.
Why even bother continuing a discussion with someone who says things like this? Evidence these assertions Nessie. Quit running on propaganda movie script fumes with this stuff you post.
The size, training and equipment of German army in 1939 meant that it was the most powerful in Europe.

http://spartacus-educational.com/2WWgermanA.htm

"In 1939 the German Army had 98 divisions available for the invasion of Poland. Although some were ill-equipped veteran reservists, the still had 1.5 million well-trained men available for action. It also had 9 panzer divisions. Each one had 328 tanks, 8 support battalions and 6 artillery batteries.
When the German Army mounted its Western Offensive in 1940, it had had 2.5 million men and 2,500 tanks. Whereas the French Army had the ability to mobilize 5 million men, the army supported by motorized infantry units and aircraft easily secured victory."

The countries Hitler invaded that posed no military threat to him; Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium. You can read about their respective sizes here

http://ww2-weapons.com/Armies/Orders-of-Battle.htm

For example, the Danish army consisted of "....4,340 to the infantry, 465 to the Life Guards, 374 to the cavalry, 1,120 to the artillery, and 300 men to the engineers. On 8 April 1940 there were 6,600 conscripts with eleven month’s training service with the colours, as well as a further 2,050 non-combatants. During the German invasion part of this force was on leave, while a further seven per cent were unfit for duty."

If you want to argue that any of the countries listed could invade Germany, please go ahead. France did have an army that in size was a threat to Germany. But the tactic was defence and the Maginot Line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line.

Here is Hitler's policy of lebensraum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum and what the Nazis had mapped out for the larger Germany including the lebensraum http://www.codex99.com/cartography/122.html

Image

This is an example of how Hitler imposed his political system on other countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occ ... rld_War_II

"After the success of the invasion, a German military government was established in Belgium, bringing the territory under the direct rule of the Wehrmacht. Thousands of Belgian soldiers were taken as prisoners of war, and many were not released until 1945. The German administration juggled competing objectives of maintaining order while extracting material from the territory for the war effort."

Here is what happened to the Jews who lived in the countries that the Nazis invaded. There was a plan http://prorev.com/wannsee.htm where the number of Jews was listed

Germany proper 131,800
Austria 43,700
Eastern territories 420,000
General Government 2,284,000
Bialystok 400,000
Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia 74,200
Estonia - free of Jews -
Latvia 3,500
Lithuania 34,000
Belgium 43,000
Denmark 5,600
France / occupied territory 165,000
unoccupied territory 700,000
Greece 69,600
Netherlands 160,800
Norway 1,300

and the Nazis did indeed go after the Jews by rounding them up and sending them to various concentration/death camps, for example, the Dutch Jews http://www.sobiborinterviews.nl/en/nede ... erlevenden

"The transports
Tuesday 2 March 1943 1105 deportees no survivors
Wednesday 10 March 1943 1105 deportees 13 survivors
Wednesday 17 March 1943 964 deportees 1 survivor
Tuesday 23 March 1943 1250 deportees no survivors
Tuesday 30 March 1943 1255 deportees no survivors
Tuesday 6 April 1943 2020 deportees 2 survivors
Tuesday 13 April 1943 1204 deportees no survivors
Tuesday 20 April 1943 1166 deportees no survivors
Tuesday 27 April 1943 1204 deportees no survivors
Tuesday 4 May 1943 1187 deportees no survivors
Tuesday 11 May 1943 1446 deportees 1 survivor
Tuesday 18 May 1943 2511 deportees no survivors
Tuesday 25 May 1943 2862 deportees no survivors
Tuesday 1 June 1943 3006 deportees 1 survivor
Tuesday 8 June 1943 3017 deportees no survivors
Tuesday 29 June 1943 2397 deportees no survivors
Tuesday 6 July 1943 2417 deportees no survivors
Tuesday 13 July 1943 1988 deportees no survivors
Tuesday 20 July 1943 2209 deportees no survivors"

That is all basic stuff easily accessible on line and known to anyone with some knowledge of the Nazis and WWII.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28868
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Hitler's Peace Treaties

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:......yet how do we explain the Nazis struggle to try and feed the Russian population as they advanced into Russia? ......
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com - Nazi war crimes in Ukraine.

"Following the invasion of the USSR in June 1941, the Germans took approximately 5.8 million prisoners of war, whom they held in open-air camps. Some 3.3 million perished as a result of deliberate starvation, neglect, physical abuse, and lack of international protection. More than 1.3 million prisoners of war died in approximately 160 concentration camps throughout Ukraine......By the autumn of 1941, serious food shortages were being reported in Kyiv and Lviv, but nothing was done to alleviate them: the provision of food to the army and the German population was seen as the overriding priority. General Walther von Reichenau wrote in November 1941 that feeding locals and prisoners of war was an ‘unnecessary humanitarian gesture,’ and a report of the German Economic Armament Staff dated 2 December 1941 advocated the ‘elimination of superfluous eaters (Jews and inhabitants of large Ukrainian cities such as Kyiv, which get no food rations at all).’ Urban dwellers were forbidden to change their places of residence or buy food in villages on pain of arrest and fine. Kyiv lost about 60 percent of its population, and Kharkiv lost about 80,000 persons to starvation. High-calorie foods were reserved for Germans. Ultimately more than 80 percent of the food that Germany took from the eastern territories came from Ukraine."

So how do you explain your claim?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 19 guests