Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 18514041)

I said 'many people say'...not that I personally believe it. The point is that Britain imposed a blockade on Europe designed to prevent supplies reaching Germany through neutral states. Neutral states such as Spain were prevented from importing more than they needed for their own use, so as to prevent re-export to Germany.

Britain also undertook other measures against neutral countries, such as mining Norwegian territorial waters so as to deter the shipping of Swedish iron ore to Germany along the Norwegian coast.

It is true that Germany did not suffer the same food shortages that caused its Home Front to collapse during the First World War. But if you read the book, "Starvation Over Europe", you will understand why that was so. Germany simply satisfied its own food requirements from its own production and the production of the countries occupied by it, meaning that the burden of the 10% deficit in the total food supply of German-occupied Europe was diverted away from the German people and onto the peoples of the occupied countries.

Germany adopted a system of rationing the available food supply, ie the 90% of total requirements that could be produced within German-occupied Europe, based on the principle that other peoples would starve before the German people did. That principle in turn was derived from Germany's experience in the First World War, where its failure to ruthlessly exploit the territories it did occupy in Eastern Europe (in particular Ukraine from March to November 1918) resulted in starvation in German and more severely in its Austrian ally.

Not only did the food rationing system reserve available food supplies for the German people, so as to maintain its normal standard of nutrition, it also reserved food for population groups favoured by the German Government. The book "Starvation over Europe" shows that some peoples, eg the Danes and the Czechs, enjoyed a standard of nutrition equal to that of the German people and in some cases even better.

The other side of the coin was that less favoured groups received much lower rations. According to the book cited, the lowest rations were accorded to Jews and Greeks. It is understandable why Jews received the lowest ration, given their status as the most disliked people from the German Government's point of view, but it is hard to understand why the Greeks were equally disadvantaged. Perhaps that was a result of logisitical factors, and it is noteworthy that Germany cooperated with the Allies to supply food to the starving urban population of Greece.

Although a shortfall of 10% may not sound like much, it can be a matter of life and death when the burden of that shortfall is concentrated on a particular part of the population, ie if the available 90% is shared among, say, 97% of the total population of the blockaded area, giving it about 93% of its requirements, while the remaining 3% of the population receives nothing.

The crucial issue is that although theoretically Germany could import food from or through neutral countries such as Portugal, Spain, Turkey etc., Britain's command of the sea-approaches via the Atlantic and the Mediterranean meant that it could control imports by those neutral countries, reducing their ability to re-export to Germany.

Once Germany had occupied most of Europe, prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union, it became responsible for the feeding of that entire area, both itself, its allies, and the countries occupied by it. That is when the 10% food deficit of the European Continent (excluding the Soviet Union) really began to bite.

In short, one should not fantasise about large convoys of merchant ships arriving at Lisbon and Turkish ports loaded with food for Germany and its allies. That simply did not happen.

Much is made of the economic agreements between Germany and the Soviet Union of 1939, 1940 and 1941, which allowed Germany to import food and other raw materials, in particular oil, either from the Soviet Union itself or acquired by the Soviet Union from other countries for re-export to Germany.

However, it needs to be remembered that the Soviet union was not giving lend-lease aid to Germany. The three economic agreements were barter arrangements whereby the Soviet undertook to deliver fixed quantities of raw materials to Germany in exchange for Germany's delivery of fixed quantities of manufactured goods, including arms and other forms of war-production, to the Soviet Union.

It was very difficult for Germany to keep up with its deliveries, since they weakened Germany's own war-fighting capacity, and when they lagged the Soviet Union cut back its own deliveries in retaliation. For example, in the second half of 1940 Soviet deliveries were drastically cut back, on the excuse of Germany's tardiness with its deliveries, and they were not restored to their former level until the third economic agreement of early 1941. It is possible that the reason for the Soviet reduction of deliveries in 1940 was actually Stalin's shock at the unexpected sudden German victory in June of that year, and his resultant concern to weaken Germany.

The economic relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union prior to June 1941 was nothing like that between Britain and the United States, or Britian and its Commonwealth and Empire. Britain was never in a position where, in order to receive supplies of food and other raw materials, it had to divert a substantial part of its war production to a supplier that could well turn out to be hostile; it was always able to rely fully on its suppliers.

Originally Posted by NewNick (Post 18514037)

And I suppose the annexing of the Sudatenland, followed by the invasion of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland, France and eventually Russia, all part of Stalins masterplan.

Originally Posted by Supz (Post 18513407)

So if they did not want to kill the jews, why did they kill 5-10 million of them. Was that because of the breakdown of the German society.
...
The Jews died because of a supply issue. They were running low on water so they put deadly gas in the showers instead.

Originally Posted by Matt 26z (Post 18514445)

Why do Jews and Jewish sympathizers absolutely need the story to involve evil Nazis murdering everyone in cold blood? Why are alternative theories that still acknolege all of the deaths not allowed?


Read it and weep, idiot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

Covered up for decades and not a peep about this kind of thing at the Nuremberg trials. Stalin himself signed the order for this particular massacre. There was enough evidence to put Stalin on trial and execute him. But again, the goal was to pin it all on Germany, so all of this was swept under the rug by the allied countries for decades.



You are a child incapable of processing events from an alternative point of view while still arriving at the same ending. I do not question the 5-10 million figure. The specific events that brought the figure that high is what I question.

The blockade is well documented and it probably was responsible for more Jewish deaths than anything the Nazi's did directly. But people don't like to think about Jewish deaths as being the unintended consequences of a blockade. It feels so much better to believe evil Nazis did it all.

FYI: The gas you are referencing is Zyklon B, a pesticide actually used to clean living areas and fumigate clothing. Disease outbreaks were rampant at the internment camps and responsible for a great number of deaths. The Zyklon B was used to help bring the disease down. This gas is not ideal for human execution because it lingers in the air for a long time, preventing entry by those that remove the bodies. Yet eyewitness accounts state that Nazi soldiers entered the showers to remove bodies immediately after execution. This is not possible and these particular accounts are a fraud. This however does not mean that Nazi's didn't gas some amount of Jews.

At some point rogue soldiers probably tossed prisoners in with the clothing being gassed for their own sick amusement. These isolated incidents spawned myths of gassing to kill everyone. If you look at the history of wars, there is always an element of illegal actions by rogue soldiers.

Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18513411)

just another sad example of the current trend of "education by youtube documentary." it is really having a negative effect on the educational levels on the population. it's getting pathetic actually.

Originally Posted by PR_Glen (Post 18514534)

agreed completely...


which is scary considering how jaded and manipulative documentaries have been going over the last 10 years or so...

Originally Posted by Cherry7 (Post 18514501)

These are NOT theories of Jew being killed in cold blood these are facts. I have met eye witnesses, I have seen the camps, I have stood in the gas chambers. The murdered people Jews, Poles, gypsies, communists, Trade Unionists, the disabled and the mentally ill.


The Katyn Murders were not covered up for years but were well known even in communist circles. Yes, of course, Stalin should have been arrested, and so should Churchill and every American President, for their crimes in their respective colonies.

BUT the NAZI horror was something of exceptional nation, to kill people because of their race, not because what they believed.

The Jewish people were deliberately starved, shot, gased....It had nothing to do with the blockade.

The rubbish you write about Zyklon B, the Germans did not enter the gas chambers, they made prisoners do that work, they were later murdered.

The camps were liberated by British, American and Russian troops, all filmed and photographed what they saw, it is all there to be seen. Thousand survived to testify.

Anyone who denies these crimes has a reason, a racist hatred for people different from themselves,