The deliberate murder of one million German men after WW2 by the Americans.

from Charles Burris @ LewRockwell.

Charles Burris writes on Other Losses, a documentary by James Bacque

Extremely powerful and courageous cinematic effort to correct the flawed and duplicitous Post-WWII historical record concerning Allied (particularly American) governments of the deliberate and calculated horrific treatment of captured German soldiers and non-combatant civilians. Described as “the last dirty secret of World War Two,” this tragic story remains highly inflammatory and subject to criticism by court historians and regime academics. Together with his central role in the Operation Keelhaul forced repatriation of captured Soviet POWs back to the USSR, the place of Dwight David Eisenhower in history will remain disputed and controversial for decades to come.

2:00 to 9:42
The conquering allies were afraid of Germany despite their own overwhelming military strength.  Churchill was afraid that Germany spirit would rise again and attack the British Empire. American President Roosevelt was afraid that Germany would rise again and conquer world markets.  Soviet Premiere, Josef Stalin, was afraid that German fascism would rise again and destroy communism.

As allied tanks were racing into Germany in September, 1944, Churchill and Roosevelt met in Quebec City to decide what to do after the war was over.  They discussed a plan to pastoralize Germany, which meant in reality to keep on killing Germans for years after they had surrendered.  Pastoralized was a new word in goodspeak, the language which controls people by deceiving them.  pastorlization meant that even after Germany surrendered, there would be no peace; instead, the war would continue by other means.  Like the war itself, the post-war treatment was carefully planned. First, allied planes swept over the battlefields dropping a powerful drug called “Hope” onto the German soldiers.  The drug was contained in millions of leaflets promising peace, food, and shelter if the soldiers surrendered.  The next phase of the plan was devised by Roosevelt’s friend, Henry C. Morgenthau, who was Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.  In their meeting at Quebec, President Roosevelt approved the Morgenthau Plan to pastoralize Germany but Winston Churchill said it was unnatural, un-Christian, and unnecessary.  Then Morgenthau persuaded Roosevelt to offer Churchill an enormous bribe of $6 billion dollars to approve the plan.  Churchill and FDR secretly approved it in September, 1944.  Within a few weeks, the press discovered that the Morgenthau plan would starve Germans to death after the war.  This enraged the people of North America and Britain who wanted peace not vengeance.  In the United States, Thomas Dewey, a senior Republican, said “This is like adding 10 fresh divisions to the German Army.”

German propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels, ordered every civilian to turn his house into a fortress.  FDR hastily covered up the Morgenthau Plan under another good speak term, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Order 1067 or just JCS 1067.  Under this title, the Morgenthau Plan to pastoralize Germany was being implemented even before the Germans surrender in May, 1945.  The Allies said in a press conference in March 1945 that the many millions of German prisoners would be protected by the International Red Cross under the Geneva Convention.  But the Americans prevented the Red Cross from visiting the starving prisoners.  Trying to give this treatment legal justification in March 1945, Eisenhower, Allied Commander in Western Europe, asked his commander in Washington, General George Marshall, to invent a new category called Disarmed Enemy Forces, DEF.  This was more good speak, meaning that many German prisoners lost their precious right to visits of the Red Cross camp inspectors under the Geneva Convention.  When that right was abolished, Eisenhower could hide the deadly conditions in the U.S. Army prison camps.  The prisoners were routinely deprived of shelter, medical aid, food.  Some did not even receive water for days.  Once they were designated as Disarmed Enemy Forces, DEF, instead of prisoners of war, the were entitled to nothing.  Yuraqi Bouf, as a young lieutenant, was a prisoner first in Buch, then in Rhineburg.

The main preparations the Americans made for most prisoners was to erect barbed wire fences around swampy meadows, along the Rhine River.  Everyone in Germany wearing a uniform, including street car drivers, foresters, wounded men in hospitals and their nurses was taken to the barbed wired prison gates, stripped of identity markers, robbed of their valuables, and abandoned in the mud.


FASCINATING INTERVIEW OF DETECTIVE JOHN BAEZA: “Any cop worth his salt knows the Drug War is a failure.”


The professor [on Gilligan’s Island] could make a record player out of a coconut but he couldn’t fix a frickin’ hole in a boat.

By David Gornoski

Before he was Ron Paul and Rand Paul’s head of security, John Baeza was a cop’s cop. Coming from a family tradition of public servants, Baeza started his career as a corrections officer in New York’s infamous Sing Sing prison. He later became an undercover narcotics detective in Manhattan during the height of the 80s crack craze. It was there that Baeza had a Road to Damascus experience: after almost losing his life in an undercover drug buy, he realized the futility of the drug war and all victimless crime laws.

Detective Baeza transferred to the special victims unit to focus on violent sexual crimes against women and children. Finally, he could do what he was born to do: solve real crimes and give some measure of justice and closure to victims of violence. However, he was horrified to see stacks of unsolved cases—including serial rape and child abuse—pile up with just a few detectives assigned while hundreds of officers were diverted towards no-win drug arrests which only protected the monopoly profits of the gangs that benefited from prohibition. This insight began a lifelong transformation towards understanding the principles of liberty that powered his passion to protect innocent life from violence.

I recently sat down with Baeza, now retired from law enforcement, and an international private detectiveauthor of multiple scholarly papers on serial crimes and forensic science, and an expert consultant on cases involving police procedure and potential misconduct, for one of the most harrowing stories I have encountered.

Watch my interview The John Baeza Files here:

What Baeza shares about the prison system, moments of near death, police militarization, and the evil of victimless crime laws is mind-blowing, haunting, and yet in the darkest moments, still glimmering with hope.

You will learn how the prison system is a law of the jungle order, even for nonviolent offenders. You will discover that nonviolent persons of peace like a raw milk Amish farmer are forced to face violent situations. You will also learn how prisoners tend to run the prisons from within.

Baeza’s message is about getting the job done right. He is adamant that the prison industrial complex does not rehabilitate people. He also shows how channeling massive amounts of police man hours and resources into victimless crimes only serves to victimize victims of real crimes like rape, murder, and theft. Further, by using the violence of law to solve problems of desire, cartels gain power which increases violence and makes drugs less safe and more addictive. It also unfairly uses a bludgeon to force poor people to pay fines that often lead to cycles of jail time for nonviolent acts like driving with broken tail lights or suspended licenses.

In the interview, I explore with Baeza how society clings to victimless crime laws as a dirty habit, an age-old holdover of a social mechanism from ancient times in which communities would accuse an arbitrary misfit and purge them as a safety valve for releasing collective tensions and envy.

Interview Conclusions

If you want to support the drug, guns, prostitution-financed gangs, keep voting for the prohibition laws of the drug war, gun war, and prostitution war.

If you want to support monopolistic corporations, medical cartels, and empower bigotry or discrimination by making it go underground, keep voting for authoritarian criminal regulations that ravage our society’s economic fitness and opportunity.

If you want a justice system that prevents and solves violent crime, stop voting for the enforcement of victimless crime laws. Detective Baeza’s example models a path towards such a system of true justice.

Only when we can see the eyes and hear the voices of the victims of our state system—both the ones left without justice for rape, assault, and murder because of victimless crime laws and the ones we violently dehumanize for nonviolent behavior—can we begin to heal the criminal pathology that plagues our society.

Only when we see the sacredness of the individual and the barbaric baseness of hitting and stealing from nonviolent persons to get our way, will we be able to claim our birthright of prosperity and order.

Only when we sacrifice our fear of our neighbors’ freedoms rather than violently sacrifice our neighbors, will we know what it means to be free.

Originally appeared at the Ron Paul Liberty Report.

Ken Burns Caught Dead Shilling for Empire

Find the full documentary at

The good . . . 

The film follows previous Burns works in providing poignant footage mixed with compelling interviews and a backdrop of good music, starting in this case with Bob Dylan’s A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall.

The bad . . . 

Despite the counter-cultural veneer, however, and admirable efforts to provide a Vietnamese perspective, Burns and Novick’s film in its first episode provides conventional analysis about the war’s outbreak and can be understood as a sophisticated exercise in empire denial.

The film is misleading at the outset in quoting an American soldier who recounts the pain of his homecoming, insinuating that veterans were maltreated in the United States–a trope often used to blame antiwar activists for creating this allegedly anti-veteran and divisive climate.  

The indictment only gets worse.  Here Burns and Novick justify Washington’s mass murder.  I wonder.  Did Burns and Novick not see these images? 

I find sometimes that the war monsters need reminders.  But they may find offense in such a suggestion, for they feel that their fight embodies ideals than mere mortals are poorly equipped to understand.  Yet it is precisely body count of mortals that counts for a win or loss in American military engagement.  So the objectives change when it suits them in the press.  They’ll even tell their soldier, again mere mortals, what’s at stake, and what’s at stake for soldiers is obviously different than what’s at stake for civilians at home.  But we don’t know anymore because the U.S. bombs indiscriminately any town it wants.  Civilians are clearly targets.  They might be called soft targets used to destabilize the enemy or demoralize him.  Either way, each man and woman on this planet is within range of a U.S. military target.  How many victims does the U.S. need to cool its jets?  See this man who survived the atomic blasts at Hiroshima.  The perpetrators of this deed are not heroes; they are monsters.  And the U.S. has been exporting war . . . well always.   For those of you born in the 20th century, can you remember a time when the U.S. hasn’t bombed, mass murdered, droned, poisoned, or otherwise killed folks from another nation, always under the dumbest pretense of national security somewhere on the other side of the globe?

But I digress.

The ugly . . . 

Burns and Novick mislead viewers further by showing footage of North Vietnamese migrating to the South fleeing communist terror and interviewing a woman whose family fled while leaving out the fact that the CIA worked to sabotage North Vietnam’s economy, created a fake resistance movement and coerced many Catholics and others to flee by spreading false rumors about Vietminh atrocities and promising them 40 acres and a mule.

Burns and Novick depict the southern guerrilla movement as being controlled by the Hanoi Politburo when the National Liberation Front (NLF) was founded in direct response to the 10/59 law passed by South Vietnamese premier Ngo Dinh Diem that allowed for the execution of regime opponents after a military trial.

Burns and Novick also leave out some of the sinister aspects of nation building in the late 1950s, such as the police training program led by CIA advisers working under the cover of Michigan State University (MSU) who imported surveillance equipment and built up Diem’s secret police.

It’s disappointing to see this.  I’ve liked Burns’ previous documentaries, not all of them, but the ones on the Dust Bowl and Baseball.  But here he is toeing the official line, the official narrative which never brings restitution or free trade or freedom only a mountain of skulls.

Continue reading . . . .

“The U.S. Air Force estimated that North Korea’s destruction was proportionately greater than that of Japan in the Second World War”


This was staggering

U.S. bombings destroyed 100% of Sinanju, 95% of Sariwon, 85% of Hungnam, 80% of Wonsan and Hamhung, and 75% of Pyongyang.

from the National Interest

As tensions between North Korea and the United States reach a fever pitch, it’s worth remembering the origins of the hostility: the Korean War.

The general parameters of the war are well known. The conflict began when Kim Il-sung’s forces invaded South Korea in June 1950 with the tacit (if reluctant) support of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Kim’s forces quickly overran their southern counterparts and were on the brink of unifying the peninsula before U.S. forces intervened under the guise of the United Nations. They quickly pushed the North Korean forces back across the thirty-eighth parallel and threatened to unify the entire peninsula until a massive force of Chinese “volunteers” intervened and pushed the American and South Korean forces back to the thirty-eighth parallel. Thereafter, the two sides settled into a stalemate that more or less persisted until an armistice was signed in 1953.

Less well remembered, at least in the United States, is that America waged a mercilessly air campaign against North Korea during the conflict. As the eminent historian on the war, Bruce Cumings, puts it: “What hardly any Americans know or remember . . . is that we carpet-bombed the North for three years with next to no concern for civilian casualties.”

Indeed, Maj. Gen. Emmett O’Donnell, who led the Far East Bomber Command of B-29s that participated in the bombings, described the plan as going “to work burning five major cities in North Korea to the ground, and to destroy completely everyone of of about 18 major strategic targets.” Curtis Lemay boasted that Strategic Air Command “burned down just about every city in North and South Korea both.” He also estimated that “over a period of three years or so, we killed off . . . 20 percent of the population.” And future secretary of state Dean Rusk, who also served in the State Department under the Truman administration, would say that the United States bombed: “Everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.”

The sheer number of explosives used is absolutely astonishing. As Tom O’Connor has recounted in Newsweek, the “U.S. dropped 635,000 tons of explosives on North Korea, including 32,557 tons of napalm.” To put this in perspective, throughout the entire Pacific Theatre in World War II, the United States dropped 503,000 tons of bombs. And that was throughout an area that was multitudes larger than North Korea (Japan alone is roughly three times the size of North Korea). Not surprising, then, that the historian Charles K. Armstrong has written, “The U.S. Air Force estimated that North Korea’s destruction was proportionately greater than that of Japan in the Second World War, where the U.S. had turned 64 major cities to rubble and used the atomic bomb to destroy two others.”

North Korea’s lack of industrialization limited the number of enticing targets for strategic bombing. Consequently, as Armstrong again points out, “By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed.” This is barely hyperbole: the bombings destroyed 100 percent of Sinanju, 95 percent of Sariwon, 85 percent of Hungnam, 80 percent of Wonsan, and Hamhung, and 75 percent of Pyongyang.

Thereafter, American and allied aircraft turned their sights to North Korea’s hydroelectric plant and the the twenty dams in North Korea that controlled 75 percent of the country’s water, which was needed for agricultural and the production of rice. In May 1953, U.S. forces knocked five of these dams out, causing massive flooding. It also put millions in North Korea at risk for starvation, although the worst of that was prevented because of a massive influx of food aid from the Soviet Union and China. The bombings did cause widespread electrical outages, and by the U.S. Air Force’s estimates destroyed all but 4 to 5 percent of North Korea’s railways.

As the official U.S. Air Force history noted of this time period: “During the last year of the Korean hostilities, American air power executed the dominant role in the achievement of the military objectives of the United States and of the United Nations. . . . No single air operation so gravely affected the Communists as the simple destruction of two agricultural irrigation dams, for this operation, too terrible to execute in its entirety, portended the devastation of the most important segment of the North Korean agricultural economy.”

Most outside analysts are far more skeptical that the U.S. strategic bombing campaign had much impact on the course of the war. The political scientist Robert Pape argues that North Korea and China’s major concessions in 1951 were the result of the air campaign weakening their military forces’ ability to achieve their objectives (coercion by denial) rather than the strategic bombing (coercion by punishment). Many others have argued that air power’s most effective contribution to the Korean War was in the interdiction of enemy lines. In particular, aircraft focused on destroying the bridges near the Yalu River to cut off Chinese and Soviet support. Still, since these bridges were often heavily defended by antiaircraft weapons, and the aircraft of the day had severe limitations, this campaign also had only limited success.

North Korea actually repaired the war damage faster than South Korea, which had been far less damaged during the war. A more enduring impact of the bombing is that it has been used as a propaganda tool by the Kim regime to instill hatred in all their citizens from a very young age. As Bruce Cumings explained: “Every North Korean knows about this, it’s drilled into their minds.”

Zachary Keck is the former managing editor of the National Interest. You can find him on Twitter: @ZacharyKeck.

How Do Marxists Answer this Question: What About the Over 100 Million Slaughtered?

h/t EconomicPolicyJournal

This is superb.  

For me at least is one of the repellent and unanswered questions surrounding any advocacy for communism or socialism is how do these socialists account for the 100 million [plus] dead?


I loved Peterson’s ending remarks in this video:

There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever to put forth Marxist doctrines as the bomb that’s administered by the compassionate to the downtrodden.  100 million corpses is enough: if it’s not for you, then you should do some serious thinking about your historical thinking or your moral character.