I’ve been researching France in World War 2 recently, and I stumbled upon this article on JSTOR:
Unfortunately, my regular free JSTOR account cannot access this.
Please let me know if you have access to this article in any way. Thank you!
Hiroshima visit, a missed op.
-
It’s illegal because Kurt wanted Germany and japan to win the war since the Allies were the “REAL” criminals according to his study.
-
@Imperious:
He’s not German. More like wannabe German… and don’t think for a second his name is “Kurt” either.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm
Right Kurt– I’ll keep lying… Japan never attacked Honolulu, pictures don’t matter and Japan did cause way more deaths than what Americans caused Japan.
Take his claim that I’ve cited neo-Nazi sources.
The claim is YOUR [sic] the neo nazi and you read nothing but rubbish that pollutes the mind. You probably go online and find reading material that confirms your ridiculous ideas, then buy those books. Probably have a whole library of sordid junk books to look at.
Your earlier claim was that I’d cited neo-Nazi sources. None of the sources I’d cited were neo-Nazi, and your earlier claim was a lie. Anyone who reads this thread will see your earlier claim. Your new claim–that I’m a neo-Nazi–is not a justification for you having lied about my sources.
Your quoted post contains a link, and you seem to be implying that the link supports your claim that the Japanese engaged in civilian bombing at Honolulu. The link doesn’t mention Honolulu or Hawaii. It describes the rape of Nanking. The fact that Japan did engage in atrocities in Nanking does not give you the license to invent fictitious Japanese bombing raids.
-
Oh sigh….
I think it’s weird and nonsensical when people get wound up about US/UK WWII bombing of cities. “BUT IT’S CIVILIANS!”
Yeah, so what? Civilians pay taxes, they get drafted, they work in factories, they have kids that get drafted, they are the back on which enemy militaries rest. THEY ARE LEGITIMATE TARGETS! No question.
I guess you can get into the vagaries of if a country’s citizens really support the regime and all, and thus you shouldn’t bomb them if they are more like slaves than supporters. But that wasn’t really an issue in WWII.
As for the dropping of the A Bomb… Come on man, get with it. Japan was fighting tooth and nail until the end and held large amounts of territory. As a leader of a nation at total war, you are going to seriously try to superintend or second guess what your enemies may or may not do, i.e give up, when your people are dying en mass… like the 50K US casualties in Okinawa.
Hell no. Peddle to metal. Drop that bomb and let 'em know what’s coming. It’s up to them to give up, not for you give them breathing space and HOPE they come to their senses.
The prevailing attitude about the “horrors” of bombing civilians and nuclear weapons is kind of joke… actually it’s just a joke. We haven’t had a real war since WWII, i.e. a war between world powers. Why? Because the real powers of the world know such a conflict would be catastrophic. But since one side has that ability, you have to have it too, or be in the camp of the side that does. This is just a fact. Maybe a despairing one, but it has prevented a real war from erupting for over 70 years. Let’s hope more.
You’ve made a very interesting claim–that it’s legal to exterminate civilian populations, as long as those populations are supporting the enemy war effort. Based on your own interpretation of legality and the laws of war, let me ask you this question. Suppose that the Nazi government found that the Jews living within German-held territory opposed the Nazi war effort, and were doing everything they possibly could to thwart it. Would you feel the Nazi government had a legal right to exterminate this Jewish population every bit as vigorously as the Allies were working to exterminate the German people?
If you don’t feel that such an act would have been legal, then please explain why the Allies were allowed to target and exterminate civilians, and why the Axis wasn’t allowed to do so.
As for the atomic bombing of Japan: the Japanese government had agreed to a conditional surrender months before the bomb was dropped. The bomb was not necessary for the U.S. to win the war–we’d done that already. The only reason the bomb was “necessary” was because “unconditional surrender” made better propaganda than the phrase “we let them surrender with some dignity.”
According to international treaties, artillery bombardment of an enemy city is legal if the following three conditions are met.
- The city must be a defended city, not an open city. A military presence makes it a defended city.
- The bombardment must be part of a good faith effort to capture the city. This means your own army must be physically near the city, or else rapidly approaching it.
- In bombarding the city, you must make a good faith effort to focus your fire on the military presence in the city, while minimizing collateral damage to civilians. Some collateral damage to civilians is expected, but you are not allowed to make them your true target.
In the postwar era, a Japanese court correctly found that the atomic bombings had been illegal, because conditions 2) and 3) had not been met.
-
On the specific subject of the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941, the 1981 book At dawn we slept : the untold story of Pearl Harbor, by Gordon W Prange, Donald M Goldstein and Katherine V Dillon, gives (in a table at the end of Chapter 64) the following American casualty figures for the attack:
Killed, missing and died of wounds: 68 civilians out of a total of 2,403
Wounded: 35 civilians out of a total of 1,178
The book provides few details about where the civilian casulties occurred, but the text immediately before the table indicates that the ground facilities which suffered extensive damage in the attack (in addition to the warships that were attacked) were on Ford Island and at Hickham, Wheeler, Kaneohe and Ewa, which were air fields and air stations operated by the Army Air Corps, the Navy and the Marine Corps.
I’ve never heard the claim that “the Japanese government had agreed to a conditional surrender months before the bomb was dropped”, which runs completely contrary to my understanding of the circumstances under which Japan surrendered. The Japanese government – both in terms of its civilian and military components – dithered endlessly about whether it should surrender. The deadlock was ultimately broken by Hirohito himself just one-and-a-half days before the Imperial Rescript announcing the surrender was ultimately broadcast. And even after Hirohito had broken the impasse, the government wasted hours drafting and re-drafting the text of the Rescript, tweaking paragraphs and lines and single words to try to arrive at a text that everyone could reluctantly force themselves to swallow. The poor scribe who then had to convert the draft into the fair copy that would be signed and sealed then found out to his dismay, while he was in the middle of preparing the text with his inkbrush, that Horohito wanted to make some editorial corrections of his own; rather than starting all over, he obtained permission to write the corrections on slips of paper and paste them over the original. You can see a dramatization of all this fiddling-while-Rome-burns behaviour in the film Japan’s Longest Day (Nihon no ichiban nagai hi), which I think was based on a book of the same name.
-
Your quoted post contains a link, and you seem to be implying that the link supports your claim that the Japanese engaged in civilian bombing at Honolulu. The link doesn’t mention Honolulu or Hawaii. It describes the rape of Nanking. The fact that Japan did engage in atrocities in Nanking does not give you the license to invent fictitious Japanese bombing raids.
Not very smart. The link was supporting the claim about prewar victims of Japanese atrocities. While your sat it look up “unit 731” and what this organization did.
The pictures are various locations in Honolulu where Japanese planes dropped bombs, i just posted a few pics because i figured that everyone knew this ( except you of course)
-
-
Returning to the bombing (or starving) of civilians - we have the hypocritical ability to say it is acceptable when it suits us but not when someone else does it.
International law, for all its imperfections, holds out hope that nations can move beyond might is right and enemy deaths don’t count. Imperceptibly the world struggles towards a fairer future.
The arguments for dropping the bomb based on a reduced death toll carry weight, but those that suggest that power gives us the right are too close to the militaristic ideologies we were fighting against for me.
-
Thousands of balloons carrying bombs were sent into the jet stream with the intention of bombing the Continental United States by Japan.
-
I’m glad that IL finally found links to support his assertion that Japan bombed civilian targets in Honolulu. Of course, there is no guarantee that the newspaper/NBC accounts of the bombings were accurate. (There seemed to be considerable confusion around that time, with for example some claiming that Japanese planes had glided to Pearl Harbor to avoid detection.) But even though I’m less than 100% sold on the accuracy of this claim, I now know this isn’t something IL just made up on his own.
As for Japan’s willingness to surrender: Herbert Hoover addressed this in his book Freedom Betrayed (pp. 560 - 561).
In April 1945, the Emperor substituted a group of civilian anti-militarists for the militant ministry. Admiral Kantaro Suzuki, who had a long record of friendliness toward the United States, was made Prime Minister. Suzuki’s new cabinet included Shigenori Togo (not to be confused with General Tojo) as Foreign Minister who was also an anti-militarist and had opposed Japan’s joining the war in 1941. . . .
Before the ultimatum issued at the Potsdam Conference on July 26th, there had been six months of peace feelers by the Japanese, and nearly two weeks before, the positive proposal of Japan to Russia of which Truman, Byrnes and Stimson had full information from intercepted telegrams.
The importance of this is to show (a) that at least Secretary Byrnes was informed of these proposals before he reached Potsdam and (b) that it might be surmised that Marshall Stalin was not interested in ending the Allied war with Japan until he had collected the great Chinese provinces given him under the secret Yalta Far Eastern Agreement of the previous February.
All of these peace feelers had one stipulation in common, the preservation of the Japanese Imperial House. Secretary Stimson had long favored this condition to the Japanese.
-
As for Japan’s willingness to surrender: Herbert Hoover addressed this in his book Freedom Betrayed (pp. 560 - 561).
Please pray to “chicken in every pot” Hoover, whom it seems the expert in that quack library of books you got.
-
Suppose that the Nazi government found that the Jews living within German-held territory opposed the Nazi war effort, and were doing everything they possibly could to thwart it. Would you feel the Nazi government had a legal right to exterminate this Jewish population every bit as vigorously as the Allies were working to exterminate the German people?
War between nations and quelling insurgencies are not really analogous, thus the question isn’t correct.
Let just say, I don’t believe in “universal human rights.” I know that’s not popular these days. But I really don’t see any basis for their existence other than aspiration, i.e. they are “good” so they must be. People at best have only natural rights, which are secured and augmented by government. If you live in the state of nature and someone kills you, well too bad. If you live in society governed by law then you are protected by the criminal law. If one segment of society, say the Jews, start blowing up your railroads or whatever, then they would be prosecuted as criminals. I guess your criminal law could be as harsh as you want. I suppose that’s a matter of taste. But that really isn’t relative to two nations at war.
If you don’t feel that such an act would have been legal, then please explain why the Allies were allowed to target and exterminate civilians, and why the Axis wasn’t allowed to do so.
Ok, I think this is where the confusion lies. War and law can only exist in the absence of the other. One negates the other. The reason is axiomatic and self-evident. If someone attempts to dominate you by force, no law, by itself, is going to help you, especially if the attacker doesn’t care. Once war is unleashed winning is all that matters. Sure, I guess you can try to stipulate that you won’t do X destructive thing if your enemy doesn’t etc. But that is also unenforceable. There was no real reason why Germany couldn’t have used poison gas in WWII. The Germans just thought better of it, and I guess took the chance others wouldn’t do it, which paid off in the end. But there is no reason they couldn’t have.
As for bombing, I am not condemning anyone for it, Axis or Allies.
As for the atomic bombing of Japan: the Japanese government had agreed to a conditional surrender months before the bomb was dropped. The bomb was not necessary for the U.S. to win the war–we’d done that already. The only reason the bomb was “necessary” was because “unconditional surrender” made better propaganda than the phrase “we let them surrender with some dignity.”
Yes, I am aware of that history. I had to write an essay on it in High School about if the A-bombs were justified in light of Japanese peace feelers. Again, who cares?! If I am in a total war situation with a deadly opponent, and they start saying TO OTHER PEOPLE, “maybe I’ll surrender if blah blah blah” – why should I do anything but continue to blow them away? The allied terms were set. The Japanese did not accept them. EVEN AFTER TAKING 1 A BOMB. It took 2.
In the postwar era, a Japanese court correctly found that the atomic bombings had been illegal, because conditions 2) and 3) had not been met.
Who cares.
Treaties are NOT laws, no matter how hard you pound the table. The only real penalty for breaking a treaty is war. So you’re back to bombing civilians in the name of stopping the bombing of civilians.
I mean, it’s a little ridiculous. The Allies bomb the hell out the Axis, then turn around AFTER the war and start saying oh, that was bad, but then adopt as THE cornerstone of national defense policy to totally annihilate their enemies with nuclear bombs, building thousands…
It just goes to show you that all this hysteria about “BOMBING CIVILIANS” is just frankly silly. Yes, it is mean, and it shouldn’t happen in a nice world. But when the going gets tough, the bombs got to fall. Sorry.
Have a nice day : :-D
-
Suppose that the Nazi government found that the Jews living within German-held territory opposed the Nazi war effort, and were doing everything they possibly could to thwart it. Would you feel the Nazi government had a legal right to exterminate this Jewish population every bit as vigorously as the Allies were working to exterminate the German people?
War between nations and quelling insurgencies are not really analogous, thus the question isn’t correct.
Let just say, I don’t believe in “universal human rights.” I know that’s not popular these days. But I really don’t see any basis for their existence other than aspiration, i.e. they are “good” so they must be. People at best have only natural rights, which are secured and augmented by government. If you live in the state of nature and someone kills you, well too bad. If you live in society governed by law then you are protected by the criminal law. If one segment of society, say the Jews, start blowing up your railroads or whatever, then they would be prosecuted as criminals. I guess your criminal law could be as harsh as you want. I suppose that’s a matter of taste. But that really isn’t relative to two nations at war.
Ok, I think this is where the confusion lies. War and law can only exist in the absence of the other. One negates the other. The reason is axiomatic and self-evident. If someone attempts to dominate you by force, no law, by itself, is going to help you, especially if the attacker doesn’t care. Once war is unleashed winning is all that matters. Sure, I guess you can try to stipulate that you won’t do X destructive thing if your enemy doesn’t etc. But that is also unenforceable. There was no real reason why Germany couldn’t have used poison gas in WWII. The Germans just thought better of it, and I guess took the chance others wouldn’t do it, which paid off in the end. But there is no reason they couldn’t have.
As for bombing, I am not condemning anyone for it, Axis or Allies.
Yes, I am aware of that history. I had to write an essay on it in High School about if the A-bombs were justified in light of Japanese peace feelers. Again, who cares?! If I am in a total war situation with a deadly opponent, and they start saying TO OTHER PEOPLE, “maybe I’ll surrender if blah blah blah” – why should I do anything but continue to blow them away? The allied terms were set. The Japanese did not accept them. EVEN AFTER TAKING 1 A BOMB. It took 2.
Who cares.
Treaties are NOT laws, no matter how hard you pound the table. The only real penalty for breaking a treaty is war. So you’re back to bombing civilians in the name of stopping the bombing of civilians.
I mean, it’s a little ridiculous. The Allies bomb the hell out the Axis, then turn around AFTER the war and start saying oh, that was bad, but then adopt as THE cornerstone of national defense policy to totally annihilate their enemies with nuclear bombs, building thousands…
It just goes to show you that all this hysteria about “BOMBING CIVILIANS” is just frankly silly. Yes, it is mean, and it shouldn’t happen in a nice world. But when the going gets tough, the bombs got to fall. Sorry.
Have a nice day : :-D
If I understand your logic correctly, law and war are mutually exclusive. Shortly after Hitler came to power, three large Jewish organizations declared war on the Nazi regime. Granted, those organizations didn’t necessarily speak for all Jews. But in this particular instance, it’s reasonable to suppose that the anti-Nazi sentiments expressed by those organizations were shared by the overwhelming majority of Jews.
Germany went to war in 1939, against enemies stronger than itself. With the exception of Stalin in late '41, none of the Big Three Allied powers showed the slightest interest in negotiating peace with Germany, or accepting anything other than unconditional surrender. Unconditional surrender would mean mass murder in postwar west Germany (Morgenthau Plan), and mass murder in eastern Germany (Soviet occupation).
When the decision was made to kill Jews, Germany was in a state of war, and the Jewish community was in a state of war against Germany. You’ve argued that all law goes out the window if your nation is in a state of war. Such a state of war clearly existed between the Nazi government on the one hand and the Jewish community on the other.
The laws of war do not exist to protect governments. Governments do not derive benefit from the existence of such laws, and will often ignore them if they think they can get away with doing so. The laws of war exist to provide some protection to the people–to make the conflict less brutal and bloody than it otherwise would have been. During WWII, there was an arrangement among all parties not to use chemical weapons against each other, for example. It was understood that if any one participant violated that arrangement, its enemies would quickly follow suit. That arrangement was harmful to Germany, because its chemical weapons research was easily ten years ahead of the Allies’. Maybe more.
The problem with all this is that the Allied governments were much better-positioned than the Axis to impose food blockades and to employ heavy bombers against civilian populations. It was in their interest to ignore the laws of war in those areas, except to the extent they cared about minimizing civilian casualties. Nothing about Allied actions remotely suggests that minimizing civilian harm had ever been a relevant consideration. Not that Axis governments were angels in that regard–they certainly weren’t! But of the two, Allied brutality toward enemy civilian populations exceeded that of the Axis. That Allied brutality demonstrates the hollowness of the main Allied propaganda theme: the claim that Allied leaders were horrified by Axis atrocities. Such claims ring hollow once it’s realized that Allied leaders committed worse atrocities than did the Axis.
-
When the decision was made to kill Jews, Germany was in a state of war, and the Jewish community was in a state of war against Germany.
More bullcrap as usual. Hitler had Jews killed before WW2 as well as many others. Did Hoover say otherwise? Jewish community was just trying to save its own from getting murdered for no reason out of hate. It was not war Kurt it was one of extermination and survival for Jews. I guess Hoover didn’t write about this?
The problem with all this is that the Allied governments were much better-positioned than the Axis to impose food blockades and to employ heavy bombers against civilian populations.
The problem with all this is that the Axis governments were much better-positioned than the Allies to impose systematic practices of wholescale extermination and crimes against humanity and to employ Einsatzgruppen against civilian populations. The deliberate “hunger plan” was one such plan to rid Europe of tens of millions during the war.
The Allies on the other hand did what any other nation in a position since Napoleonic times…an economic blockade to lessen the ability of these nations to sustain so much suffering against the human race. The Union did it with their anaconda plan, UK did it in ww2 with a naval blockade of the Baltic, and UK and USA sunk lots of axis transports.
-
-
If I understand your logic correctly, law and war are mutually exclusive. Shortly after Hitler came to power, three large Jewish organizations declared war on the Nazi regime. Granted, those organizations didn’t necessarily speak for all Jews. But in this particular instance, it’s reasonable to suppose that the anti-Nazi sentiments expressed by those organizations were shared by the overwhelming majority of Jews.
Germany went to war in 1939, against enemies stronger than itself. With the exception of Stalin in late '41, none of the Big Three Allied powers showed the slightest interest in negotiating peace with Germany, or accepting anything other than unconditional surrender. Unconditional surrender would mean mass murder in postwar west Germany (Morgenthau Plan), and mass murder in eastern Germany (Soviet occupation).
When the decision was made to kill Jews, Germany was in a state of war, and the Jewish community was in a state of war against Germany. You’ve argued that all law goes out the window if your nation is in a state of war. Such a state of war clearly existed between the Nazi government on the one hand and the Jewish community on the other.
The laws of war do not exist to protect governments. Governments do not derive benefit from the existence of such laws, and will often ignore them if they think they can get away with doing so. The laws of war exist to provide some protection to the people–to make the conflict less brutal and bloody than it otherwise would have been. During WWII, there was an arrangement among all parties not to use chemical weapons against each other, for example. It was understood that if any one participant violated that arrangement, its enemies would quickly follow suit. That arrangement was harmful to Germany, because its chemical weapons research was easily ten years ahead of the Allies’. Maybe more.
The problem with all this is that the Allied governments were much better-positioned than the Axis to impose food blockades and to employ heavy bombers against civilian populations. It was in their interest to ignore the laws of war in those areas, except to the extent they cared about minimizing civilian casualties. Nothing about Allied actions remotely suggests that minimizing civilian harm had ever been a relevant consideration. Not that Axis governments were angels in that regard–they certainly weren’t! But of the two, Allied brutality toward enemy civilian populations exceeded that of the Axis. That Allied brutality demonstrates the hollowness of the main Allied propaganda theme: the claim that Allied leaders were horrified by Axis atrocities. Such claims ring hollow once it’s realized that Allied leaders committed worse atrocities than did the Axis.
Kurt, I respect your thoughts on this. You’ve definitely put a lot into it. Our disagreement is not one of tit for tat. The Allies decimated German cities. I acknowledge that. I’ve seen it. I was in Germany for a wedding and during that time I went to Darmstadt. There I saw some memorials to the allied bombing raids. I was simultaneously repulsed but proud. USA blew in and killed! But then a city was leveled. Not great for USA or Germany, but sadly necessary.
My point is only that when the fighting starts, the gloves come off and the winners don’t care how bloody it gets. That’s all. Indeed, when the casualties start coming in, few if any will care if the violence is “respecting international norms.” Vengeance is the watch word–meeting out all necessary violence the goal.
You say that the Allies were wrong in the war effort because they leveled greater firepower than was necessary? That’s an after the fact justification. Germany and Japan were deadly strong. No nation in that situation should be held account for “overestimation” of the amount of violence it needs to dispense to win.
The idea of “proportionality” has got to be one of the dumbest military ideas in history. In the middle of the fight how do you even know? Winning is all that matters, and if you overshoot, well, so what–as long as you win!
-
Respect to you Karl7.
You should revisit Germany and come down south!
It is Incredible what germans have rebuilt after WWII.
Nuernberg was plain after the Allied Bombing campaigns.You could have looked down from the 10th Freeway to the fifth or seventh street
in L.A. without beeing hindred by any buildings. -
Kurt knows that if Germany or Japan had the Atomic Bomb, they would have refused to use it, because it wouldn’t be a very nice thing to do.
-
Kurt knows that if Germany or Japan had the Atomic Bomb, they would have refused to use it, because it wouldn’t be a very nice thing to do.
Ha, well… if Germany had been able to get an A-bomb (unlikely I know) before D-day, NOT using it but threatening to use it might have been the optimal strategy.
Would the US/UK have continued the war under the threat of losing London?
Of course, even w/an A-bomb and the US/UK off their back, could the Germans have withstood the Russians? Production of any German bomb would have likely been slow, so use as a tactical weapon on the eastern front would have been speculative in its effectiveness.
I remember David Glantz saying the damage done on the eastern from was basically equivalent to a theater nuclear war… minus the radiation…
-
Kurt, I respect your thoughts on this. You’ve definitely put a lot into it. Our disagreement is not one of tit for tat. The Allies decimated German cities. I acknowledge that. I’ve seen it. I was in Germany for a wedding and during that time I went to Darmstadt. There I saw some memorials to the allied bombing raids. I was simultaneously repulsed but proud. USA blew in and killed! But then a city was leveled. Not great for USA or Germany, but sadly necessary.
My point is only that when the fighting starts, the gloves come off and the winners don’t care how bloody it gets. That’s all. Indeed, when the casualties start coming in, few if any will care if the violence is “respecting international norms.” Vengeance is the watch word–meeting out all necessary violence the goal.
You say that the Allies were wrong in the war effort because they leveled greater firepower than was necessary? That’s an after the fact justification. Germany and Japan were deadly strong. No nation in that situation should be held account for “overestimation” of the amount of violence it needs to dispense to win.
The idea of “proportionality” has got to be one of the dumbest military ideas in history. In the middle of the fight how do you even know? Winning is all that matters, and if you overshoot, well, so what–as long as you win!
The Soviet government engineered the Ukrainian famine in the early 1930s. That famine killed 7 million innocent people, including 3 million children. The FDR administration’s response to that famine was to whitewash it. Just as the FDR administration whitewashed a number of subversive Soviet activities directed against the United States.
You wrote about how it was justified for the Allied gloves to “come off” once war started. The problem with that is that the Allied had never actually been wearing gloves. Their prewar actions–especially by the Soviet government–demonstrated a brutality rarely equaled in human history.
The food blockade the Allies imposed on Germany resulted in 20 - 30 million deaths. Did that food blockade have military value? Absolutely! Stalin’s regime was so horrible that, had Hitler been able to actually feed the people within his own borders, many or most Soviets would have gone over to the Nazi side. From the Allied perspective, it was absolutely necessary to convince the Soviet people that the National Socialist government was waging a war of extermination against them–that it was deliberately starving all Slavs to death. Only then would Hitler seem even worse than Stalin. But that propaganda campaign was only going to work if Germany physically couldn’t feed everyone within its borders. Stalin understood this as well, which is why he ordered the removal or destruction of all food supplies and farming equipment as part of his scorched earth policy.
During the early postwar period, the American government instituted the Morgenthau Plan (a.k.a. JCS 1067). In 1947 Herbert Hoover wrote, “There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a ‘pastoral state’. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it.” It is estimated that a minimum of 6 million Germans starved to death during the three years that the Morgenthau Plan had been in place.
Nor was the Morgenthau Plan the only Western plutocratic crime against humanity during the early postwar period. There was also Operation Keelhaul, which most likely resulted in millions of death among refugees from the Soviet Union. And there was the treatment of German POWs during the postwar period, which also resulted in large numbers of illegal deaths.
Allied plutocrats condemned the Nazi government using morally universalist language. But the Allied plutocrats were not moral universalists. They themselves had no objection at all to murdering millions, or even tens of millions, of innocent people. They committed these murders not just during a time of world war, but for at least the first three years of the postwar period.
-
The Soviet government engineered the Ukrainian famine in the early 1930s. That famine killed 7 million innocent people, including 3 million children. The FDR administration’s response to that famine was to whitewash it. Just as the FDR administration whitewashed a number of subversive Soviet activities directed against the United States.
The NAZI government engineered the Hunger Program in the early 1940s. That famine killed 50 million innocent people, including 8 million children. The Hitlers administration’s response to that program was to whitewash it. Just as Hitlers administration whitewashed a number of subversive Nazi activities directed against the world.
Suggested Topics
