Sunday, October 22, 2017

Former Secretaries of State advise U.S. Ambassador to U.N.


The New York Times recently reported on a conference in New York City attended by Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, former Secretaries of State, and Nikki Haley, the current U.S. ambassador to the U.N.  It was a discussion of American leadership sponsored by President Bush’s presidential center.  The Times reported that during a panel discussion the cabinet veterans “sought to school” Haley “on the importance of the State Department budget, the threat posed by Russia, the best way to reform the United Nations and the virtues of nation building, international trade and a free press.”  Ambassador Haley may need some schooling but it should not come from the people who created the current problems facing the U.S.  The Times went on to say “they offered an establishment tutorial on statecraft” claiming that the current administration had “disdained the very notion.”  One of the more perceptive comments made by the Times writer was, “it felt like a deposed order seeking to influence the revolutionaries who toppled it.”

Madeleine Albright advised Haley that, “Nation building is not a four-letter word.” She did not elaborated on the many nations that were successfully built during her tenure in the Clinton administration.  Albright is also famous for telling reporter Lesley Stahl in response to a question about sanctions causing the death of half a million children, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”  Albright also stated, “I think also that we have to be very protective of our press.”  This was a veiled criticism of the Trump administrations battle with the press.  Perhaps the best way to protect the press is to point out where it is distorting the truth in the hope that it will be more accurate.  Albright also offered advice on how to deal with the United Nations.  Funding for the international body is in jeopardy because of frequently its bizarre decisions.  The U.N.’s World Health Organization recently had to back down on its decision to appoint President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe as a "goodwill ambassador.”  Condoleezza Rice stressed international cooperation and mentioned the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from UNESCO, the U.N.’s cultural organization.  Rice was President Bush’s national security adviser in 2002 when the United States rejoined UNESCO.

The Times claims the discussion was overshadowed by a speech by President Bush “that sounded like a rebuke of President Trump and the forces that brought him to power.” CNN described this as “a major smackdown on Trumpism.”  This was a break from tradition and contrary to Bush’s own stated policy which he described in 2009 when President Obama took office: “There's plenty of critics in the arena. I think it's time for the ex-president to tap dance off the stage and let the current president have a go at solving the world's problems."

This conference brought together Republicans and Democrats in what the Times called “almost like a meeting of the exiled bipartisan order, sharing their anxiety about Mr. Trump’s leadership in the world.”  Rice and Albright encouraged Haley to resist President Trump’s proposal to slash the State Department budget.  Rice noted that “fighting AIDS, supporting women’s groups and financing election monitoring go a long way toward advancing American interests.”  She did not mention the State Department’s LGBT ambassador program which has not been popular on the African continent.  She did not mention the $5 million order for custom crystal wine glasses from a democratic campaign donor.  Some hand blown crystal retail for up to $85-per-wine glass.  The State Department also spent 4.5 Million for Embassy art, when it had no money for Benghazi security.

An attack on the Trump administration would not be complete without a mention of the claim that Russia put Trump in the White House.  Rice, described as “a longtime Russia scholar” said the intervention was “highly sophisticated.”  Being a longtime Russian scholar, she must know.  In an election that cost approximately $6.6 billion the Russians spent approximately $100,000 on Facebook ads.  If that swung an election it was truly highly sophisticated.  She could not be referring to the soon to be completely discredited “dossier.”  The truth about this “dossier” will prove to be a major embarrassment to many people and will further diminish to credibility of the press.

Ambassaor Haley also said, “When a country can come interfere in another country’s elections, that is warfare.”  She said this with a straight face apparently not realizing the irony.

John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing).  He has a Master of Arts Degree in International Relations from St. Mary’s University.  He is retired from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.


Monday, October 16, 2017

Book Review - Sheryl Attkisson’s The Smear

Sheryl Attkisson’s, The Smear, gives insight to how news is made today.  It goes a long way in convincing readers that they should believe only a small portion of what is released by the government and reported by the press.  This leads to a very cynical view of the news and confirms Otto von Bismarck’s claim that "Nothing is proven until it is officially denied."  Attkinsson gives an account of how massive the smear industry is.  My only criticism of the book is her contention that, “the organized political smear entered the contemporary marketplace circe 1987.”  Some of these smear techniques can probably be found in a study of politics in the ancient Sumerian city of Ur.  The “scientific" smear might be traced back to George Creel’s World War I Committee on Public Information or Edward Bernays 1920s book Propaganda.  She also appears to attribute the advice “Admit nothing” to the CIA.  This is a classic Communist technique.  Dozens of Communist spies had denied their connection to the Communist party and have been believed by the gullible for decades.  She mentions the “infamous senator Joseph McCarthy.” who was the victim of an extremely effective smear campaign.  She might benefit from reading M. Stanton Evans’ Blacklisted by History.  Few people could survive the scrutiny and smear campaign Senator McCarthy was subjected to.

Her account of Larry Flynt’s reward for information on Congressional extramarital affairs was revealing.  Just how many Congressmen have nothing to hide and cannot be blackmailed?  The government undoubtedly has an incredible amount of information on every American.  Representative Maxine Waters revealed that President Obama had a database “that no one has ever seen before.”  Presumably he took this with him when he left the White House.  We know the FRI spied on Martin Luther King.  With the power of modern computers virtually everything can be recorded and stored in a database that is on a 1.5 million square foot facility in Utah.  Data collection is only one area that government officials have lied to Congress and the public about.  James Clapper, James Comey and John Brennan have all perjured themselves in Congressional testimony.

Smears are promoted by both the left and right.  However, considering the left has almost total control of the “commanding heights” of our society, they have an distinct advantage.  It is truly amazing that Donald Trump was elected president in the face of opposition from the media, academia, government bureaucracy, the Democratic Party and a large portion of the Republican Party.  Attkinsson reveals the role of “non-profit” organizations in the smear industry.  She specifically mentions David Brock’s compensation which numbers in the millions.

Donald Trump’s victory has increased the need of the left to limit the amount of information available to the public.  The effort to eliminate “fake news” is a project led by people like Barack Obama, David Brock, Mark Zuckerberg, Angela Merkel and countless other members if the establishment.  Attkisson points out the problem with restricting news: “it relies on some of the very organizations that have gotten caught in compromising situations.”  Some of the people responsible for determining what is “fake news” might have a problem.  Anita Kahane, a former Stasi agent and social activist, may have a problem with being objective. As Attkisson says, “those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

The internet has made it extremely difficult to spread fake news.  Dan Rather learned this when he attempted to pass off a memo that he claimed was created in the 1970s.  It was immediately recognized as a fake because it was created with a computer font that did not exist at the time.  The “dossier” claiming to show Trump connection with the Russians is similarly an obvious fake.  It is amazing that people in the intelligence community can get away with claiming that it might be accurate.  The first page of the dossier is classified “Sensitive Source - Confidential.”  You do not have to be an intelligence expert to know that sensitive sources are never classified confidential.  A school teacher might try an experiment with a class of 6th graders.  After a brief lesson on classification have them produce a document containing a “sensitive source.”  It is unlikely that any of these children would label the document “Confidential.”

















Saturday, October 7, 2017

Nostalgia Merchants Vindicated – Part 1: African Americans


The nostalgia merchants sell an appealing Norman Rockwell-like picture of American life half a century ago, one in which every household was made up of stable parents, two kids, a dog, and a cat who all lived in a house with a manicured lawn and a station wagon in the driveway.  I understand that nostalgia.  I feel it myself when the world seems too much to take. - Hillary Clinton

The controversy about the 1950s has been rekindled by an article two law professors, Amy Wax and Larry Alexander, wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer.   They decry the breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture and suggest that this has resulted in increase opioid abuse, homicidal violence, out of wedlock births and a general decline in human capital.  They describe these bourgeois values as:

Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

They explain that, “These basic cultural precepts . . . could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities.”  However, they are being accused of being “white supremacists” and their jobs have been threatened.  Of course they have not come out and blatantly suggested whites are superior.  They are using a “dog whistle.”  The University of San Diego dean called their article, “an unapologetic paean to segregationist era America.”

Hillary continued, “There were many good things about our way of life back then.  But in reality, our past was not so picture-perfect.”   The elite concentrate on these not so picture-perfect aspects.  James Bowman wrote about the trend among historians to scrutinize the social institutions of the 1950s: “The idea is to show us how, when you rip away the Ozzie-and-Harriet facade of that decade, you reveal beneath it an ugly scene of domestic mayhem that goes far toward explaining why the phrase ‘family values’ inspires only derisive laughter among the elite.”    Newsweek magazine commented, “the `50s fantasy of mom and dad and 2.2 kids went the way of phonograph records and circle pins.”   Historian David Halberstam explained, “One reason that Americans as a people became nostalgic about the fifties more than twenty-fine later was not so much that life was better in the fifties (though in some ways it was), but because at the time it had been portrayed so idyllically on television.”

Hillary tells us to “ask African-American children who grew up in a segregated society” how perfect the 50s were, implying that they were far from perfect.  As it happens, prominent Black American have written about their experiences growing up in the segregated South.  While conditions were far from ideal, they were not as dire as progressives would portray them. 

Margaret Bush Wilson, former chairman of the NAACP, reported "I grew up in a ghetto in Saint Louis, but it was a safe and clean ghetto, if you can imagine that.  We had hardworking families living there.  We had a doctor, a lawyer, a bricklayer and a drunk on the same street.  But now those neighborhoods are gone.  Hardworking parents are losing control of their children.  The church and the family have deteriorated.  There is blood in the street.” 

Ralph Abernathy, former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, described the life of his childhood in almost nostalgic terms.  His father, he said, was a farmer, “but unlike some of our neighbors, black and white, we were not struggling to survive on a patch of hard-scrabble land.  My father owned approximately five hundred acres of good, black soil.  To get ahead, he did three things: worked as hard as he possibly could; led a severely disciplined and sober life; and married well. . .
(He believed) in righteousness and self-reliance . . .  In a rural area where land was available to people who were willing to work for it, it was possible for a few blacks to enjoy both freedom and a kind of equality - one based on mutual respect and a certain standoffishness.  (In the 1980s,) as I encounter these tragic young faces (of poor blacks) all over the country, I remember the faces of my brothers and sisters and cousins of half century ago.  The faces I recall are not as bitter and hopeless as the ones I see today, if only because my father and the other adults in my family understood that economic independence, our ultimate freedom and salvation, was achievable.”

Black columnist William Raspberry recalls that a young man killed in a motorcycle accident was “the only contemporary of ours to die of any cause” during his late teens and early twenties (in the 1950s and ‘60s) Raspberry’s own middle-class children, in contrast, could name half a dozen deaths among their acquaintances, including several murders.  Conditions in poor black neighborhoods, of course, are far worse.

Today more Black Americans are murdered by other Black on a yearly bases than all of the Blacks lynched during an 87 year period.  Yet there is little protest. 




Thursday, October 5, 2017

A CNN Exclusive

CNN has come up with an “Exclusive”:  Special Investigator Mueller’s team has met with the Russian dossier author, Christopher Steele.  CNN is the network whose former head, Eason Jordan wrote an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “The News We Kept to Ourselves.”  In it he explained how CNN intentionally distorts the news.  CNN has “learned” that the FBI and the rest of the US intelligence community took the Steele dossier more seriously than they publicly acknowledged.  No more reliable anonymous sources.  They just “learned” it.  The claim that people of average or above average IQ took the “dossier” seriously is amusing.  Even Vice President Joe Biden recognized it as a fraud.   In January 2017 James Clapper claimed the intelligence community had "not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable."

CNN claimed, “the CIA, and the FBI took Steele's research seriously enough that they kept it out of a publicly-released January report on Russian meddling in the election in order to not divulge which parts of the dossier they had corroborated and how.”  If the information in this “dossier” is true, someone very close to Vladimir Putin is in serious trouble.    The article continued, “While the most salacious allegations in the dossier haven't been verified, its broad assertion that Russia waged a campaign to interfere in the election is now accepted as fact by the US intelligence community.”  Originally all 17 intel agencies agreed to this.  This was repeated ad nauseam.  Later it was revealed that only three agencies had agreed.  These three agencies were headed by known perjurers. 

The repetition technique has been very successful.  Sen. Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, stated "The committee cannot really decide the credibility of the dossier without understanding things like, who paid for it? Who are your sources and sub-sources?"  One has only to look at this collection of memos to know they are bogus.  The article concludes the “Committee (is) still searching for 'any hint of collusion.”  The House, the Senate, the intel agencies, a special prosecutor and thousands of reporters hoping to make a name for themselves have been searching for any “hint.” So far we have nothing.

James Comey, James Clapper and John Brennan (all perjurers) knew this “dossier” was fake.  You don’t have to be an intel expert to know that “Sensitive Source” is never classified “Confidential.”  This is on the first page of the dossier and is a dead giveaway.  Joe Biden even recognized it as nonsense.  The FBI does “not divulge which parts of the dossier they had corroborated and how.”  If there was anything to reveal it would have been leaked already.  See the “dossier” yourself (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html).
We were constantly informed of how expensive Ken Starr’s investigation was.  If these shysters are charging $500 an hour they need to be investigated. They will have to come up with something to justify picking the lock to someone’s house and doing a KGB style raid.  Cardinal Richelieu said, “If you give me six sentences written by the most innocent of men I will find something in them with which to hang him.”  If they have access to Obama’s database they have the power to have people make false claims.  They have already revealed that committing perjury is not a problem for deep state members.

During this pre-dawn raid on Paul Manafort’s home the FBI entered with their guns drawn catching the Manaforts asleep in their beds.  This may be standard operation procedure when serving a warrant.  Searching Mrs. Manafort for weapons in her nightgown may also be required procedure.  But why the “pre-dawn” raid.  This is reminiscent of the Gestapo or KGB.  Solomon L. Wisenberg, deputy independent counsel in the investigation that led to the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton remarked, “They are setting a tone. It’s important early on to strike terror in the hearts of people in Washington, or else you will be rolled.”  Jimmy Gurulé, a Notre Dame law professor claimed, “This is more consistent with how you’d go after an organized crime syndicate.”


Did anyone die as a result of Mr. Manafort’s activities?  Perhaps Mueller’s resources would be better spent if he were to investigate Eric Holder’s role in Fast and Furious.   There are numerous examples of incidents needing investigation from the Obama administration.  Benghazi and the IRS scandal are just two of the many questionable occurrences.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Adios Columbus



The controversy surrounding the Columbus Day holiday is part of a culture war that includes the removal of Confederate monuments and the NFL protests.  Columbus Day is being renamed Indigenous People's Day in many locations.  The battles being fought over Columbus Day are already being fought over Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July.  The very foundation of America is under assault.  Many powerful elite organizations are taking part in this attack and have been for decades.

The American Library Association issued a statement in 1990 denouncing the Columbus Jubilee.  They claimed the 1492 event “began a legacy of European piracy, brutality, slave trading, murder, disease, conquest, and ethnocide.”  The National Council of Churches passed a resolution condemning Columbus for invading America and inflicting "slavery, genocide, theft, and exploitation" on the natives.  The National Education Association’s journal, NEA Today, declared “Christopher Columbus brought slavery to this hemisphere.”  Journalist Richard Bernstein attended the 1987 convention of the American Historical Association.  He reported,   "The unvarying underlying themes were the repressiveness inherent in American life and the sufferings of groups claiming to be victims of that repressiveness.  ... The history of the United States was the history of suffering for all but the white establishment."  This critical outlook is reflected in the National Standards for U.S. and World History.

A major factor in binding a society together is a shared history.  To Americans, the Alamo is an example of heroism.  Mexicans have another view.  Heroes play an important part in a nations history.  Heroes, being human, have many flaws.  Therefore much of the accounts of their lives are based on myths.  The story of Columbus has traditionally been embellished and his flaws have been overlooked.  We are now confronting the opposite situation.  Many American heroes have undergone this transition.  People still require heroes (role models) and unfortunately many of these new heroes and rap singers, drug pushers or sports figures.

The attack on Columbus can be put in a larger context.  We are witnessing an all out assault on our culture.  The arguments used in the attack on Columbus can be used to attack the Fourth of July, Thanksgiving and other holidays.  This attack is being led by members of our own “elite.”   Members of the media, academia, government bureaucracy, entertainers and even businessmen have joined in on this attack. 

Perhaps the most damaging attacks take place in the classroom.  Kennedy School Principal Anne Foley wrote, "When we were young we might have been able to claim ignorance of the atrocities that Christopher Columbus committed against the indigenous peoples.”  She continued, "We can no longer do so. For many of us and our students celebrating this particular person is an insult and a slight to the people he annihilated. On the same lines, we need to be careful around the Thanksgiving Day time as well." Bill Bigelow of the Zinn Education Project proclaimed, "If Indigenous peoples’ lives mattered, and if Black people’s lives mattered, it would be inconceivable to honor Columbus, the father of the slave trade, with a national holiday."  James Kracht from Texas A&M College of Education believes, "The indigenous population was kind of waiting expectantly (with the arrival of Columbus), almost with smiles on their faces.” Kracht envisioned them saying, "'I wonder what this guy is bringing us?' Well, he's bringing us smallpox, for one thing, and none of us are going to live very long."






Friday, September 29, 2017

Football Protests


The recent controversy over football game protests has crowded out more significant news from the front page.  North Korea, healthcare, and tax cuts are relegated to the background.  The heads of the major media have determined that this is the story of major importance.  Intense pressure has been applied by both sides of the conflict on individuals to support their cause.  What was originally a protest against police brutality has morphed into a protest about the President.

The left has made a major miscalculation in its program to attack Trump. What have they gained and what have they lost with these protests.  The players and even the owners do not seem to be aware that there will be a heavy price to pay for alienating a large number of their customers.  On their plus side they have brought attention to a problem.  However, this problem was exaggerated and distorted by the media.   Football is a favorite spectator sport for many working class men.   “Pajama boys” and Antifa are probably not the greatest fans of football.  They have alienated a large portion of their base in support of Black Lives Matter.

Black Lives Matter protesters are not really interested in Black lives.  They are interested in displaying their ability to manipulate people.  If they were interested in Black lives they would be supporting the President.  Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute commented, “Trump’s concern about rising crime is not a concern about white victims and the loss of white life. Rather, it is a concern about black lives.”  She suggests that protests against the police have actually increased the Black homicide rate.  Strong law enforcement politicians follow policies that lower the homicide rate. During the mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani the homicide rate for Blacks plummeted in New York City.  More Blacks die violently every years than died in a century of lynchings. This is especially tragic when it is in the case of children like the nine-year-old girl fatally shot while doing homework on her mother’s bed in Ferguson in 2015.

The protesters argue that it is President Trump who is being divisive and disrespectable.   NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell claimed, "The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture."  It can only be concluded from this statement that Roger Goodell is delusional.  Goodell continued, "Divisive comments . . . demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL.”  The claims of innocence are not very convincing.   Colin Kaepernick the initiator of these protests sports Black Panther and Fidel Castro embossed clothing.

The one mistake the President made was to inadvertently involve the mother of the protesters in the conflict.  An organization of NFL players’ mothers sent a letter to the President defending their sons and requesting that he “put a stop to the divisive language.”  They continued, “It saddens the organization to know that President Donald Trump would make our sons — as well as their mothers — the target of inflammatory, offensive comments that are intended to promote anger and hatred, depleting them of their heritage and self-identity.”
President Trump is undoubtedly a football fan.  He claims to know many of the team owners.  It is unlikely that he would have anything negative to say about the players if they had not inserted themselves into this conflict.


Once the price for these protests is revealed, the owners and players will reconsider.  Their first tactic will be to claim that they were not protesting the flag or anthem.  They will portray themselves as super patriots.  However, many of those fans who have left will not be returning.  The intolerance for players like Tim Tebow and the decals that were designed to honor the five Dallas police officers murdered in July 2016 will have to be reconsidered.

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Fashion Crisis Aboard Air Force One

Vogue Fashion Editor Lynn Yaeger.  If you are
 getting your fashion advice from her  you have a problem
Will anyone ever forget where they were the moment the news broke that Melania Trump “boarded Air Force One wearing a pair of towering pointy-toed snakeskin heels better suited to a shopping afternoon on Madison Avenue or a girls’ luncheon at La Grenouille.”  What does the U.N. Security Council have to say about this.  Fortunately we have Lynn Yaeger, fashion editor of Vogue magazine, to alert us to this crisis.  Ms. Yaeger should be invited to the White House to give Melania some fashion tips.  It
does not appear that Ms. Yeager made similar comments when Michelle Obama attended a feeding for the homeless in $500 tennis shoes.
My good friend Elmo remarked upon seeing this photo that it reminded him of that Elvis Presley hit "A Hunk, a Hunk of Burning Love."  Elmo has been off his meds for a while.  He never got over Hillery's loss.

Saturday, August 26, 2017

BroJoeK vs Vehmgericht on Morgenthau Plan

To: libertylover
FDR signed off on the Morgenthau Plan which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent people and Europe almost going Communist by 1947.
23 posted on 8/24/2017, 9:38:35 AM by Vehmgericht

To: Vehmgericht
Vehmgericht: " FDR signed off on the Morgenthau Plan which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent people and Europe almost going Communist by 1947. "
Sorry, but the Morgenthau plan was never implemented, so you'll have to blame those deaths on the real perpetrators: national & international socialists.
Most people still remember the American plan which did get carried out.
It was called the Marshall Plan and it sent, in our dollars, many billions to help feed & economic recovery for post-war Europeans. 
30 posted on 8/24/2017, 2:06:38 PM by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)

To: BroJoeK
BroJoeK, You have been reading conventional history by plagerists like Steven Ambrose. JCS 1067, directing US policy, was essentially the Morghenthau Plan. Like any complex plan it was not 100% like the original. If you demand 100% conformity, the Marshal PLan was never implemented. The Communist inspired (Harry Dexter White) plan was almost successful in driving all of Europe into the Soviet sphere. That is what made the Marshal Plan necessary. I agree that international socialist were to blame. The FDR administration was full of them
32 posted on 8/24/2017, 2:42:07 PM by Vehmgericht ( stop)

To: BroJoeK
I forget where I first read about the Morgenthau Plan. I was appropriately appalled.
33 posted on 8/24/2017, 7:34:38 PM by Lysandru

To: Vehmgericht
Vermgerricht: "You have been reading conventional history by plagerists like Steven Ambrose. 
JCS 1067, directing US policy, was essentially the Morghenthau Plan"
Here is what history says about it:

  • "While the Morgenthau Plan had some influence on Allied planning for the occupation of Germany, it was not adopted
  • U.S. occupation policies aimed at "industrial disarmament",[2] but contained a number of deliberate "loopholes", limiting any action to short-term military measures and preventing large-scale destruction of mines and industrial plants, giving wide-ranging discretion to the military governor and Morgenthau's opponents at the War Department.[3][4] From 1947 the US policies aimed at restoring a "stable and productive Germany" and were soon followed by the Marshall Plan.[3][5]
    The Morgenthau Plan was
    seized upon by the Nazi German government, and used as part of propaganda efforts in the final months of the war which aimed to convince Germans to fight on."
And on JCS 1067:

  • "Walter M. Hudson describes JSC 1067 as less harsh than Morgenthau's plan: while core elements of the Morgenthau Plan were incorporated in JCS 1067, it was deliberately diluted, and permitted the military government to be more flexible than envisaged by the Morgenthau Plan.[92] The German Federal Agency for Civic Education (BPD) asserts that the Morgenthau Plan was never implemented and was only briefly supported by Roosevelt,[93] and that JSC 1067, while treating Germany as a defeated enemy state instead of a liberated nation and aiming at the dismantling of German industries, also left loopholes that allowed a military governor to later implement more lenient policies.
    The agency states that the purpose of JCS 1779, which replaced JCS 1067, was to increase German self-government at the regional level, limit dismantling of war industries, raise living standards, and remove dependence on subsidies.[94][95]"
And regarding Nazi propaganda:

  • "German historian Bernd Greiner (de) talks of the failure of Morgenthau and the backward-looking political minority that supported him, stating that by the end of 1945 Morgenthau's staff had returned to the USA despondent, and those then in charge were not interested in "industrial diarmament".[96] 
  • However, according to Greiner, the "Morgenthau myth" (German: die Morgenthau-Legende) was perpetuated in West Germany by right-wing extremist historians echoing Nazi propaganda and railing against an "extermination plan" for Germany by Jews and the left-wing intelligensia in America, while in Communist East Germany the Morgenthau Plan was presented as a western imperialist plot to destroy Germany.[97] Wolfgang Benz, director of the Center for Research on Antisemitism at the Technical University of Berlin, states that the plan had no significance for the later occupation and Germany policy, though Nazi propaganda on the subject had a lasting effect and is still used for propaganda purposes by extreme right-wing organizations.[53][98][99]
    German historian Rainer Gömmel criticises the common claim by historians, including Benz, that the Morgenthau Plan was never implemented, arguing that
    core elements of the plan, namely the proposals for deindustrialisation, were adopted in August 1945 and became part of Allied policy.[101]
    The Norwegian economist Erik S. Reinert, states that "The Morgenthau Plan was abruptly stopped in Germany in 1947"..."
On the subject of mass starvation:

  • "During the war, Germans seized food supplies from occupied countries and forced millions of foreigners to work on German farms, in addition to food shipped from farms in eastern Germany. 
  • When this ended in 1945, the German rationing system (which stayed in place) had much lower supplies of food.[30]:342–54 
  • The U.S. Army sent in large shipments of food to feed some 7.7 million prisoners of war—far more than they had expected[30]:200—as well as the general population.[31] 
  • For several years following the surrender, German nutritional levels were low... In early October 1945 the UK government privately acknowledged in a cabinet meeting that German civilian adult death rates had risen to 4 times the pre-war levels and death rates amongst the German children had risen by 10 times the pre-war levels.[32]:280"
Finally, on Bacque's Other Losses:

  • "Maj. Ruediger Overmans of the German Office of Military History in Freiburg who wrote the final volume of the official German history of the war estimated that the total death by all causes of German prisoners in American hands could not have been greater than 56,000 approximately 1% of the over 5,000,000 German POWs in Allied hands exclusive of the Soviets."
But there are no numbers for Germans supposedly killed by the Morgenthau Plan.
Nazi propaganda tells us nine million Germans died post-war, but the historical number is about a million Germans who died while being expelled from Eastern Europe.
Total German deaths for the war, including military, were about 7 million, or 8% of the population.
For comparison: Greece lost 10%, Latvia 13%, Soviets 14%, Lithuania 15%, Poles 17%.
Indeed, you may remember, after the war there were four occupying powers -- Soviets, French, Brits & US.
Of the four, I could easily argue that Americans -- Morgenthau Plan or not -- treated Germans better than any others.
You disagree? 
35 posted on 8/25/2017, 8:15:56 AM by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)

To: Lysandru; Vehmgericht
Lysandru: "I forget where I first read about the Morgenthau Plan. 
I was appropriately appalled."
Note my post #35 above.
You should not have been appalled, for several reasons:

  1. Morgenthau's was similar to plans by other allies -- Soviets, French & Brits -- but unlike those other powers, Morganthau's plan was never carried out. 
  2. Morganthau's plan was soon replaced by JCS 1067, which did incorporate some Morgenthau ideas, but gave US commanders flexibility to relieve suffering. 
  3. All such plans were intended to prevent Germans from doing after 1945 what they had done after 1919: re-militarize, rearm and reconquer what they lost in the previous war.
  4. And the plans worked, of course, but it soon became obvious that Germans would serve much better as western allies against the Soviet Communist menace, and that became the reason for dropping economic restrictions on Germans after 1947. 
  5. In the end, the post-war removal of German industrial equipment meant they needed to build an all-new industrial base, which gave Germans a huge technological advantage from the late 1950s until, well, even today.
Of course, Nazi propaganda exaggerates and blames the Morgenthau Plan for everything evil in Germany.
But none of it is true. 
36 posted on 8/25/2017, 8:47:00 AM by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)












RESPONSE
People naturally minimize their involvement in crimes.  After the war everyone was a member of the resistance.  No one was a collaborator during the German occupation.  Likewise, progressive historians minimize or ignore crimes committed by progressive politicians.

You claim, “Here is what history says about it: ‘While the Morgenthau Plan had some influence on Allied planning for the occupation of Germany, it was not adopted.’”   “History” is actually Wikipedia.  They have banned my book for being “unreliable.”   They are frequently “unreliable.”   You might check http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126705  for information on Steven Ambrose’s credibility.  Many German sources can be sited denying the MP was carried out.  I don’t know if this is Stockholm Syndrome or what.

Perhaps the person with the most reliable opinion on whether the MP was carried out was Henry Morgenthau: President Truman signed JCS 1067 on May 10, 1945.  Morgenthau considered this "a big day for the Treasury."  He also hoped "somebody doesn't recognize it as the Morgenthau Plan." (Blum, Years of War 1941-1945 From the Morgenthau Diaries, p. 460.)

A lie must be plausible.  Ruediger Overmans’ 1% estimate of POW fatalities is not realistic.  If these POWs were sent to health spas there fatality rate would have been higher than 1%.  Also in Ambrose’s Eisenhower and the German POWs, Professor James F. Tent claimed, “By the spring of 1947, and thereafter to the end of the military occupation, the number and variety of supplemental programs expanded to the point that some observers asked with only slight irony if there were any normal consumers – that is, those consuming 1,550 calories per day – left in the British and American zones.”  Tent appears to be saying that the food crisis was over by 1947.  Yet, the same text includes a photo of seven German infants “picked at random” from a Catholic hospital in Berlin in various stages of malnutrition dated October 1947.

It is unfortunate that the more accurate historical account is used by the extreme right to justify anti-Semitism or other nefarious causes.  This encourages people to support the false narrative.  People are still repeating the lampshade myth.