WW2 politics, and leading up to the War and beyond...

[Gadianton]

Because I was talking about the Germans had a lot to deal with after invading Poland and then the Soviet Union. At the time they only had around 6 camps, and they by wars end had over 1000. If you want to add Poles, Slovak Jews, Gypsies, Romanian Jews, Russian Jews, Ukrainian Jews, Boskovic's, Communists, Ukrainian freedom fighters, and the others as a whole..., fine, it just shows how scattered they really were

I guess I'd posted enough on this thread that I had to go back and suffer through the relevant part of the podcast. We have a few missing words here, at least I missed them, Cooper actually says:

that when they went into the east in 1941 they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with

Cooper is talking specifically about the 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. When I gave my initial summary, I was wrong about the context. He wasn't talking about the war in general that culminated in extermination camps. You told me I was lying and misrepresenting the context, but then you turned around and claimed the exact same thing: it was more humane to gas Jews then let them starve. I've being going along assuming you know what your guy is talking about. So he's not on the hook for some of the things I've pointed out, but you are, as you've been defending something even more ambitiously pro-Nazi than Cooper was actually claiming.

Interestingly, now that I have the right context, he's telling an even a worse lie.

that when they went into the east in 1941 they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners and so forth that they were going to have to handle. They went in with no plan for that, and they just threw these people into camps and millions of people ended up dead there

Operation Barbarossa[g] was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and several of its European Axis allies starting on Sunday, 22 June 1941,

The Hunger Plan (German: der Hungerplan, der Backe-Plan) was a partially implemented plan developed by Nazi bureaucrats during World War II to seize food from the Soviet Union and give it to German soldiers and civilians...The Hunger Plan was first formulated by senior German officials during a Staatssekretäre meeting on 2 May 1941 to prepare for the Wehrmacht (German armed forces) invasion

So they did have a plan to deal with the millions and millions of POWs and civilians, and that was to starve them to death and take their food for Germany! So in this case, starving people to death -- it's even called the "hunger plan" -- was a feature of putting them in those camps, it was the entire point!

So Cooper is lying his ass off when he said, "they had no plan" -- they had a plan, and it was exactly to starve them.

I know I brought up the hunger plan a couple of posts ago, but that was under the misunderstanding that Cooper's statements regarded the entire war, and so it wasn't a pinpoint. But now it fits like a glove. Cooper is talking about Operation Barbarossa specifically, and the "hunger plan" was developed precisely for that invasion.

[Markk]

They really weren't prepared for a mechanized war with the US. They weren't prepared to fight a two front war. Logistically they failed big time. They failed in underestimating Russian resistance, and in my opinion maybe the biggest thing they were not prepared for was the US entering the war on the second front, and the lend lease act.

Let's see ... Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941. Shortly after that, Germany declared war on the USA. Although Hitler did not know the precise details of the Japanese plans, he knew that Japan (with whom he had a pact) would eventually attack the USA, and when he got the news of the attack he was delighted. However, on December 6 the Soviets had already begun a counterattack that stopped the German advance on Moscow.

US troops did not engage German soldiers in combat until November 1942, when US solders formed part (and only a part) of the successful Allied invasion of North Africa.

By November 1942, the Soviets had already successfully pushed back against another German attack launched in June 1942, which led ultimately to the disastrous crushing of German forces at Stalingrad in February 1943. Stalin complained bitterly to the British and Americans that their action in North Africa was far too small-scale to help him against the great mass of German troops his army was fighting, and eventually defeating.

America made a great contribution to defeating Hitler, and many brave Americans died. Their legacy deserves respect. It is sad when people like Markk write about all this in the ignorant childish way they do.

I'm curious, if the US would have stayed neutral for WW2, and did not offer and help with time, treasures, and talent...what would have been the outcome of the war In your opinion? There is a lot to think about so by all means take you time.

What would have happened in the Pacific?

What would have happened to Europe?

We know that Britain was being choked, and in no way could have staged a landing in France.

What would have happened top Britain with the US merchant Marines, who proportionally lost more men that any other US branch of service.

Who would have weakened Germany in the air campaign bombing? Do you think Britain could have do so without US aviation fuel, bombs, parts, and food?

France, Belgium, Holland were already defeated.

Spain was neutral but Franco leaned toward Hitler and Mussolini big time in their ideology.

Who would have drove the Germans out of Italy and North Africa?

In regard to The Soviet Union....given that the US supplied Trucks, tanks, weapons, ammunitions, aircraft, food, raw materials, etc. I have read estimates that the US supplied, from 41 on, about 1/3 of their power....meaning that they would have been 1/3 less effective without the lend lease act.

Then think about what would have happened if Russia were to defeat Germany without US intervention.....which would mean Stalin would have basically been the leader of Europe.

Japan would have been unchecked, and even though they were beaten by Russia in a brief border wars in 1939, without the US commanding their attention, the Russians would not have been able to move eastern Russian troops and Siberia west like they did....who by the way were some of their best fighters at Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk.

Also how would Britain, Australia, and New Zealand faired alone in the Pacific without the US?

China was Occupied and no help. The Philippines were done. Japan would have pushed south and may have eventually invaded Australia or at the least isolated them as Japan took the oil from Indonesia and the rest of Southwest Asia.

We all know how ruthless and evil Hitler was, but what is seldom discussed is how horrible Stalin was. If you haven't studied that, I suggest you do so before you comment. My point, if Russia would have somehow defeated Germany, without the US, and the multiple fronts, how do you think Europe and Britain would be looking today?

What would have happened if the US would not have entered the war, in your opinion?

[Markk]

Gad: I guess I'd posted enough on this thread that I had to go back and suffer through the relevant part of the podcast. We have a few missing words here, at least I missed them, Cooper actually says:

Gad, it was two paragraphs? It was two minutes of video? You suffered through it?

Gad: Cooper is talking specifically about the 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. When I gave my initial summary, I was wrong about the context. He wasn't talking about the war in general that culminated in extermination camps. You told me I was lying and misrepresenting the context, but then you turned around and claimed the exact same thing: it was more humane to gas Jews then let them starve. I've being going along assuming you know what your guy is talking about. So he's not on the hook for some of the things I've pointed out, but you are, as you've been defending something even more ambitiously pro-Nazi than Cooper was actually claiming.

Gad, I was quoting the Memo, which was titled "

Memo

Re.: Solution of the Jewish Question

Copper was speaking generally, and of POW's Citizens and Jews alike...."people." The memo was specifically addressing Jews, and I cut and pasted it directly.

LOL, let me get this straight....you did not read and understand the two paragraphs, at first, and concede you are wrong, and then acuss me of being pro Nazi because I quote word for word a Memo, that Marcus pointed me two, from a SS major addressing folks in charge of camps being set up with to deal with Jews, and I am some how pro Nazi?

Let me give you my view on this. You didn't watch the Podcast, then you finally read the transcript, you saw that you were mistaken and instead of just saying you got sloppy, and move on, you feel you have to blame me for your miss que.

Gad: So they did have a plan to deal with the millions and millions of POWs and civilians, and that was to starve them to death and take their food for Germany! So in this case, starving people to death -- it's even called the "hunger plan" -- was a feature of putting them in those camps, it was the entire point!

The memo is shows there was not a specific plan, focus. Even the Hunger plan was only partially implicated as your link showed, the first sentence reads: The Hunger Plan (German: der Hungerplan, der Backe-Plan) was a partially implemented plan developed by Nazi bureaucrats during World War II to seize food from the Soviet Union and give it to German soldiers and civilians. I guess you did not read the first sentence.

The memo stated that they were going to sterilize women, and have others work making things like shoes....so again like I have been saying all along, and what Cooper obviously was implying, the Germans did not has an all exclusive plan....which most all historians believe.

Are you saying the hunger plan was the only plan and directive, and general order for Barbarossa?

So Cooper is lying his ass off when he said, "they had no plan" -- they had a plan, and it was exactly to starve them.

No, not at all. It was one of many plans and directives, that evolved and changed during the war. heck, even some of the Russian soldier an Soviet block POWs turned and fought for Germany. They were known as the Russian Liberation Army.

I know I brought up the hunger plan a couple of posts ago, but that was under the misunderstanding that Cooper's statements regarded the entire war, and so it wasn't a pinpoint. But now it fits like a glove. Cooper is talking about Operation Barbarossa specifically, and the "hunger plan" was developed precisely for that invasion.

And was only partial implicated and it was nothing new. Germany was starving Jews in the Ghettos in 39, along with beating them and shooting them. They weren't allowed to purchase certain foods in the Ghettos, and most foods came into the ghettos in the black market.

[canpakes]

The memo is shows there was not a specific plan, focus. Even the Hunger plan was only partially implicated as your link showed, the first sentence reads: The Hunger Plan (German: der Hungerplan, der Backe-Plan) was a partially implemented plan developed by Nazi bureaucrats during World War II to seize food from the Soviet Union and give it to German soldiers and civilians.

Not to point out something terribly obvious, but the existence of what could be a plan of excruciatingly complex detail (as example) is not negated by it later being partially - or not even - implemented.

In fact, you can’t ‘partially implement a plan’ unless ‘a plan’ exists in the first place.

I guess you did not read the first sentence.

I’m going with the idea that both of you read it, but only one of you was able to understand the plain meaning of its words, and that person was not you.

[Chap]

I'm curious, if the US would have stayed neutral for WW2, and did not offer and help with time, treasures, and talent...what would have been the outcome of the war In your opinion? There is a lot to think about so by all means take you time.

Your long message and its invitation to discussion hinges on the idea that the USA had some choice about entering WWII.

It didn't.

Japan started war with the US with its attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941, and Germany declared war on the US shortly afterwards. After Pearl Harbour, the US had lost pretty well all its capital ships in the Pacific, apart from its carriers, which, by sheer good luck, were out of harbour on exercise. Even with those carriers, the US west coast was at imminent risk of bombardment from the powerful Japanese fleet.

America had no choice. It was not eager to join the war, but the war joined it.

[Kishkumen]

by the way, "The Jewish Question in regard to Europe" might even be said to go back a long, long way before the 19th century ... but I don't want to confuse Markk, so I won't go into the details (things like bits of cities called 'Old Jewry' with no Jews in them, and so on and so forth. Oh yes, and orthodox Jews don't like to spend the night in the British city of York, for Certain Reasons. Etc.)

And we would not want to mention the writings of Apion, which Josephus took time to rebut.

[Gadianton]

Gad, it was two paragraphs? It was two minutes of video? You suffered through it?

The WW2 section plus Churchill in total is over a half hour, I think. The WW2 section wasn't even about WW2, it was what Chap refered to earlier, a commentary on history becoming unquestionable mythology. Yawh. I learned that as a teenager long before I cracked open a book on history. Conservatives have been pawning this as a deep truth that only they understand since I was a child. This is something I learned from W. Cleon Skousen and conspiracy theorists in his orbit. The first "history" book I ever bought was 1300 pages, and I bought it on the belief that it was telling truth that you would otherwise never hear about because of institutional cover up or bias. How hilarious is that? I had no idea what institutional history even taught in the first place, and I was already excited about the cover up. It sounds like I had something in common with every one of Cooper's present podcast subscribers, didn't I?

The two paragraphs were important. Context: Hitler was justified to attack the Soviets and went off half cocked and tried to find a humanitarian solution to the unintended suffering. Chuchill, in contrast, was justified to attack Germany, but whoah, the sick bastered in a pre-meditated unthinkable way bombed German citizens. It's Nazi apologetics through-and-through. Even to the point of making a premptive war (against Russia) the same as a response to an attack. His logic would say that if Russian attacked Canada, and then the US then attacked Russia in response, that it's the same thing.

LOL, let me get this straight....you did not read and understand the two paragraphs, at first, and concede you are wrong, and then acuss me of being pro Nazi because I quote word for word a Memo, that Marcus pointed me two, from a SS major addressing folks in charge of camps being set up with to deal with Jews, and I am some how pro Nazi?

Because the quote was about the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, he even says "1941" and prior to that "soviet union". The specific context, is contrasting Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union with Churchill's attack on Germany.

Cooper's point was at the beginning of the war they were not ready for all the POWs and Jews. When they invaded Poland the Germans, basically overnight, had 3 million Jews to deal with. And again they had six camps. They took around 400k Polish POWs. They took 2 million French POWs in the Battle for France 6 months or so later. Then Barbarossa, they had by early 1942 3.5 Million Russian POWs.

False. His point is restricted to 1941 invsasion of the Soviet Union. He's not talking about French POWs or Poland. You, like me, misunderstood Cooper to be talking about the war in general. In that regard, you became a bigger Nazi apologist because you are inventing scenarios Cooper wasn't specifically addressing in order to justify the use of gas to solve a prison population problem.

Even the Hunger plan was only partially implicated as your link showed, the first sentence reads: The Hunger Plan (German: der Hungerplan, der Backe-Plan) was a partially implemented.

Coopers apologetic is that gassing prisoners was a humanitarian solution to an accidental problem, the millions of people laying around starving due to a robust invasion. That's a lie. The starvation was pre-meditated, it was the feature. You might better argue that the regime from the top down wasn't prepared for the slog and personal stress some or many of the Nazis' might feel attempting to starve 45 million people, and therefore just get it over with and gas them, so that they don't have to watch. This psychology is dealt with in that book I linked to earlier about willing participants.

The fact the plan was partially implemented, that there wasn't enough Nazi soldiers to deprive 45 million people of food, does not help your case. Cooper is trying to argue that incomplete plans led to the accidental starvation of millions of Soviets. However, the truth is, the starvation was pre-meditated.

Now it is my opinion that Cooper strategically floated the idea of gassing prisoners as a humanitarian solution to a problem that he did not describe as specifically related to Jews in order break the ice for the possibility of extending this humanitarian solution to the more central holocaust theme. It looked like his plan worked better than expected for at least one of his fans.

Don't become a willing participant, Markk. You're in deep, but you can still change your road.

[Marcus]

...Copper was speaking generally, and of POW's Citizens and Jews alike...."people." The memo was specifically addressing Jews, and I cut and pasted it directly.

LOL, let me get this straight....you did not read and understand the two paragraphs, at first, and concede you are wrong, and then acuss me of being pro Nazi because I quote word for word a Memo, that Marcus pointed me two, from a SS major addressing folks in charge of camps being set up with to deal with Jews, and I am some how pro Nazi?

What the actual hell is that????????? I did NOT point you to a memo, it was the exact one that Cooper was misrepresenting and that you posted about multiple times both before and after I posted a press release pointing out that Cooper's interpretation was wrong.

Get your damned facts straight, you idiot. Now I really understand why people find you annoying as hell. You lie and misrepresent and obfuscate. Trying to have a discussion with you is impossibly ridiculous. And your spelling and grammar are atrocious. I could forgive that, but not when it's embedded in your lies.

[Markk]

I'm curious, if the US would have stayed neutral for WW2, and did not offer and help with time, treasures, and talent...what would have been the outcome of the war In your opinion? There is a lot to think about so by all means take you time.

Your long message and its invitation to discussion hinges on the idea that the USA had some choice about entering WWII.

It didn't.

Japan started war with the US with its attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941, and Germany declared war on the US shortly afterwards. After Pearl Harbour, the US had lost pretty well all its capital ships in the Pacific, apart from its carriers, which, by sheer good luck, were out of harbour on exercise. Even with those carriers, the US west coast was at imminent risk of bombardment from the powerful Japanese fleet.

America had no choice. It was not eager to join the war, but the war joined it.

You are raising another question. I am addressing what the US did in WW2 and how they affected the Germanys goals. Russia's goals, and Japan's goals.

You made a implication that the Soviet union could have won the war without the US. I gave you some very plausible questions to think about, that you are not obviously prepared to entertain let alone discuss.

So okay, I concede the US did enter the war, so now that we know that, what would have happened if they did not? You Implied I was a child for asserting that without the US, WW2 would have ended very differently....which means you believed the Allies, less the US, would have defeated the Axis troops on all fronts....so back up your thoughts.

It is easy to sit on the sidelines here, take a step out and actually contribute to the conversation.

I'll make it easy for you and we can go one question at a time....

What would Europe be like if the US did not enter the war, and Russia would have actually defeated Germany on their own. Keep in mind, they could not even entirely defeat Finland on their own in 39 and agreed to a peace treaty with Finland, but lets say the did defeat the Germans and their Allies, and even possibly Japan, without the US.

[Morley]

What would Europe be like if the US did not enter the war, and Russia would have actually defeated Germany on their own. Keep in mind, they could not even entirely defeat Finland on their own in 39 and agreed to a peace treaty with Finland, but lets say the did defeat the Germans and their Allies, and even possibly Japan, without the US.

As Chap notes, Germany and Japan forced the US to enter the war and America had no choice in the matter, so the question is of a variety of nonsense.

As an aside, it looks like you're having a difficult time defending Cooper's BS, so you're changing the subject.