Castrating Germans
HarmonHall
What in fact Goebbels did was, after the war with the US started, printed up
and distributed some 50,000 copies of a US book and distributed it to the
troops. It in fact did contain a suggestion that all Germans should be
sterilized after the end of the war. The book was published in 1940.
The book made the NYT best seller list. Reviews and commentaries on it were all
favorable. There was no "outrage" suggested at the idea in the US.
One can see the obvious effect of this book on the troops.
So no, there was not a US government plan to do it. But yes, it was indicative
of the kind of plan that the US people would seriously consider.
This is old news to anyone who has gone beyond the allied party line on WWII.
Nate Gordon
>What in fact Goebbels did was, after the war with the US started, printed up
>and distributed some 50,000 copies of a US book and distributed it to the
>troops. It in fact did contain a suggestion that all Germans should be
>sterilized after the end of the war. The book was published in 1940.
>
>The book made the NYT best seller list. Reviews and commentaries on it were all
>favorable. There was no "outrage" suggested at the idea in the US.
>
I see. And the name of this book would be?
Nate Gordon
cd00...@mindspring.com
"The sea was angry that day, my friends, like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli."
Christopher Morton
>It was mentioned that that is what Goebbels told them.
>
>What in fact Goebbels did was, after the war with the US started, printed up
>and distributed some 50,000 copies of a US book and distributed it to the
>troops. It in fact did contain a suggestion that all Germans should be
>sterilized after the end of the war. The book was published in 1940.
>
>The book made the NYT best seller list. Reviews and commentaries on it were all
>favorable. There was no "outrage" suggested at the idea in the US.
>
>One can see the obvious effect of this book on the troops.
>
>So no, there was not a US government plan to do it. But yes, it was indicative
>of the kind of plan that the US people would seriously consider.
So then, everything every published in Nazi Germany regarding the Jews
should also be used as evidence of "the kind of plan that the German
people would seriously consider"?
>This is old news to anyone who has gone beyond the allied party line on WWII.
"Allied party line"? You mean like the Holocaust actually happening
and being wrong?
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Check out:
http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
http://www.firstnethou.com/gunsite/moore.html
Nate Gordon
>What in fact Goebbels did was, after the war with the US started, printed up
>and distributed some 50,000 copies of a US book and distributed it to the
>troops. It in fact did contain a suggestion that all Germans should be
>sterilized after the end of the war. The book was published in 1940.
>
>The book made the NYT best seller list. Reviews and commentaries on it were all
>favorable. There was no "outrage" suggested at the idea in the US.
>
I see. And the name of this book would be?
casita
such involuntary procedures were carried out in those days and it is
rumoured (proven?) that the ancient tradition continues with captured
prisoners to this day in parts of the Balkans.
HCALTMANN
>
>>What in fact Goebbels did was, after the war with the US started, printed up
>>and distributed some 50,000 copies of a US book and distributed it to the
>>troops. It in fact did contain a suggestion that all Germans should be
>>sterilized after the end of the war. The book was published in 1940.
>>
>>The book made the NYT best seller list. Reviews and commentaries on it were
>all
>>favorable. There was no "outrage" suggested at the idea in the US.
>>
>I see. And the name of this book would be?
It might have been Henry Morgenthau, Jr: Germany is Our Problem; Harper, New
York & London, 1945. I understand that Eisenhower had some 50,000 (?) copies
of it distributed to his officers.
I own a copy and have read the book, though not recently. I was specifically
interested in any mention of castration of German males, because I remember
that such a proposal was told to us (at least to this German soldier and his
buddies at the time) in 1945, and it definitely scared the daylight out of me
for weeks after my capture. I could not find such
mention in the book and would much appreciate it, Nate Gordon, if you could
supply me with the page number.
HCAl...@aol.com (Heinz Altmann)
"As hard as I try to be sensitive and politically correct, I can't avoid
bumping my way into boorish opinions, thus offending those who are truly
enlightened." - Mike Royko
ArtKramr
>From: harmo...@aol.com (HarmonHall)
>What in fact Goebbels did was, after the war with the US started, printed up
>and distributed some 50,000 copies of a US book and distributed it to the
>troops. It in fact did contain a suggestion that all Germans should be
>sterilized after the end of the war. The book was published in 1940.
>
>The book made the NYT best seller list. Reviews and commentaries on it were
>all
>favorable. There was no "outrage" suggested at the idea in the US.
>
>One can see the obvious effect of this book on the troops.
>
>So no, there was not a US government plan to do it. But yes, it was
>indicative
>of the kind of plan that the US people would seriously consider.
>
>This is old news to anyone who has gone beyond the allied party line on WWII.
What was the name of the book and who was the publisher? Until we know that and
can verify your claims, we must reject the idea out of hand.
Z
>of the kind of plan that the US people would seriously consider.
>
>This is old news to anyone who has gone beyond the allied party line on WWII.
Where's the problem with the plan ? I see nothing immoral in the destruction of
an aggressor nation in a World War - in this case, Germany.
I'm not ashamed the Allies though of it.
Zhivan
Janne Nilsson
HarmonHall skrev i meddelandet <778794$6...@dgs.dgsys.com>...
>It was mentioned that that is what Goebbels told them.
>
up
>and distributed some 50,000 copies of a US book and distributed it to the
>troops. It in fact did contain a suggestion that all Germans should be
>sterilized after the end of the war. The book was published in 1940.
>
Could you explain for me like I was six years old how a book published in
1940 could suggest castration after a ended war that wasnt declared yet. Im
I missing something here or are you just spreading propaganda?
>The book made the NYT best seller list. Reviews and commentaries on it were
all
>favorable. There was no "outrage" suggested at the idea in the US.
>
>One can see the obvious effect of this book on the troops.
In which way if I may ask? How many germans were castrated after the war had
enden?
Erhard Sanio
ArtKramr <artk...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Castrating Germans
>>From: harmo...@aol.com (HarmonHall)
>
>>and distributed some 50,000 copies of a US book and distributed it to the
>>troops. It in fact did contain a suggestion that all Germans should be
>>sterilized after the end of the war. The book was published in 1940.
>>The book made the NYT best seller list. Reviews and commentaries on it were
>>all
>>favorable. There was no "outrage" suggested at the idea in the US.
>>One can see the obvious effect of this book on the troops.
[..]
>What was the name of the book and who was the publisher? Until we know that and
>can verify your claims, we must reject the idea out of hand.
The name of the booklet was "Germany must perish", the name of the author
was Theodore N. Kaufman, a completely unknown NYC businessman running a
theatre ticket agency, publishing the book on his own. And it never made
the NYT best seller list, rather it was heavily criticized and ridiculed
as "Streicher minded" and Nazi like in a review in Time Magazine in March,
1941 - it was described as the product of a sick and confused mind.
Nazi propaganda got aware of that book and made a huge fabrication
out of it asserting that Kaufman were an important personal advisor of JFK
and there were a quasi-official "Kaufman plan" to exterminate the Germans.
Lookup Msg-ID <6bt25n$8vq$1...@news.trends.ca>, Date: 1998/02/11 at Dejanews
for the original Time Magazine review. Other info is present on the Net
as well.
regards, es
casita
>Where's the problem with the plan ? I see nothing immoral in the
destruction of
>an aggressor nation in a World War - in this case, Germany.
>I'm not ashamed the Allies though of it.
Z, are you saying the Germans
should have been castrated?
Adam Kippes
> out of it asserting that Kaufman were an important personal advisor of JFK
> and there were a quasi-official "Kaufman plan" to exterminate the Germans.
JFK? <g>
-- AK
--
adam....@pobox.com
PGP keys available from servers
casita
>out of it asserting that Kaufman were an important personal advisor of JFK
>and there were a quasi-official "Kaufman plan" to exterminate the Germans.
I thought JFK was jockeying a PT-boat in the PTO?
HCALTMANN
>"Germany must perish", the name of the >author was Theodore N. Kaufman, a
>completely unknown NYC businessman >running a theatre ticket agency,
publishing >the book on his own.
Thank you, Erhard, for the references you have given me. I'll follow up.
Being afraid of castration after my capture by Americans in April 1945 is one
of my most vivid memories of that time. I definitely remember being told that
would happen to us. I had thought the origin of that propaganda was the
Morgenthau Plan, but apparently not. Goebbels may have combined Morgenthau's
and Kaufman's books.
Heinz
Osmo Ronkanen
>
>Where's the problem with the plan ? I see nothing immoral in the destruction of>an aggressor nation in a World War - in this case, Germany.
>I'm not ashamed the Allies though of it.
What about Soviets? They also were an aggressor nation in the war.
Osmo
George Hardy
(HCALTMANN) says:
>Goebbels may have combined Morgenthau's and Kaufman's books. 13-4
Unlikely. Morgenthau's book was published in late 1945 -- after
he was out of government, after Truman told him that he would not
be going to Potsdam.
GFH
***************************************************************
http://www.ankerstein.org/
The Anchor Stone Building Set (Anker-Steinbaukasten) Home Page
See what makes me tick.
***************************************************************
Erhard Sanio
Adam Kippes <adam....@pobox.com> wrote:
>> out of it asserting that Kaufman were an important personal advisor of JFK
>JFK? <g>
my fault, meant FDR (sorry)
regards, es
Adam Kippes
wrote:
So were Britain and France. And Finland the second time around.
Nate Gordon
>
>
>It might have been Henry Morgenthau, Jr: Germany is Our Problem; Harper, New
>York & London, 1945. I understand that Eisenhower had some 50,000 (?) copies
>of it distributed to his officers.
>
>I own a copy and have read the book, though not recently. I was specifically
>interested in any mention of castration of German males, because I remember
>that such a proposal was told to us (at least to this German soldier and his
>buddies at the time) in 1945, and it definitely scared the daylight out of me
>for weeks after my capture. I could not find such
>mention in the book and would much appreciate it, Nate Gordon, if you could
>supply me with the page number.
Well, since I was the person who asked the name of this book, I would
not be aware of the page number in it. In fact, all I know of this
book is that George Hardy uses it as proof of the plot by the US to
destroy Germany.
mike muth
> Well, since I was the person who asked the name of this book, I would
> not be aware of the page number in it. In fact, all I know of this
> book is that George Hardy uses it as proof of the plot by the US to
> destroy Germany.
According to a search of Amazon.com, the Book _Germany must perish!_ by
Theodore N. Kaufman was published but is out of print. I can't speak to
the content of the book. However, a number of neo-nazis are posting to
various groups about the book.
Apparently the author had previously published a tome which called for
Americans to be sterilized so they would not raise children to be
criminals. _Germany must perish!_ appears to have been self-published.
It appears that no American publisher would touch it (probably with very
good reason).
Mike
George Hardy
<77jvfv$nm6$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu> <77lbgq$16f4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>
Organization: Club of Anchor Friends
In article <77lbgq$16f4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, mike muth
<mm...@ibm.net> says:
>
>Nate Gordon wrote:
>
>> In fact, all I know of this book is that George Hardy uses
>> it as proof of the plot by the US to destroy Germany. 14-2
You are confusing "Germany Must Perish", which I had never heard of
until it was mentioned on this board, with "Germany is Our Problem",
which was written by former Sec. of Treasury H. Morgenthau.
>According to a search of Amazon.com, the Book _Germany must perish!_ by
>Theodore N. Kaufman was published but is out of print. I can't speak to
>the content of the book. However, a number of neo-nazis are posting to
>various groups about the book.
Was not Kaufmann an FDR administration official?
HCALTMANN
Kaufman, Theodore N(ewman)
Germany Must Perish
NY: Argyle Press, 1941
dto.
NY: Gordon Press (Reprint), 1979
ISBN 0849028612
Both editions are apparently out of print.
The Library of Congress has both editions.
For two sides of the story, see these reviews:
http://www1.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/k/kaufman.theodore.nathan/review
s/kaufman-perish-de
Both are in German. The first of these two is much more believable and appears
factual.
-- Heinz
Jeff Heidman
> Nate Gordon wrote:
>
> > Well, since I was the person who asked the name of this book, I would
> > not be aware of the page number in it. In fact, all I know of this
> > book is that George Hardy uses it as proof of the plot by the US to
> > destroy Germany.
>
> According to a search of Amazon.com, the Book _Germany must perish!_ by
> Theodore N. Kaufman was published but is out of print. I can't speak to
> the content of the book. However, a number of neo-nazis are posting to
> various groups about the book.
>
> Apparently the author had previously published a tome which called for
> Americans to be sterilized so they would not raise children to be
> criminals. _Germany must perish!_ appears to have been self-published.
> It appears that no American publisher would touch it (probably with very
> good reason).
>
> Mike
This is consistent with the argument style of "Mr." Hardy and
Matt/HarmonHall. Basically, they find something that someone said or
published in the US at some time, and then presume that it is either a)
completely true and irrefutable, or b) the generally held opinion at the
time. Then they structure their entire twisted reality out of it, and argue
their "point" as if it has been proven conclusively, when of course it has
not.
Of course, anyone who has visited the US, much less lived here, can tell
you that we have a rather diverse culture, with no shortage of, ummm,
"alternative" viewpoints. Finding someone, somewhere, at some time, who
said or published something, is really just not that hard to do. Finding
someone in the middle of WWII who suggested that Germans should be
castrated is not exactly surprising. Certainly no more surprising than some
Germans suggestion that they exterminate every Jew in Europe. Of course,
there is a slight difference in actual implementation of the proposals...
Indeed, the claimed residence of some of the posters to this NG in the US
should be ample evidence that there is no lack of extreme and insupportable
viewpoints available in the United States.
This castration thing is the perfect example. Someone finds some silly
reference, and next thing we know, Matt is claiming that the entire US
supported it, and that the US, as a result, is clearly more uncivilized
than the Germans who murdered several million Jews. Doesn't bother with any
evidence, but why break a trend?
The Morgenthau plan is another great example. A book written by someone in
the Roosevelt administration about a plan to deal with Germany after the
war. The US-haters take it, exaggerate it grossly, and then claim this was
the US plan. Of course, the fact that it was *never* implemented in any way
whatsoever is not relevant. Of course, the fact that there were almost
certainly dozens of different plans of varying harshness is not mentioned,
rather we should only look at the most extreme and draw our conclusions
from that.
The list goes on and on of examples of this kind of "scholarship". The
Morgenthau plan. The Malmedy massacre confessions. Strategic bombing
intent. Castrating Germans. Baques various garbage, etc., etc. The modus
operandi is consistent. Find the most extreme example, and claim that it is
definitive, and argue as if everyone agrees, even when it is clear they do
not.
Jeff Heidman
Jeff Heidman
> In article <19990113110858...@ng42.aol.com>, hcal...@aol.com
> (HCALTMANN) says:
>
> >Goebbels may have combined Morgenthau's and Kaufman's books. 13-4
>
> Unlikely. Morgenthau's book was published in late 1945 -- after
> he was out of government, after Truman told him that he would not
> be going to Potsdam.
This was the book that you claimed was distributed during the war to 50,000
American officers? Interesting. Not surprising, but interesting.
Jeff Heidman
HCALTMANN
>Was not Kaufmann an FDR administration official?
No, George, apparently not.
According to the review of his "Germany Must Perish" in TIME magazine, 24 Mar
1941, p.96, he "had been an advertising man, once published the New Jersey
Legal Record, now runs a theater ticket agency in Newark, NJ." He founded The
Argyle Press, which published the book. TIME does not mention any connection
of Kaufman to FDR or the US government. Had there been such a connection, I
would expect TIME would have mentioned it.
Nitzkor (www1.ca.nitzkor.org) says that Kaufman's middle name was Newman, not
Nathan. He claimed to have been president of an "American Federation of
Peace." No such organization could be found.
Apparently, he was strictly a free-lancer without any connection to any part of
the US Government. Goebbels made it appear otherwise.
Gord McFee
George Hardy <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote:
[deleted]
> You are confusing "Germany Must Perish", which I had never heard of
> until it was mentioned on this board, with "Germany is Our Problem",
> which was written by former Sec. of Treasury H. Morgenthau.
Exactly.
> >According to a search of Amazon.com, the Book _Germany must perish!_ by
> >Theodore N. Kaufman was published but is out of print. I can't speak to
> >the content of the book. However, a number of neo-nazis are posting to
> >various groups about the book.
>
> Was not Kaufmann an FDR administration official?
A minor one perhaps. He was a certified wingnut who was not taken
seriously by anyone. Goebbels was able to make propaganda usage of his
book, which appeared in 1941 if memory serves, and contained all sorts
of horrible things he recommended be done to Germans. He liked to
portray himself as a close personal friend of Roosevelt's and as
speaking for the administration, neither of which was true.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
George Hardy
<jeff...@yahoo.com> says:
>The Morgenthau plan is another great example. A book written by
>someone in the Roosevelt administration about a plan to deal with
>Germany after the war. 15-3
Not just "someone", but the Secretary of the Treasury from 1934 - 1945.
The "Morgenthau Plan" is the common name of the :Treasury Plan for the
Treatment of Germany". The common name has been adopted to minimize
the facts that it was 1) an official plan of the FDR administration and
2) agreed to at the Ottawa Conference.
>Of course, the fact that it was *never* implemented in any way
>whatsoever is not relevant.
Actually, it much, if not most, of it was. At Potsdam and and in JCS 1067.
Not just my opinion, but Morgenthau's. And Eisenhower supplied copies of
of Morgenthau's book to US Army officers, as a guide to their actions in
administrating the occupation.
>Of course, the fact that there were almost certainly dozens of different
>plans of varying harshness is not mentioned, rather we should only look
>at the most extreme and draw our conclusions from that.
But how many official plans of the leading Allied power? How many which
were approved at an international conference? How many were distributed
to the US Army Officers by the Supreme Commander (sounds a lot like some
dictator, no?).
>The list goes on and on of examples of this kind of "scholarship". The
>Morgenthau plan. The Malmedy massacre confessions. Strategic bombing
>intent. Castrating Germans. Baques various garbage, etc., etc. The modus
>operandi is consistent. Find the most extreme example, and claim that it is
>definitive, and argue as if everyone agrees, even when it is clear they do
>not.
Yes, the modus operandi of both sides is clear. I quote facts; you and
Jerzy Pankiewicz call people names and spout hate. As for castrating
Germans, it seems that Jerzy still advocates it.
casita
limited scientific value. But, that their survival in cold water data was
used in the development of wet suits for divers.
Z
>What about Soviets? They also were an aggressor nation in the war.
Hmm, I regard Winter War as being separate. In that, yes, Soviets were
aggressors, and were soundly beaten.
In the main war, Soviets were not aggressors, and also, they won.
Zhivan
Jeff Heidman
> >From: George Hardy <geo...@mail.rlc.net>
>
> >Was not Kaufmann an FDR administration official?
>
> No, George, apparently not.
>
Hook. Line. Sinker. Gosh George, doesn't that hurt?
<snip evidence that Kaufmann had nothing to do with the Roosevelt administration>
> Apparently, he was strictly a free-lancer without any connection to any part of
> the US Government. Goebbels made it appear otherwise.
Another great example of Mr. Hardy's "scholarship". Find some wacky claim and
assume that it is meaningful in some sort of way. Don't bother to do any research
to find something approaching the truth, especially when assuming that the head of
Nazi propoganda would certainly not lie fits so conveniently into your twisted
agenda.
Whats the next claim? Roosevelt was Stalins cousin? The holocaust was a hoax? The
Malmedy massacre was really perpetrated by the CIA? Come on, George, entertain us
some more...
Jeff Heidman
Jeff Heidman
<snip more lies>
The repetition of a lie does not turn it into truth, although if it did, you
would certainly have succeeded by now.
Since you chose to ignore >90% of my post, I will assume that you are incapable
of supporting your allegations in respect to your claim that the "Castration
Plan" was both supported by FDR and embraced by the American people. But then,
we all knew that already.
So, George, are yous till claiming that Germany *never* bombed Moscow?
Deja vu all over again.
Jeff Heidman
Osmo Ronkanen
>>
>>What about Soviets? They also were an aggressor nation in the war.
>
>Hmm, I regard Winter War as being separate.
Well I do not. It started on basis of the very same pact as the war
against Poland.
> In that, yes, Soviets were
>aggressors, and were soundly beaten.
Actually Soviets won the winter war. Their victory was far clearer than
in 1944.
>In the main war, Soviets were not aggressors, and also, they won.
Well they did start the war against Finland by bombing Finnish cities.
Also as early as in the fall of 1940 they had made clear that they were
going to attack us.
Osmo
Jamesg4660
>Nathan. He claimed to have been president of an "Amer
As I informed WIRED.COM and they acknowledged, when Ken McVay represented
himself as "President" of Nizkor and it has no members nor other officers they
concurred.
>Goebbels made it appear otherwise.
Not true. He dealt with the total lack American condemnation of the book.
I would challenge you to find one other review of any similar publication in
any vanity press whatsoever by FOUR major publications of their day.
And if you can, please try to explain why this one in question was not soundly
condemned from the gitgo.
Christopher Morton
>>
>>What about Soviets? They also were an aggressor nation in the war.
>
>Hmm, I regard Winter War as being separate. In that, yes, Soviets were
>aggressors, and were soundly beaten.
>In the main war, Soviets were not aggressors, and also, they won.
Don't forget the invasion of eastern Poland in 1939, as much of an
unwarranted aggression as the Finnish campaign.
---
Having a bad day? It takes 42 muscles to frown, but only 4 to pull the
trigger of a decent sniper rifle.
Dr. John D. Taylor
efr...@mocha.memphis.edu
Nate Gordon or Mike Muth wrote:
>> Apparently the author had previously published a tome which called for
>> Americans to be sterilized so they would not raise children to be
>> criminals. _Germany must perish!_ appears to have been self-published.
>> It appears that no American publisher would touch it (probably with very
>> good reason).
Jeff Heidman added:
> This castration thing is the perfect example. Someone finds some silly
> reference, and next thing we know, Matt is claiming that the entire US
> supported it, and that the US, as a result, is clearly more uncivilized
> than the Germans who murdered several million Jews. Doesn't bother with any
> evidence, but why break a trend?
I think Jeff is right here. It's easy to find all
sorts of proposals in books about what to do with
the Germans (one title [The Eternal German?] by an
author named Shahn [?] sticks in my mind as an example
of crude eliminationist propaganda that has to be
read to be believed). And I've seen letters from
a US Army officer who reported (while stateside)
that many of his men assumed that the final result
would be extermination of Germans and Japanese.
-But- that's only half the story: there was criticism
of the strategic bombing campaign on moral and
religious grounds too. To use the harshest proposals
as proof of what the USG or populace had in mind is
just inane.
(Yes, George, I know the Morganthau Plan existed, and
have known since I started reading WWII history in
elementary school.)
Ed Frank
Alita's mechanic
top secret Jewish CIA lab group in Brooklyn. He was designed to cause the
peace sauerkraut loving Germans to wage war on the world and utlimately
bring on the imperialistic reign of America. Moreover, the Holocaust was
really a Hollywood fabrication made with German POWs standing in as extras.
The secret documents that prove these uncontestable facts were found when I
took a 6,000 mile trip to the Berlin FreeMason Military library and found
them in a hidden cupboard next to the documents relating to the Hustler
Expose of Republican Guards' Sexual Misdeeds in the White House Scandal.
Really
Just In Joking.
Jeff Heidman wrote in message <77ooqt$16qg$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
:HCALTMANN wrote:
:Whats the next claim? Roosevelt was Stalins cousin? The holocaust was a
:
:
Lech K. Lesiak
> Eugenics was an accepted "science" in the 1930s, both in the U.S.
> and in Europe. American mental defectives were often sterilized,
> though not by castration, and most often it was the women, not
> the men. I suspect the same was true in many European countries.
Mental defectives are still sterilized. My daughter works in a group home
for 'differently abled' adults. Many of the women have been sterilized on
the authority of their parents. Makes sense. Do we really want someone
with the mental age of ten-year old to raise children?
Cheers,
Lech
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>>Nitzkor (www1.ca.nitzkor.org) says that Kaufman's middle name was Newman, not
>>Nathan. He claimed to have been president of an "Amer
>
>As I informed WIRED.COM and they acknowledged, when Ken McVay represented
>himself as "President" of Nizkor and it has no members nor other officers they
>concurred.
Ken McVay's a great guy and Nizkor's invaluable, if for no other
reason than they drive Nazis and revisionists foaming at the mouth mad
with rage.
I've checked out several revisionist claims with Ken and he's always
come up with the facts.
Jeff Heidman
> >Nitzkor (www1.ca.nitzkor.org) says that Kaufman's middle name was Newman, not> >Nathan. He claimed to have been president of an "Amer
>
> As I informed WIRED.COM and they acknowledged, when Ken McVay represented
> himself as "President" of Nizkor and it has no members nor other officers they> concurred.
>
> >Goebbels made it appear otherwise.
>
> Not true. He dealt with the total lack American condemnation of the book.
Didn't someone just post an article blasting the book?
> I would challenge you to find one other review of any similar publication in
> any vanity press whatsoever by FOUR major publications of their day.
And if someone posts ONE more, will you demand yet another?
> And if you can, please try to explain why this one in question was not soundly> condemned from the gitgo.
So anything not "soundly condemned" is de facto supported by the population?
Here's a thought, maybe it wasn't "soundly condemned" because it is obvious thatthe suggestion is so preposterous that it isn't worth dealing with.
This is such an astoundingly ignorant argument to make. Like the US press has
some kind of responsibility to respond to every kook and wacko in the country,
and if they don't, than that is clear evidence that the population as a whole
agrees with the wacko.
Quit trying so hard to defend Goebbels. The man was a PR front for a group that
decided that exterminating people was sound and reasonable policy.
Jeff Heidman
casita
Was the plan to actually turn them into a nation
of docile eunuchs or simple vasectomy?
casita
>Quit trying so hard to defend Goebbels. The man was a PR front for a group
that
>decided that exterminating people was sound and reasonable policy.
A fair assesment!
George Hardy
says:
>
>Jamesg4660 wrote:
>> I would challenge you to find one other review of any similar
>> publication in any vanity press whatsoever by FOUR major
>> publications of their day. 18-3
>
>And if someone posts ONE more, will you demand yet another?
You may desire to trivialize this evidence of contemporary
interest, but it is persuasive. Four reviews by major publications
cannot just be dismissed.
Z
>Don't forget the invasion of eastern Poland in 1939, as much of an
>unwarranted aggression as the Finnish campaign.
No, it was an attempt to create the buffer that eventually saved Western
civilization from the Furor Teutonicus.
Zhivan
Z
E.F.Schelby
Some people like to bark (preferably at George Hardy) before they
look. I hope they can benefit from a few comments on the mental
climate of these years:
There was an abundance of expert opinion, news bureau material,
policy recommendations, and publications on what was euphemistically
called "the German problem." The discussion began in the late
thirties. It continued throughout the war years. Participants ranged
from politicians, intellectuals, pundits, medical scholars, and
social scientists to crackpots and gadflies. A product like
_Germany Must Perish_ certainly stands on the crackpot side. Another
peculiar book by Baybrook (British, 1945) argued that the Germans
were descended from the warrior Huns of northern China, around 3000
BC. That tied in nicely with the WW I mythology of the Hun.
It is misleading, however, to think that a tract like Kaufman's
appeared in a vacuum. Far from it. He simply picked up points
from the debate (which included vitriolic polemics) and took it
from there.
The major considerations and "questions" at the time continue to
amaze:
1)The notorious "German National Character": was aggressiveness
bred in the bone? Was it the 'sui generis' Prussian spirit that
was to blame? Was it the capitalists who infected the
German people as whole? Was the cause of German aggressiveness
rooted in a deep psychological dimension? Were the Germans
a *bad seed*, i.e. a congenitally aggressive people...less
civilized than other European peoples?
This last item comes not from the likes of Kaufman, but from
a 1943 report on the _Problem of Germany_ published by Britain's
prestigious Royal Institute of International Affairs. A group
of US medical and social scientists put Germany on the couch
and concluded that aggressiveness must be inherent in the
German character. A person with the prominence of Margaret Mead
was part of it. (This is particularly entertaining in light of
the fact that ever increasing numbers of young Germans are
conscientious objectors and that he violent crime rate is,
compared to the US, much lower).
2)What to do with Germany. Here the convictions ranged from the
minimalists (system correctors) to the maximalists (system
changers). One maximalist, the prominent New York trial lawyer
Louis Nizer, wrote in 1944 that the Allied occupiers should try,
sentence, and execute as many as a sixth of a million criminals.
(He outdid Stalin, who had 50,000 officers in mind).
Former Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles proposed in 1944
giving East Prussia to Poland and splitting Germany permanently
into three parts. The idea of dissolving the country into mimi-
states was popular. Mr.Morgenthau had more advanced ideas.
Minimalists thought that all these plans would make matters worse,
and that they were dangerous.
One source I know of (V.M. Dean and O.K.D. Ringwood, _Foreign
Policy Reports_ 18:296) warned in 1943 against the
"danger...that discussion about punishment of Nazi 'war
criminals' may create the impression that Germany alone
was responsible for WW II...While Hitler and his associates
can and should be held responsible for acts of commission
that led to the outbreak of war, other nations now
fighting Germany cannot be relieved of responsibility
for their many acts of omission, due in some cases to
failure - or refusal - to understand the international
situation, and in others to sympathy on the part of many
groups for the ideas of Nazism."
There is no lack of literature and documentation related to these
subjects.
Regards,
ES
Jamesg4660
>Was the plan to actually turn them into a nation
>of docile eunuchs or simple vasectomy?
The plan was for the end of the german "race" by sterilizing every German.
Lech K. Lesiak
> In the main war, Soviets were not aggressors, and also, they won.
I know a lot of Poles, Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians who don't see
things that way.
Cheers,
Lech
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>You may desire to trivialize this evidence of contemporary
>interest, but it is persuasive. Four reviews by major publications
>cannot just be dismissed.
And I must ask yet again, why anybody should be more concerned with
the unofficial and UNIMPLIMENTED plan of a crackpot to castrate
Germans, than the IMPLIMENTED plan of the German GOVERNMENT to
castrate Jews.
Apparently, bad INTENTIONS against Germans count for more with you
than bad ACTIONS against Jews.
Guenter A. Scholz
Christopher Morton <cm...@nwonline.net> wrote:
>
>And I must ask yet again, why anybody should be more concerned with
>the unofficial and UNIMPLIMENTED plan of a crackpot to castrate
>Germans, than the IMPLIMENTED plan of the German GOVERNMENT to
>castrate Jews.
the latter is being denied and obfuscated to the extreme by the american
and allied governments.
-best regards, guenter
W.G. Pflaum
Z wrote in message <783bj2$ieo$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
Oh yeah?? So the Nazis only created a buffer against the Empire of Evil?
I wonder how the Poles felt being a Soviet buffer. I bet they were
really glad to be a German and a Soviet buffer at the same time :-(
Have you ever heard that Stalin and Hitler were getting along pretty
well at the time and Poland was just an obstacle for their own little
expansion plans. What about the Baltic states? A buffer against a
Swedish invasion?
George W. Pflaum
--
Participant of taxi-l , *the* taxi mailing-list at
http://www.taxi-l.org/
Visit my homepage TaxiLinks at
http://homepages.munich.netsurf.de/Werner-G.Pflaum/
Leave your favorite and/or your own link - it will be added!
Christopher Morton
>>
>>Don't forget the invasion of eastern Poland in 1939, as much of an
>>unwarranted aggression as the Finnish campaign.
>
>No, it was an attempt to create the buffer that eventually saved Western
>civilization from the Furor Teutonicus.
No, it was an attempt to profit from Hitler's conquests.
Defending Poland instead of splitting it between Hitler and Stalin
would have been a better idea.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
And once again, I find it curious that some people are more incensed
by a crackpot idea to sterilize Germans, which never had any chance of
being implimented, than the REAL sterilization of Jews BY Germans.
HCALTMANN
>And I must ask yet again, why anybody should be more concerned with
>the unofficial and UNIMPLIMENTED plan of a crackpot to castrate
>Germans
I was a German soldier in 1944 and 1945. We had been told of plans to castrate
the Germans after the war had been won by the Allies. Those who told us that
(Goebbels) were not lying, but they were not telling the full truth either.
Proposals to do so existed and were advocated by some Americans, influential or
not, but these proposals never became official plans of the Allied governments.
I am today satisfied that we had been lied to back then. Nevertheless, I
believed, and that made me fight that much harder and, when I was captured,
caused me considerable anguish and fear.
Does that explain why "anybody" should be "concerned"?
Heinz
HCAl...@aol.com (Heinz Altmann)
"As hard as I try to be sensitive and politically correct, I can't avoid
bumping my way into boorish opinions, thus offending those who are truly
enlightened." - Mike Royko
Christopher Morton
A. Scholz) wrote:
>In article <36aa2117...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>Christopher Morton <cm...@nwonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>And I must ask yet again, why anybody should be more concerned with
>>the unofficial and UNIMPLIMENTED plan of a crackpot to castrate
>>Germans, than the IMPLIMENTED plan of the German GOVERNMENT to
>>castrate Jews.
>
>Easy! Whereas the latter is acknowledged by the german government,
>the latter is being denied and obfuscated to the extreme by the american
>and allied governments.
What is being obfuscated? That somebody with no credibility or real
power wanted to castrate all Germans?
Once again, I don't see the comparison AT ALL... unless you're willing
to equate Alec Baldwin, an actor of marginal intelligence, who
threatened the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee as part of an
idiotic stunt, with Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth.
When do the impotent threats of a private idiot equal the ACTS of
government?
Z
>
>Defending Poland instead of splitting it between Hitler and Stalin
>would have been a better idea.
Stalin offered to defend Czechoslovakia in 1938. He was refused by the Western
Capitalists.
In 1939, he realised had he defended Poland, he would have a tough task.. and
the possibility of Western intervention against him..
Zhivan
Donald Phillipson
> Stalin offered to defend Czechoslovakia in 1938. He was refused by the Western
> Capitalists.
Stalin "offered to defend CZ" if Poland (whose land stood between
Russia and CZ) guaranteed free and rapid passage to his armies.
The Polish government refused. This Polish government was not
"Western Capitalists" in the sense this phrase is usually used.
> In 1939, he realised had he defended Poland, he would have a tough task.. and
> the possibility of Western intervention against him..
This might be right, if we knew what was in Stalin's mind.
But we do know his actions, that he joined a secret agreement
to divide Poland with Nazi Germany, nominally his greatest
enemy, and make a public agreement to supply German fuel
and munitions manufacturers. (These known actions may say
more about Stalin's mind than supposed intentions.)
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 |
Z
>Have you ever heard that Stalin and Hitler were getting along pretty
>well at the time and Poland was just an obstacle for their own little
>expansion plans. What about the Baltic states? A buffer against a
>Swedish invasion?
The Baltic States retaken by the Soviet Union in 1940 were originally stolen
from the Rus by the Teutonic Knights several centuries early. The Teutonic
assault on the Rus was only stopped by Nevskii at.. lake.. err, I forget the
lake, but they were stopped.
Zhivan
casita
Heinz, I just got "Crimes and Mercies" from the library.
I had to put it down it was so disturbing. I'll try again later.
50 years and we don't know was truth from fiction,
or what people would have done, had they had the opportunity.
The real stories of WW2 will never get in the books.
In front of me is a magazine with a photo, "Taken by a Bomber Command pilot
( don't ask me who was flying the plane ) of German POWs at Ludwigshaven,
near Mannheim, in June 1945".
It's blurry, but it doesn't look like a health club. Mike.
Tommi Syrjanen
> The Baltic States retaken by the Soviet Union in 1940 were originally stolen
> from the Rus by the Teutonic Knights several centuries early. The Teutonic
> assault on the Rus was only stopped by Nevskii at.. lake.. err, I forget the
> lake, but they were stopped.
Well, the battle at lake Chud happened in 1242, and Stalin didn't
"retake" Baltic States from the Teutonic Knights. The Teutonic Knights
were long gone before that. Also, the inhabitants of Estonia are
Finno-Ugric, not Slavs, so I'm not certain how Estonia could be stolen
from the Rus, unless they stole it earlier. I also think that
Lithuania was a sovereign state before they had clashes with Teutonic
Knights. I don't know about Latvian history of the period.
In any case, the three states declared independence after Bolshevik
revolution, and they didn't join Soviet Union voluntarily but only
after the Red Army had occupied the countries. I would think that the
inhabitants of the Baltic States didn't want Stalin to "retake" them,
but they were too weak to prevent it. The fact that they got out of
Soviet Union as soon it was possible seems to me that they don't
consider themselves as Russians.
As I happen to live in a country that was once part of the Russian
Empire, I tend to get a little jumpy when someone talks about
territories stealen from the Rus. (Especially because about two thirds
of modern Finland was on the Novgorodian side of the border when it
was first established in 1323 (those parts were then mostly
uninhabitated (*) hunting grounds, Finnish settlers moved in in the
15th and 16th centuries, and they were added to Finland in the 1595
treaty)).
(*) Of course, the Lapps lived in the Northern parts of the area, but
neither the Swedes, Finns, nor Novgorodians took them in
consideration.
- Tommi
M.J.Powell
writes
>>Have you ever heard that Stalin and Hitler were getting along pretty
>>well at the time and Poland was just an obstacle for their own little
>>expansion plans. What about the Baltic states? A buffer against a
>>Swedish invasion?
>The Baltic States retaken by the Soviet Union in 1940 were originally stolen
>from the Rus by the Teutonic Knights several centuries early. The Teutonic
>assault on the Rus was only stopped by Nevskii at.. lake.. err, I forget the
>lake, but they were stopped.
"Several centuries ago...." Dear oh dear! Does that mean that us Celts
can throw the anglo-Saxons out of our land (England) now>
Mike
PACO JONES
>I was a German soldier in 1944 and 1945. We had been told of plans to castrate
>the Germans after the war had been won by the Allies. Those who told us that
>(Goebbels) were not lying, but they were not telling the full truth either.
>Proposals to do so existed and were advocated by some Americans, influential or
>not, but these proposals never became official plans of the Allied governments.
never became part of any structure of any Allied war plan.
The archives of Defense Departments are full of plans, who have been
elaborated "just in case". That doesn't mean they get implemented or
even seriously considered.
In the same way, the plan we refer to was in no way policy, seriously
considered or could have been carried out.
If the German army told its soldiers they would be castrated, that
qualifies as propaganda or "latrine rumours."
When the Marines conquered Saipan, they found thousands of military
and civilian Japanese that had committed suicide. They had been told
that the men would be tortured to death and the women raped and then
killed.
Since the Japanese had committed such atrocities in China and other
places, they found it easy to believe. And yet, those who didn't
commit suicide were stunned to find out that the Americans treated
them in a humane fashion.
casita
>elaborated "just in case". That doesn't mean they get implemented or
>commit suicide were stunned to find out that the Americans treated
>them in a humane fashion.
Apparently, there was a plan to set fire at St John's NFLD, in case of emergency. Only
disclosed a few years ago.
The Japanese POW crashout in Australia was because they would rather "die like
carp" than return home with the shame of surrender.
E.F.Schelby
>On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:18:21 GMT, james...@aol.com (Jamesg4660)
>wrote:
>
>>>The thread title says castration.
>>>Was the plan to actually turn them into a nation
>>>of docile eunuchs or simple vasectomy?
>>
>>The plan was for the end of the german "race" by sterilizing every German.
>
>And once again, I find it curious that some people are more incensed
>by a crackpot idea to sterilize Germans, which never had any chance of
>being implimented, than the REAL sterilization of Jews BY Germans.
What you don't want to see and understand is the pervasive climate
of racism (for lack of a more subtle word) during WWII in various
countries. The Germans, in one way or another, have served as
American whipping boys for much longer, ever since WW I, and back
then there was no Hitler. You still lynched a man for speaking the
language, and discriminated against your citizens of German origin
in the most revolting manner. You should be deeply embarrassed about
it. When America finds itself in a war with another country, that
doesn't entitle it to find faulty genes or a bad national character
in these people, whoever they are.
You suppressed and outlawed the language, and even so the Supreme
Court declared that unconstitutional in 1925, that did not repair
the damage. You must get over all this, finally. It is against the
law to discriminate based on national origin. It is also
ridiculously provincial. Don't you think 80 years of verbal
tongue-lashing are more than enough? If this goes on, perhaps it
will trigger the last civil rights movement in the country. Wouldn't
that be fun, long after all the other Cigar Stores Indians and
Blackamoors are gone ?
In WW II America seriously and publicly debated the German "bad
seed." That's not much different from anti-Semitism, which starts
with similar ugly ideas. The great lucky break you had in history is
that your country was a huge geographical island protected by two
oceans, and that it didn't get a Hitler or a Stalin like crowded,
war-torn, and destabilized old Europe.
~
Christopher Morton
>
>>Have you ever heard that Stalin and Hitler were getting along pretty
>>well at the time and Poland was just an obstacle for their own little
>>expansion plans. What about the Baltic states? A buffer against a
>>Swedish invasion?
>
>The Baltic States retaken by the Soviet Union in 1940 were originally stolen
>from the Rus by the Teutonic Knights several centuries early. The Teutonic
>assault on the Rus was only stopped by Nevskii at.. lake.. err, I forget the
>lake, but they were stopped.
And Russia belonged to the Mongols.
Do you think the Russians WANT to be Mongol subjects NOW?
Do you think that the Balts WANTED to be Soviet subjects in 1940?
Exactly what benefit did they derive from being Soviet subjects?
Christopher Morton
> cm...@nwonline.net (Christopher Morton) asks:
>
>>And I must ask yet again, why anybody should be more concerned with
>>the unofficial and UNIMPLIMENTED plan of a crackpot to castrate
>>Germans
>
>I was a German soldier in 1944 and 1945. We had been told of plans to castrate
>the Germans after the war had been won by the Allies. Those who told us that
>(Goebbels) were not lying, but they were not telling the full truth either.
And that is the essence of so many of these "arguments" regarding the
Holocaust, the Japanese internment and the alleged castration "plans":
only telling PART of the truth.
By only telling part of the truth, I can easily demonstrate that
Germany is an illegitimate entity, a rebellious province which has
broken away from the government of Italy through a shocking massacre.
I only need to omit the facts that this happened around two thousand
years ago and that the government from which Arminius seceded hasn't
existed for slightly less time. It also helps for me to omit the fact
that similar acts were the coin of the realm for the government of
"Italy" at the time.
> I am today satisfied that we had been lied to back then. Nevertheless, I
>believed, and that made me fight that much harder and, when I was captured,
>caused me considerable anguish and fear.
>
>Does that explain why "anybody" should be "concerned"?
Oh, I can hardly blame you or any other German soldier on this score.
It's not exactly like you were going to log in and read the "Drudge
Report" or watch Chris Matthews' "Hard Ball" on the Fox News Network
to hear an alternative to Goebbels' propaganda.
The point, which must be returned to over and over, is that this
supposed castration "plot" was the PRIVATE proposal of a marginal
personality. Regardless of what impressions such proposals create in
the minds of enemy soldiers or anyone else, they are supported by the
1st Amendment, the same 1st Amendment which protects the rights of
Holocaust revisionists and those who support the forcible relocation
of Japanese-Americans to racial concentration camps.
Mike Fester
: What you don't want to see and understand is the pervasive climate
: of racism (for lack of a more subtle word) during WWII in various
: countries. The Germans, in one way or another, have served as
Hmm, well, I can only speak for those of my relatives who, unlike
you, actually lived in this country AT THE TIME, so...
: American whipping boys for much longer, ever since WW I, and back
: then there was no Hitler. You still lynched a man for speaking the
: language, and discriminated against your citizens of German origin
: in the most revolting manner.
Really?
*MY* ancestors on my father's side are ALL of "German origin".
Oddly, they lived without incident throughout *BOTH* world wars in
this nation, Ms Schelby, and have never felt themselves to be
"whipping boys".
Indeed, my grandfather was turned down for military service, his duties
as supervisor/chief engineer at an aircraft factory being deemed to valuable
to risk.
: In WW II America seriously and publicly debated the German "bad
: seed." That's not much different from anti-Semitism, which starts
: with similar ugly ideas.
It is, however, incredibly different from the "anti-Semitism" practiced
in Hitler's Germany, which does relate more to the group than this bizarre
persecution complex you foster. None of those German origin ancestors (nor
indeed, none of their friends; do you KNOW how many "Germans" lived in the
Eastern US at the time?) were attacked, their property seized, rounded up
and put into concentration camps, gassed, machine-gunned, used for human
guinea pigs, nor any of the other things the nazis did to the Jews for
grins.
And no, I'm not Jewish, so I have no especial sensitivity about what
Germany did to the Jews, other than disgust as a human being.
Mike (remove "@eyrie.org" to reply)
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>What you don't want to see and understand is the pervasive climate
>of racism (for lack of a more subtle word) during WWII in various
>countries. The Germans, in one way or another, have served as
That's funny, I've been Black virtually since birth. Most of my
relatives are Black, many of them from the South, many of whom lived
through WWII.
I would say that I know more about racism in the United States,
before, during and after WWII than you will ever dream of.
That having been said, it still does not speak to the strange fixation
which some people seem to have with racist IDEAS in the United States,
versus racially motivated MUTILATION and GENOCIDE in Germany.
The idea that the bigoted babblings of a crackpot who wanted to
sterilize Germans, and who NEVER had any chance of achieving that,
compare to the things which the Germans actually DID to JUST the Jews,
is utterly and completely surreal.
>American whipping boys for much longer, ever since WW I, and back
>then there was no Hitler. You still lynched a man for speaking the
>language, and discriminated against your citizens of German origin
>in the most revolting manner. You should be deeply embarrassed about
>it. When America finds itself in a war with another country, that
>doesn't entitle it to find faulty genes or a bad national character
>in these people, whoever they are.
I absolutely condemn anti-German bigotry in WWI. That having been
said, my family has always been FAR more likely to BE lynched rather
than to lynch anyone, German or otherwise.
But once more, how many MILLION German-Americans were gassed during
WWI and WWII? How many were shot? How many were hung? How many were
starved? How many were worked to death? How many were allowed to die
in captivity of curable diseases?
How many MILLION German-Americans were forced into ethnic
concentration camps?
How many MILLION German-Americans were used as slave laborers?
How many German-Americans were involuntarily sterilized on the basis
of their race or ethnicity?
>From what professions were German-Americans excluded?
Where where they prohibited from living?
>You suppressed and outlawed the language, and even so the Supreme
>Court declared that unconstitutional in 1925, that did not repair
>the damage. You must get over all this, finally. It is against the
When did the highest German court invalidate the Nuremberg Laws? '34?
'35? '40?
When?
>law to discriminate based on national origin. It is also
>ridiculously provincial. Don't you think 80 years of verbal
>tongue-lashing are more than enough? If this goes on, perhaps it
>will trigger the last civil rights movement in the country. Wouldn't
>that be fun, long after all the other Cigar Stores Indians and
>Blackamoors are gone ?
That's so strange. I live in a community so heavily populated by
German Catholics that you could substitute pages from the Munich
phonebook and people wouldn't notice. I occasionally hear German
spoken in the grocery store. We don't seem to have any anti-German
lynchings. People rob bars, shoot each other over drugs, kill
Guatamalan immigrants in adultery disputes, but so far nobody seems to
have found the time to kill any Germans. I used to work for the
biggest construction company in the area, and nobody's even asked for
bids on an internment camp... of course half the company is ethnic
German, so maybe they're hiding it from them....
>In WW II America seriously and publicly debated the German "bad
>seed." That's not much different from anti-Semitism, which starts
>with similar ugly ideas. The great lucky break you had in history is
>that your country was a huge geographical island protected by two
>oceans, and that it didn't get a Hitler or a Stalin like crowded,
>war-torn, and destabilized old Europe.
In WWII, the Germans didn't DEBATE the Holocaust, they carried it
out... which is why on the one hand you have a goofy screed against
the Germans written by a lunatic, and on the other 6,000,000 dead
Jews.
HCALTMANN
>The point, which must be returned to over and over, is that this
>supposed castration "plot" was the PRIVATE proposal of a marginal
>personality. Regardless of what impressions such proposals create in
>the minds of enemy soldiers or anyone else, they are supported by the
>1st Amendment, the same 1st Amendment which protects the rights of
>Holocaust revisionists and those who support the forcible relocation
>of Japanese-Americans to racial concentration camps.
You are, of course, entirely correct. But, please, also realize that
there was no First Amendment in Germany at the time, and no PRIVATE person
could publish proposals that were contrary to the policy of the
government. Therefore, people may have assumed that that PRIVATE person
was speaking for the government. You must not assume that the rights that
the US Constitution confers on you and me are rights that are universally
held in this world.
I merely plead with you that you understand what went on in the mind of an
eighteen year old in April 1945 when he was taken prisoner by those people
that, he had been told, would sterilize him, and whom he had believed. I
had faith then in my heroes then. But that was a different time. I am 73
years old today and have no heros left.
Christopher Morton
>>No, it was an attempt to profit from Hitler's conquests.
>>Defending Poland instead of splitting it between Hitler and Stalin
>>would have been a better idea.
>Stalin offered to defend Czechoslovakia in 1938. He was refused by the
>Western Capitalists.
Certainly anyone would have been reluctant to accept Stalin's "help",
the Spanish Civil War being evidence of what that "help" entailed.
Whether on balance that tradeoff was a wise one is open to debate.
With Kirov instead of Stalin, it would have been a viable option.
>In 1939, he realised had he defended Poland, he would have a tough task..
>and the possibility of Western intervention against him..
The problem is that Stalin was not interested in "defending" anyone.
That is one of the rocks on which the ship of rational pre-war
opposition to Hitler founders.
David R Brooks
[snip]
:The idea that the bigoted babblings of a crackpot who wanted to
:sterilize Germans, and who NEVER had any chance of achieving that,
:compare to the things which the Germans actually DID to JUST the Jews,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:is utterly and completely surreal.
Incorrect. A comparable number of non-Jews were murdered by the Nazis
as well. See for example, http://www.remember.org/forgotten/
Christopher Morton
>You are, of course, entirely correct. But, please, also realize that
>there was no First Amendment in Germany at the time, and no PRIVATE person
>could publish proposals that were contrary to the policy of the
>government. Therefore, people may have assumed that that PRIVATE person
Oh, and I explicitly stipulated that.
In the United States you have to work to find Nazi propaganda.
In Nazi Germany you had to work (at risk to oneself) to find anything
ELSE.
I find no fault with you or your stated position on the subject. I
find fault with Americans who've never had anything BUT a vast
marketplace of ideas of all degrees of rationality, who try to equate
the prattlings of an idiotic American with GOVERNMENT POLICY in a
fascist dictatorship. I can tell the difference; you can tell the
difference; why can't THEY tell the difference?
George Hardy
>
>From: cm...@nwonline.net (Christopher Morton):
>
>>The point, which must be returned to over and over, is that this
>>supposed castration "plot" was the PRIVATE proposal of a marginal
>>personality.
>You are, of course, entirely correct.
>
>I merely plead with you that you understand what went on in the
>mind of an eighteen year old in April 1945 when he was taken
>prisoner by those people that, he had been told, would sterilize
>him, and whom he had believed.
I believe that Heinz has made the important point. The "plot" was
believed by the Germans. It was believed, in no small part, because
it was in close agreement with the (US) Treasury Plan for the Treatment
of Germany. This "plan" had been approved by at least two of the
three Allied leaders -- WSC and FDR. Who in his right mind would
think that Stalin would be more generous? So, in short, it was
believed because it was credible.
GFH
***************************************************************
http://www.ankerstein.org/
The Anchor Stone Building Set (Anker-Steinbaukasten) Home Page
See what makes me tick.
***************************************************************
George Hardy
Gerany and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. We
either have to castrate the German people, or you have got to
treat them in such a manner that they can't just go on reproducing
people who want to continue the way they have in the past."
Presidential Diary, Morgenthau Papers, vol 6, August 19, 1944,
Hyde Park.
Alexandre Walkling-Ribeiro
<Snip>
> .I don't understand why such importance is given to a "plan", who
> never became part of any structure of any Allied war plan.
deporting all jews to Madagaskar? What if it had happened? Would substantially
have altered history, wouldn't it?
> The archives of Defense Departments are full of plans, who have been
> elaborated "just in case". That doesn't mean they get implemented or
> even seriously considered.
> considered or could have been carried out.
think if the russian secretary of defence threatens to launch ICBMs in 24 hours
against the US? Would you say "Sounds irrealistic, forget it!"? And furthermore
- didn't Hitler himself make 'plans' for his reign in his book "Mein Kampf"?
You'd better not underestimate this.
Though, I must confess, it's no question of guilt to me. It's just that some
people falsify historical truth for the better of a somewhat obscure feeling of
'honor'.
> If the German army told its soldiers they would be castrated, that
> qualifies as propaganda or "latrine rumours."
> When the Marines conquered Saipan, they found thousands of military
> and civilian Japanese that had committed suicide. They had been told
> that the men would be tortured to death and the women raped and then
> killed.
> Since the Japanese had committed such atrocities in China and other
> commit suicide were stunned to find out that the Americans treated
> them in a humane fashion.
This hasn't much to do with the above mentioned case. Greetings.
--
Alexandre Walkling-Ribeiro
######################################################################
"Empörung, die bis zum Haß ansteigt, Besorgnis, die bis zur Furcht geht, sind
schlechte Ratgeber. Sie sind geeignet, das Gefühl für das Recht zu trüben."
(Generalfeldmarschall v.Manstein)
Alexandre Walkling-Ribeiro
<Snip>
> Oh, and I explicitly stipulated that.
>
> In the United States you have to work to find Nazi propaganda.
>
> In Nazi Germany you had to work (at risk to oneself) to find anything
> ELSE.
'Bekennende Kirche' on the protestant side). there you could find lots of
anti-system or at least critical texts. Moreover, the Bishop of Münster, Count
Galen, did have a few words against the Nazi government. Sure, if you define
'work' as getting to the next church, then you're right, but that's not the
point, I think.
> I find no fault with you or your stated position on the subject. I
> find fault with Americans who've never had anything BUT a vast
> marketplace of ideas of all degrees of rationality, who try to equate
> the prattlings of an idiotic American with GOVERNMENT POLICY in a
> fascist dictatorship. I can tell the difference; you can tell the
> difference; why can't THEY tell the difference?
Perhaps they don't have your understanding of subtle differences between
outspoken/-written and practiced government policy?
E.F.Schelby
>E.F.Schelby (sch...@kitsune.swcp.com) wrote:
>Hmm, well, I can only speak for those of my relatives who, unlike
>you, actually lived in this country AT THE TIME, so...
I can only speak about my husband's family, which also lived in the
country AT THE TIME, and didn't experience much anti-German
discrimination either as long as members plugged their ears to the
propaganda. It would have been difficult to affect them since their
phone books in Ohio look like those of Bremen and Muenster.
Moreover, the cemeteries in that region are filled with the old
head-stones of their fallen who fought in the Civil War. It takes at
lot of ill-will and gall to demonize such people and their origins.
It's like an attack against yourself.
But I have also heard other anecdotes, from relatives who lived AT
THE TIME in Chicago, and these accounts are different, and quite
ugly. On the other hand, I have read even more because examples will
not show the big picture, or the overall facts.
>: American whipping boys for much longer, ever since WW I, and back
>: then there was no Hitler. You still lynched a man for speaking the
>: language, and discriminated against your citizens of German origin
>: in the most revolting manner.
>
>Really?
Yes, really. Would you like me to post a list of concrete events and
results, all backed up with references? Some of these results affect
us to this day.
>*MY* ancestors on my father's side are ALL of "German origin".
There you are. It's quite common. So maybe you could summon up a
little more empathy? You see, part of what is so irritating today
may not even be ill-will. It may simply be a rude polemical habit.
Nobody spoke up against it for so long, so the good old ways of
doing things go on and on. Doesn't have to be that way. It's time
to stop.
>Oddly, they lived without incident throughout *BOTH* world wars in
>this nation, Ms Schelby, and have never felt themselves to be
>"whipping boys".
They must have either ignored the vicious propaganda, or believed
it. I should have spelled out that "whipping boy" is not meant in a
physical, but in a mental sense, Mr. Fester. We are talking about
"munitions of mind", or psychological warfare. After WW I, Lord
Ponsonby, uncomfortable about British propaganda, wrote in 1926 that
<quote>
"the injection of the poison of hatred into men's minds by
means of falsehood is a greater evil in wartime than the
actual loss of life. The defilement of the human soul is
worse than the destruction of the human body."
No doubt, the WWI US Committee on Public Information (CPI) was a
massive organization. It used propaganda in an almost Orwellian
fashion. It was a virtual hate factory that portrayed Germans as
brutal, murderous, depraved, and menacing. It disregarded truth as
it saw fit. It discredited all things German, including the
country's history. It was so bad that one of its geniuses, a
professor Vernon Kellogg, asked in one CPI publication:
"will it be a wonder if, after the war, the people
of the world, when they recognize any human being as
being German, will shrink aside so that they may not touch
him as he passes, or stoop for stones to drive him from
their path?"
Sweet stuff, isn't it? And government produced and distributed, too!
>Indeed, my grandfather was turned down for military service, his duties
>as supervisor/chief engineer at an aircraft factory being deemed to valuable
>to risk.
Oh, I believe you. That doesn't change the facts of what happened
during WW I. With no Hitler in sight, mind you. That is the point.
Democratic America really didn't want to fight in Europe. So a
monster of an enemy had to be created in order to whip up hatred and
enthusiasm. And this ammunition for minds could be reactivated in
WWII - as it was.
>: In WW II America seriously and publicly debated the German "bad
>: seed." That's not much different from anti-Semitism, which starts
>: with similar ugly ideas.
>
>It is, however, incredibly different from the "anti-Semitism" practiced
>in Hitler's Germany, which does relate more to the group than this bizarre
>persecution complex you foster.
No need to stoop to personal attacks, Mr.Fester. No, one, ever, has
persecuted me personally in this country - after all, I looked like
the girl next door ;). In contrast, I haven't counted the days which
served up something that was false, distorted, a half-truth, or just
plain insulting. Usually it starts out with the morning papers...
Now Americans are rather decent people, and I get on well with them.
I even love a few of them dearly. What we are talking about here is
an official attitude that lingers on from WWI and WW II. It has
offensive odors. The housekeepers forgot to sweep the debris out
from under the furniture. And no, it is not different from the
verbal anti-Semitism which was found in many countries, including
the US and Britain. It is bigotry to brand any group of people,
whether brown, black, yellow, or green, as a "bad seed." Period.
>None of those German origin ancestors (nor indeed, none of their friends;
>do you KNOW how many "Germans" lived in the Eastern US at the time?) were
>attacked, their property seized, rounded up and put into concentration camps,
>gassed, machine-gunned, used for human guinea pigs, nor any of the other
>things the nazis did to the Jews for grins.
Please don't fight unfairly, below the belt. You _compare_ once
more. I know how many Germans lived in the Eastern and the rest of
the US at the time. And I already congratulated you on being favored
by history and geography, and lucky for not producing a Hitler or a
Stalin. If you are honest you will admit that American society is
not excessively devoid of violence.
But here we go again...using that old weapon indiscriminately to
beat down any discussion. It is very sad - not for me, but for you.
You refuse to face up to certain things, while Germans have dealt
with all that was done in their name for half a century. And I have
done the same, despite the fact that I never harmed or hated a Jew.
I had Jewish friends (concentration camp survivors) since I was 16
years old. And guess what: we liked each other.
Half a century should be enough of a grace period. So now it is time
to separate history from politics and propaganda. I wish you would
help with this worthwhile undertaking.
>And no, I'm not Jewish, so I have no especial sensitivity about what
>Germany did to the Jews, other than disgust as a human being.
I am glad we share that disgust - although my revulsion as a human
being includes other actions, too - for example those that are
happening right now.
Regards,
ES
Jeff Heidman
> PACO JONES schrieb:
> <Snip>
> > .I don't understand why such importance is given to a "plan", who
> > never became part of any structure of any Allied war plan.
> Because you don't know it beforehand. Say, wasn't there this "plan" about
> deporting all jews to Madagaskar? What if it had happened? Would substantially
> have altered history, wouldn't it?
> > The archives of Defense Departments are full of plans, who have been
> > elaborated "just in case". That doesn't mean they get implemented or
> > even seriously considered.
> > In the same way, the plan we refer to was in no way policy, seriously
> > considered or could have been carried out.
> Didn't a leading member of the administration scheme it out?
That's the problem with these posts. Someone posts some ridiculous
garbage, and makes some vague claims, and then someone else comes
along all ready to fall hook, line, and sinker.
No, it wasn't a government official at all. It was some guy who got a
pamphlet published by some publisher. There are lots of those
today. They can usually be found in any city distributing their proof
that aliens are going to land on the turn of the millennium. Do you
take them as seriously?
What a fantastic example of the damage that can be done with just a
smidgen of mis-information. This thread has been going on
forever. Just by reasonable people shooting down these crackpot claims
gives legitimacy to the claims in and of themselves, and by that I
mean the claim that America circa WW2 was worse than Germany circa WW2
because we seriously considered castrating all the Germans after the
war, which in fact was the original claim made my the oh-so estimable
MR. HarmonHall/Matt Giwer. Which is why the revisionists bother to
make them in the first place. I feel tired.
Sigh.
Jeff Heidman
George Hardy
Well, Jeff, FDR was a "government official". He spoke with
Morgenthau about castrating Germany, about not letting Germans
reproduce. I posted the quote. You can look it up.
casita
>I have held off quoting FDR. "We have got to be tough with
>Gerany and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. We
>either have to castrate the German people, or you have got to
>treat them in such a manner that they can't just go on reproducing
>people who want to continue the way they have in the past."
>Presidential Diary, Morgenthau Papers, vol 6, August 19, 1944,
>Hyde Park.
Was this mentioned in a fireside chat?
TSBench
In article <78nv7m$1g32$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, George Hardy
<geo...@mail.rlc.net> writes:
>Well, Jeff, FDR was a "government official". He spoke with
>Morgenthau about castrating Germany, about not letting Germans
>reproduce. I posted the quote. You can look it up.
>
>GFH>>>>
I have in my possession a letter sent by a civilian to FDR in 1942 suggesting
that the US and Canada build 10,000 mini-corvettes and string them bow-to-stern
in two rows 5 miles apart, creating a 'riband sanitaire' that convoys could use
without fear of U-boats. FDR forwarded the letter to Sect'y of the Navy Knox.
Therefore, I assume this means that the US and Canada built the boats and, in
the most secret operation of WW2, created the corridor. :-)
Regards,
TSB
Bill Walker...Producer and Cohost of The Shooting Bench radio
program....General Manager, WDIS-Radio, Norfolk, Massachusetts.
Guenter A. Scholz
Jeff Heidman <jeff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>No, it wasn't a government official at all. It was some guy who got a
>pamphlet published by some publisher. There are lots of those
>today. They can usually be found in any city distributing their proof
>that aliens are going to land on the turn of the millennium. Do you
>take them as seriously?
I would take any of these 'pamphlets' seriously if one of them went
on to being distributed to the brass of the armed forces.
Maybe the old saying...where there is smoke there is fire..... applies.
-best regards, guenter
Gord McFee
Hardy <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote:
I have seen that quote before, and if I am not mistaken, it is one of
the most famous denier forgeries extant, much in the vein of the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
GERARD
[Moderator's note: any followups on this topic will NOT be approved]
> The Baltic States retaken by the Soviet Union in 1940 were originally stolen
> from the Rus by the Teutonic Knights several centuries early.
At 1242, there was no Russian state as recognized now, but rather
collections of principalities the main ones in the Baltic area being
Novgorod and Pskov. Also, the three inhabitants are not Slavs, but either
speak a Finn-Ugric tongue or Germanic. If there was no recognized state in
this area at this time (two Rus principalities in the Baltic I think were
the Novgorod and Pskov) how could you make the case they were stolen?
>The Teutonic assault on the Rus was only stopped by Nevskii at.. lake.. err, I
>forget the
> lake, but they were stopped.
Nevsky stopped two invasions: the first by the Swedes at the mouth of the
Neva in 1240 and second more famous, which you mentioned "Ledovoe
poboishche" of 1242 "Battle on the Ice" on Lake Chud.
PACO JONES
<walk...@reze-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>PACO JONES schrieb:
><Snip>
.>Because you don't know it beforehand. Say, wasn't there this "plan" about
Once again, someone elaborated a plan. I know that the Russians
elaborated a lot of plans that never got serious consideration. Even
Andropov had paranoid plans. (See "Blindman's Bluff").
..>Didn't a leading member of the administration scheme it out?
No, he was not a "leading member of the Administration" What would you
>think if the russian secretary of defence threatens to launch ICBMs in 24 hours>against the US?.
There's a huge difference between a "threat to launch", and a "plan".
The Pentagon is full of plans of how we would invade Nicaragua if
things ever got out of control. Just as the French army had
"contingency Plans" in 1938 about invading Great Britain.
>Though, I must confess, it's no question of guilt to me.
Agreed. I don't think guilt is at all the subject.
It's just that some
.> When the Marines conquered Saipan, they found thousands of military
>> and civilian Japanese that had committed suicide. They had been told
>> that the men would be tortured to death and the women raped and then
>> killed.
>Says who?
Suggest you read William Manchester, among others, who cites chapter
and verse. Of course, you can deny what he writes and his sources as
being "too partisan". After all, he was a Marine in WW2.
.All the best.
Mark Armstrong
> George wrote:
> >I have held off quoting FDR. "We have got to be tough with
> >Gerany and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. We
> >either have to castrate the German people,
>
Very good, got me smiling :-)
Here's another quote...
"The United Nations have no intention to enslave the German people.
We wish them to have a normal chance to develop in peace, as useful
and respectable members of the European family. But we must certainly
emphasise the word 'respectable'; for we intend to rid them once and for
all of Nazi and Prussian militarism and the fantastic and disastrous
notion that they constitute the
'Master Race'."
Pres. Roosevelt, Dec. 24, 1943
_The Hinge of Fate_ Pg. 688
Mark Armstrong
--
"Unconditional surrender means the victors have a free hand.
It does not mean they are entitled to behave in a barbarous
manner, not that they wish to blot out Germany from among
the nations of Europe. If we are bound, we are bound by
own consciences to civilisation."
PM Winston Churchill at the House of Commons, Feb. 22 1944
_The Hinge of Fate_ Pg. 690-691
Mike Fester
: mfe...@iisc.com@eyrie.org (Mike Fester) wrote:
: >: American whipping boys for much longer, ever since WW I, and back
: >: then there was no Hitler. You still lynched a man for speaking the
: >: language, and discriminated against your citizens of German origin
: >: in the most revolting manner.
: >
: >Really?
:
: Yes, really. Would you like me to post a list of concrete events and
: results, all backed up with references?
I would like to know how I am being discriminated against to this very day...
: >*MY* ancestors on my father's side are ALL of "German origin".
:
: There you are. It's quite common. So maybe you could summon up a
: little more empathy?
I cannot summon up empathy for for a persecution complex.
Sorry.
: >Oddly, they lived without incident throughout *BOTH* world wars in
: >this nation, Ms Schelby, and have never felt themselves to be
: >"whipping boys".
: They must have either ignored the vicious propaganda, or believed
: it.
Oddly, Ms Schelby, I cannot find a single instance of propaganda against
US citizens of German extraction, from the period of WWII. Not a one.
As such, there is nothing for them to have ignored.
Now, there WAS propaganda against the GERMANS, but after all they WERE
busily killing a buncha people in Europe for some rather specious reasons,
but that's not what you're saying in the above.
Unless YOU cannot distinguish between Germans and Americans of German extract...
: >It is, however, incredibly different from the "anti-Semitism" practiced
: >in Hitler's Germany, which does relate more to the group than this bizarre
: >persecution complex you foster.
:
: No need to stoop to personal attacks, Mr.Fester. No, one, ever, has
I'm not, Ms Schelby.
However, you do not speak for me, nor for those of my ancestors who were
German.
To bring this back to something relating to WWII, I repeat, none of my
German forbearers were discriminated against in any fashion whatsoever
in that time. At all.
WWI, as you may have noticed, was a different war.
M.J.Powell
>
>
>>I have held off quoting FDR. "We have got to be tough with
>>Gerany and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. We
>>treat them in such a manner that they can't just go on reproducing
>>people who want to continue the way they have in the past."
>>Presidential Diary, Morgenthau Papers, vol 6, August 19, 1944,
>>Hyde Park.
Has anyone thought that this may be just an emphatic way of saying that
the Germans must be made powerless in future, ie, without the means to
wage war?
Mike
Alan Allport
>Has anyone thought that this may be just an emphatic way of saying that
>the Germans must be made powerless in future, ie, without the means to
>wage war?
Oh, sure. But then that would necessitate explaining to the original poster
the concept of hyperbole, which is only deemed to exist, it seems, in the
works of Adolf Hitler. So when Mein Kampf ponders the annihalation of
non-Aryans, that's just the Fuehrer idly musing on a theme; when FDR uses
castration metaphors, however, he's presumed to be handing out the clippers
as he speaks.
Alan.
casita
>castration metaphors, however, he's presumed to be handing out the clippers
>as he speaks.
First, is this a bona fide, verifiable quote?
Secondly, assuming it's on the level, which I do not, he would likely
have gone with a chemical method, rather than gelding.
I think he may have just been using a figure of speach.
George Hardy
<m...@page.kodak.com> says:
>Here's another quote...
FDR Quotes:
Warm Springs, April 11, 1945, ot Henry Morgenthau: "Henry, I am
with you 100%." Presidential Diary, April 11, 1945.
(Remember, JCS 1067 was drawn up by the US Treasury Department.)
And another. At Yalta, to Stalin: "Again propose a toast to the
execution of 50,000 officers of the German army."
George Hardy
<032101be4bac$3317abc0$b6ad...@cs701688-a.mtwh1.on.wave.home.com>,
"casita" <cas...@home.com> says:
> when FDR uses
>>castration metaphors, however, he's presumed to be handing out the clippers
>>as he speaks.
>First, is this a bona fide, verifiable quote?
Sure. The citation was posted with the quote.
Consider another FDR quote: (This time read the citation also.)
On getting coal from Germany. "I'll appoint a committee of three
German businessmen to run the coal mines. It they don't get the
coal out, we'll shoot them." Blum, Roosevelt and Morgenthau, p 621.
George Hardy
<mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> says:
>
>In article <78ob3u$p...@dgs.dgsys.com>, casita <cas...@home.com> writes
>>
>>
>>>I have held off quoting FDR. "We have got to be tough with
>>>Gerany and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. We
>
>Has anyone thought that this may be just an emphatic way of saying that
>the Germans must be made powerless in future, ie, without the means to
>wage war?
Anyone reading the quote can easily accept it as a metaphorical
allusion. OTOH, it is by FDR; it indicates his attitude towards
Germans; it was said to encourage harsh treatment of Germans;
it clearly indicates a desire to destroy not just National Socialism
but the German people.
That was what the war was about. That is why we continued the
killing long after VE day.
TSBench
In article <36b17a89...@NNTP.IX.NETCOM.COM>, FLAM...@hotmail.com (PACO
JONES) writes:
>.> When the Marines conquered Saipan, they found thousands of military
>>> and civilian Japanese that had committed suicide. They had been told
>>> that the men would be tortured to death and the women raped and then
>>> killed.
>>Says who?>>>
There are motion pictures of Japanese soldiers and civilians jumping off cliffs
on Saipan, some of women holding their babies as they jump. In some of the
shots, you can also see USMC interpreters with bullhorns trying to talk them
out of it. They also have shots of the bodies littering the beach. They show up
as file footage in just about everyone documentary ever done on the PTO,
including the Victory at Sea series.
The suicides on Saipan are pretty well documented.
Alexandre Walkling-Ribeiro
> Oh, sure. But then that would necessitate explaining to the original poster
> the concept of hyperbole, which is only deemed to exist, it seems, in the
> works of Adolf Hitler. So when Mein Kampf ponders the annihalation of
> non-Aryans, that's just the Fuehrer idly musing on a theme; when FDR uses
> castration metaphors, however, he's presumed to be handing out the clippers
> as he speaks.
That's exactly the "piece de resistance". We cannot believe that the one
statement is pure hearsay, in contrast the other one hard facts described. The
same would work vice versa in your example. so it's getting back to the question
of mentality. And from this viewpoint, IMO FDR could meant what he said, because
it fits the overall temper of political context. That is for sure just a good
guess, a dogma can't be uprised from our ex-post viewpoint.
--
Alexandre Walkling-Ribeiro
######################################################################
"Emporung, die bis zum Ha? ansteigt, Besorgnis, die bis zur Furcht geht, sind
schlechte Ratgeber. Sie sind geeignet, das Gefuhl fur das Recht zu truben."
(Generalfeldmarschall v.Manstein)
Daniel Keren
opposed to Hardy's "document", is not a forgery:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/b/brack.victor/images/
brack-to-himmler-0642.jpg, brack-to-himmler-0642-2.jpg
Two pages of a letter from Victor Brack to Reichsfuehrer
Himmler, suggesting not to kill all Jews, but spare 20-30
percent for forced labor, while sterilizing them.
Translation:
Letter from SS-Oberfuehrer Brack to Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler,
June 23, 1942
[Documents on the Holocaust - Edited by Y. Arad, Y. Gutman,
A. Margaliot, NY, Ktav Pub. House in Association with Yad-Vashem,
1981, p. 272]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Mr. Reichsfuehrer!
On instruction from Reichsleiter Bouhler I placed a part of my men at
the disposal of Brigadefuehrer Globocnik some considerable time ago
for his special task. Following a further request from him, I have
now made available more personnel. On this occasion Brigadefuehrer
Globocnik pressed the view that the whole action against the Jews
should be carried out as quickly as it is in any way possible, so
that we will not some day be stuck in the middle should any kind
of difficulty make it necessary to stop the action. you yourself,
Mr. Reichsfuehrer, expressed the view to me at an earlier time that
one must work as fast as possible, if only for reasons of concealment.
Both views are more than justified according to my own experience,
and basically they produce the same results. Nevertheless I beg to
be permitted to present the following consideration of my own in
this connection:
According to my impression there are at least 2-3 million men and
women well fit for work among the approx. 10 million European
Jews. In consideration of the exceptional difficulties posed for
us by the question of labor, I am of the opinion that these 2-3
million should in any case be taken out and kept alive. Of course
this can only be done if they are in the same time rendered
incapable of reproduction. I reported to you about a year ago that
persons under my instruction have completed the necessary experiments
for this purpose. I wish to bring up these facts again. The type
of sterilization which is normally carried out on persons with
genetic disease is out of the question in this case, as it takes
too much time and is expensive. Castration by means of X-rays,
however, is not only relatively cheap, but can be carried out on
many thousands in a very short time. I believe that it has become
unimportant at the present time whether those affected will then
in the course of a few weeks or months realize by the effects that
they are castrated.
In the event, Mr. Reichsfuehrer, that you decide to choose these
means in the interest of maintaining labor-material, Reichsleiter
Bouhler will be ready to provide the doctors and other personnel
needed to carry out this work. He also instructed me to inform you
that I should then order the required equipment as quickly as
possible.
Himmler's reply:
Letter from Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler to SS-Oberfuehrer Brack, 11 August
1942
[Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals -
Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. I, p. 722]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Brack,
It is only today that I have the opportunity of acknowledging the
receipt of your letter of June 23. I am positively interested in
seeing the sterilization by X-rays tried out at least once in one camp
in a series of experiments.
<end quotes>
-Danny Keren.
Nils K Hammer
activity during the war. My grandfathers farm was vandalized by
people who thought norwegian names kinda-sorta sounded like
german names.
casita
Eunuchs went out with the Byzantine Warlords.
Even Stalin, who was no bundle of laughs, didn't neuter prisoners. There would be
resistance to surgical or mechanical methods. What incentives could be offerred?
Chemical and radiological procedures would be more likely.
Phil Pomerantz
I thought germany started the war and if we are going to use quotations by
leaders to define natioanl goals then we can hark back to Mein Kampf,
where Hitler said that if there was a World War it would mean the
destruction of the Jews. Maybe that was what the war was about.
Oh, I forgot. We can't quote from Mein Kampf, that was just hitler
spouting off. Unlike the fireside chats,which were formulations of
national policy.
We didn't continue the killing (which germany started) after VE day. If I
recall, we spent a large part of our national treasure resurrectibg ALL of
Europe after the war, including Germany.
I don't recall Adenauer or Erhart feeling bitter towards US treatment of
Germany after the war. Why should you? They were in a much better
position to appreciate what happened than a bunch of revisionist fools.
If the US wanted to destroy Germany, why did she help germany get back on
her feet and become one of the economic powers of the post war world?
I know, it was pure selfishness, the US needed Germany to fight Comunism.
Strange, when Germany conquered parts of Europe and was going to take on
Russia, the Germans looted the conquered nations of Europe. Would you
care to explain that, or wil you continue to quote a discredited bitter
author named Bacque in your feeble efforts to show that the nazis weren't
any different than the Allies
Phil
M.J.Powell
<geo...@mail.rlc.net> writes
>>In article <78ob3u$p...@dgs.dgsys.com>, casita <cas...@home.com> writes
>>>>I have held off quoting FDR. "We have got to be tough with
>>>>Gerany and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. We
>>>>either have to castrate the German people, (snip)
>>Has anyone thought that this may be just an emphatic way of saying that
>>the Germans must be made powerless in future, ie, without the means to
>>wage war?
>Anyone reading the quote can easily accept it as a metaphorical
>allusion. OTOH, it is by FDR; it indicates his attitude towards
>Germans; it was said to encourage harsh treatment of Germans;
>it clearly indicates a desire to destroy not just National Socialism
>but the German people.
On the contrary, even if FDR said it, it could well indicate a desire to
deprive the Germans of the means to wage war, no heavy industry, close
monitoring of any arms production etc. It is perverse to take it
literally, considering the hard words that must have been spoken about
Germans in all Allied offices of state.
Mike
George Hardy
(Daniel Keren) says:
>
>Here's an authentic document about mass sterilization, which, as
>opposed to Hardy's "document", is not a forgery:
I often wish what I read in the Presidential Dairies of FDR was,
in fact a forgery. Sadly, vol. 6, August 19, 1944 (Hyde Park)
is not a forgery. He really said it; said it for posterity.
And, while we are at it. Nizkor has a long history of forgery,
created (often quite badly) photographs (perspective wrong;
one person has to have 4 foot long feet to be doing what was
said; another has to be 3 feet tall, etc.) and just plain
imagination. A one-man organization. Of all of the sources
to quote, this one is one of the least credible.