From the article: China is an odd place today � it has gone straight from communism to fascism. But at least the current government is not visibly committing democide.

That's not true. The "one child policy" and the forced abortions that result from it are a continuous, though not highly visible, democide.

Sure, but if you want to make egg fu yung you've got to break a few eggs. No pun intended on Mike's abortion comment.

Oh, but Rummel doesn't really understand why it doesn't matter that 76 million were killed by Mao and the Chinese Communists.

One, the murdered millions were Chinese, not Westerners. An everyone knows, one Western life is worth 1,000,000 Chinese ones. So the 76 million don't matter.

Two, Mao and the Communist Party were prophetic genuises who knew better than anyone else what was good for China. So the 76 million don't matter.

Three, the 76 million were killed by Mao and his comrades so that the new socialist man could create paradise on earth. The pursuit of this wonderful and noble goal excuses everything. So the 76 million don't matter.

Four, the Chinese weren't killed by Americans. So the 76 million don't matter.

Rummel's article can also by accessed via Marginal Revolution at:

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/11/democide.html

What I found most interesting was the following comparisons:

So, the famine was intentional. What was its human cost? I had estimated that 27,000,000 Chinese starved to death or died from associated diseases. Others estimated the toll to be as high as 40,000,000. Chang and Halliday put it at 38,000,000, and given their sources, I will accept that. Now, I have to change all the world democide totals that populate my websites, blogs, and publications. The total for the communist democide before and after Mao took over the mainland is thus 3,446,000 + 35,226,000 + 38,000,000 = 76,692,000, or to round off, 77,000,000 murdered. This is now in line with the 65 million toll estimated for China in the Black Book of Communism, and Chang and Halliday's estimate of "well over 70 million." This exceeds the 61,911,000 murdered by the Soviet Union 1917-1987, with Hitler far behind at 20,946,000 wiped out 1933-1945.

Discountng the 3,446,000 killed in the Sino-Japanese war prior to the start of Mao's rule, the Maoist PRC (with these new numbers for the deliberate, man-made famine during the Great Leap Forward) killed over 73,000,000 people. Over the 38 years of Maoist rule, this comes to an average of about 1.92 million per year.

The democide rate of Hitler's 12 year Reich was about 1.75 million per year. The democide rate of the 70 year Stalinist USSR was about 0.88 million per year (about half that of the Third Reich). Stalin's (and the Stalinist system's) much greater total was the result of its much greater longevity. Hitler's democide rate was smaller, but still comparable to Mao's.

The figures for the democide caused by Mao's man-made famine have a further bearing on the question of whether or not the Nazi plans to depopulate a defeated USSR in preparation for Germanic colonization (liebensraum) were feasible. Mao's deliberate famine killed 38 million people over 3 years, achieving a democide rate of 12.66 million people per year. This is a figure comparable to the estimated 10.00 million dead per year resulting from the Bolshevik's man-made Ukrainian famine of the 1920s.

Given the superior technical capablitlity of the Germans compared to either the Russians or the Chinese, a democide rate from man-made famine in a defeated Russia would have achieved democide rates at least as high and probably higher than that of the other two famines. 15.00 million people dead per year is quite feasibile by comparison. Given a starting population of Poland and European Russia of about 120 million, complete democide of the native Slave populations would have been accomplished in only 8 years.

X,

I am not sure why you contend Rummel suggests the Chinese lives lost don't matter? Rommel has a long documented history of expressing the opposite sentiment.

This essay written last week is a beauty and a must read for those brainwashed by anti-war left.

http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/11/democrat-party-hijacked-by-treasonous_23.html

Sorry if I read you wrong.

As a follow up:

If Hitler's Reich had been able to bring to completion its well planned program of democide against the Slavs of eastern Europe (assuming a Nazi defeat of the USSR followed by 8 years of man-made famines) the total democide number for Nazi Germany would have been at least 140 million in less than 20 years. Several millions of Russian may have escaped beyond the German occupation line at the Urals, but then Hitler still had many millions of other undesireables he wanted to murder (the rest of European Jews, homosexuals, the handicapped, etc.).

This works out to a projected democide rate of about 7.00 million per year (assuming the bulk of the killing is done during the first two decades of Nazi rule). As even OJ might agree, a victorious Reich could certainly have lasted at least the 2 decades needed to accomplish this task. This projected total democide exceeds the combined dead of 135 million form both Stalin and Mao. Its projected democide rate is more than 3.5 times that of Mao and almost 8 times that of Stalin.

The only reason that Hitler's Reich did not exceed the total killed by Communism was its lack of longevity. Given that American intervention brought the Reich to an early end and ended this bloodbath before it could really get started, anyone advocating that America should have refrained from entering the European conflict would have the deaths of over 100 million people on their conscience.

They couldn't even defeat the Slavs or get rid of all the Jews.

They didn't defeat the Slavs but came within an ace of doing so. One of severalpotential Geramn victory scenarios involves Stalin's near suicide during the opening stages of Barbarossa.

Stalin was stunned by the German invasion and entered a near catatonic state of deep despair and depression. Suppose Stalin does not pull out of his emotional nose dive after the early German kessel victories at Minsk? In this scenario, Stalin eats a bullet in his dacha outside Moscow. The now leaderless Soviet state has to sort through a succession crisis while being gutted by German panzers. Given the centralized nature of the Soviet state, it is a certainty that a leaderless USSR would perform much more poorly and perhaps even collapse during the crucial first three months of the invasion. A winter line of Leningrad-Gorki-Rostov becomes a real possibility with the confused Russian government unable to organize effective resistance let alone major counter-attacks. The Caucasus oil fields and the Volga river are within reach for the Germans in 1942. A (probably White) Russian government ruling in the Urals signs an armistice by the end of 1942.

There are other German victory scenarios (an earlier Barbarossa start date, a Japanese attack on Siberia prevents the use of Zhukov's elite Siberian divisions to save Moscow, etc.) but this one is the simplest. The Soviet Union was like a hive. Kill the queen (Stalin) and the hive dies. As Wellington said of Waterloo, Barbarossa was a "near run thing". Victory could have easily gone either way.

And while I am certain a few thousand isolated Jews would have survived in hiding, what difference does that make? No program is ever 100 percent effective. A Reich surviving only 2 decades would have had sufficient time to effectively exterminate European Jewry.

So they don't defeat the Slavs, they accede to a White Russian regime which we and the Brits could have supported withoput defiling ourselves. Certainly a preferable outcome to what happpened.

You confuse "didn't" with "couldn't".

Change a few small variables in such a close contest (like Stalin killing himself) and the outcome radically changes. The USSR is effectively defeated by the end of 1941 with mopping up operations establishing the limits of German occupation by the end of 1942.

(You like revisionist history, may I suggest "Hitler's Panzers East" by Stolfi for a thorough look at the potential for German victory in the East based on a solid logistical analysis?)

One of the reasons the Germans did not defeat the Russians was American lend lease, especially the trucks that gave Russian soldiers strategic and battlefield mobility they would otherwise lack. An America that completely abstained from involvement in the European conflict would not have provided lend lease - making German victory much more likely.

You also seem confused with the nature of any hypothetical White Russian government. Such a government would have been set up by the Germans and allowed to exist for the purpose of administering what was left of Russia east of the Urals for the benefit of the Germans. It would have been a collaborationist government similar to that of Vichy France (which administered metropolitan France and the French colonial empire for the benefit of the Germans).

Yes, the Germans couldn't take all of France or any of Spain either. They were already way overextended which is why they lost to even Stalin and the Bolsheviki.

Perry, you probably misread my post. It was meant to be sarcastic. Of course, Rummel cares about the Chinese who were killed by Mao. He's not the one I'm criticizing.

If you look at how Western leftists in particular have underplayed or even justified the human toll of Chinese Communism, once you've pruned away all their fancy words and explanations, you will find they usually couldn't care less about the dead millions in China because of one of the four basic points I list.

That's what the four points are: a summary of how many Western leftists have responded to reports of Communist democide. And if you understand that, you'll see how racist, ethnocentric, patronizing, and morally bankrupt their response has been.

welcome back!

Anybody see that idiot band player during the Notre Dame-Stanford game last week who placed a Mao covering over his trombone?

Brought to you by the same guys who got banned from Notre Dame Stadium for running a halftime parody of the Irish potato famine.

[A]nyone advocating that America should have refrained from entering the European conflict would have the deaths of over 100 million people on their conscience.

That's true only if your "alternate Universe" scenario played out.

As it happened in this Universe, if America hadn't sent any ground troops to Europe, the war would have lasted another year, maybe two.

But, I essentially agree with the position that we are responsible for the consequences of acts of omission, assuming that a) we know about something that should be stopped, and b) we can do anything effective about it.

Which is why invading Iraq was A Good Thing, even if it wasn't the best thing, IMO.

We should also immediately invade and occupy Cuba and Haiti, while we're at it, to prevent another hundred thousand lives from weighing on our conscience.
Both of them would be cheap & easy, and we could turn over Cuba to an indigenous gov't in less than a year.

However, we'd need to run Haiti for decades, perhaps generations, as the previous occupation showed.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at December 1, 2005 1:35 AM

After easily defeating the French in the summer of 1940 the Germans chose not to completely occupy France for reasons of convenience. The puppet regime they established in Vichy carried the burden of civil administration costs for all of France, including the 3/5 that was occupied by the Germans (northern France and its Alantic seaboard). The occupation zone contained most of France's key industries and provided a base for further operations against Britain.

After the Anglo-American landings in French North Africa (Operation Torch)in 1942 the Germans completed their occupation of France in a matter of days. They easily maintained their complete occupation of metropolitan France until the D-Day invasion nearly two years later.

Invading Spain was neither necessery nor desireable for the Germans. The Franco government was a pro-Axis neutral whose victory in the Spanish civil war was made possible only by military assistance by Germany and Italy. That same civil war devastated Spain, leaving it an economic basket case unable to participate in any major military conflict. Though Franco did promise that Spain would join the war once they were sure Britain was defeated, Hitler acidly remarked that Franco would join the war just as soon as his help was no longer needed.

Though bitterly disappointed by Franco's refusal to actively join in the war against Britain, Hitler at no time ever contemplated an invasion and occupation of Spain. However, given Spain's state of weakness such an invasion would have been no more difficult for the Germans than their campaign in Yugoslavia. But since Franco's Spain was a friend of Germany, their was no political reason to do so. You may as well claim that Hitler "couldn't even invade Mussolini's Italy". Not even Hitler attacked his own allies.

What the Germans did plan was Operation Felix, an attack through Spain to take British Gibralter. Felix would have been accomplished with Spanish assistance, or at least aquiesence. As it was, Gibralter was not that significant militarily. Though Axis control of The Rock would have bottled up the western Med, British shipping did not go through the Med until after Italy was defeated and invaded. Until then, the losses to British convoys from Luftwaffe dive bomber attacks based in Sicily would have made shipping through the Med too costly. Royal Navy convoys instead sailed around South Africa to supply and reinforce the 8th army defending Egypt against Rommel's Afrika Corps.

Despite Spain's prostrate state and Hitler's anger at Franco's inactivity, Germany and Spain remained close friends throughout the war. An entire division of Spanish "volunteers" (supplied and equipped by their German friends) fought side by side with the Germans on the Eastern front. After the Allied invasion of North Africa, Germany and Spain concluded a defensive military alliance committing Germany to come to Spain's defense if Spain was invaded by the Allies.

"Over extension" had nothing to do with Germany's initial partial occupation of France or its not invading and occupying Spain. They did the first easily a couple of years after their defeat of the French. They chose not to do either for political reasons. It was not a case of Franco standing up to Hitler and defying him. Spain, not to put too fine a point on it, was simply not strategically important enough to invade. Not to mention it would have been politically stupid for Hitler to attack a friend. Given the light costs of occupying western Europe (made possible by the active, and even eager, collaboration with the Germans by the vast majority of the occupied peoples and their governments) the Germans were nowhere near to being "over extended".

Had they chose to do so, they could have easily completed their occupation of France in 1940 and later invaded and occupied Spain with little effort. The Germans chose not to do either for political reasons.

As it happened in this Universe, if America hadn't sent any ground troops to Europe, the war would have lasted another year, maybe two.

Without American participation, the war would have ended in German victory. Without American help, the British could not have continued a hopeless struggle and would have reached an accomodation with the Reich. Without Britain in the war, the Germans no longer have to worry about a Western, Mediterranean or North African front and can concentrate their full war effort against the Russians. Without American lend lease supplies, the Russians would not have survived.

So yes, the Roosevelt hating isolationists would have been at least partly responsible for the subsequent deaths of over 100 million innocent people.

Anon:

How would we have invaded North Africa and Italy if Hitler controlled the Med? Hitler needed Gibraltar and Franco denied it to him.

Of course we would have fought Hitler eventually, but the Russians and Eastern Europe would have been rid of Communism. Better for all involved.

You don't understand the difference between an invasion fleet and a merchant convoy? Hitler did not control the Med, I never said he did. What he could do was use Luftwaffe dive bombers to make British shipping thru the Med prohibitively expensive. As a result, British convoys sailed around Africa until after Italy was knocked out of the war.

As such Gibralter was not strategically significant. In this regard, Malta was far more important as it allowed British planes to attack Axis supply convoys to Libya. Axis control of Malta would have allowed for proper supply of the DAK and allowed Rommel to take Egypt and cross the Suez Canal into the Middle East. What matters in war is logistics.

Franco never prevented Hitler from taking Gibralter. Had Hitler chosen to do so, he could have conquered Spain (helplessly weak and still recovering from the destruction of its civil war) at least as easily as he conquered Yugoslavia. Neither Gibralter nor Spain was strategically important enough to warrent invasion. Additionally it would have been politically stupid for Hitler to attack a friend and ally, even one so reluctant to help as Franco.

If we had waited to fight Hitler the Russians would be free of Communism only because European Russians would have been exterminated. An American president who chose isolationism instead of intervention that stopped Hitler's planned democide before it happened would have been partly responsible for the deaths of over 100 million innocent people. Deaths he could have prevented by fighting Hitler sooner rather than later.

Why would the extermination of Russians, Poles and other Slavs have "better for all involved"?

Yes, the point is that he didn't. Franco stopped him and there was nothing he could do about it. The Brits easily stopped him and there was nothing he could do about it. Stalin stopped him and there was nothing he could do. The war was over by '41.

I wish things had worked out in realitry like you dream, but they didn't and we left Stalin in control of the East to our eternal shame.

Yes, the point is that he didn't. Franco stopped him and there was nothing he could do about it.

Actually if Hitler really wanted Gibralter there was nothing Franco could have done to stop him.

The Brits easily stopped him and there was nothing he could do about it.

Actually without American intervention the U-boats would have won the Battle of the Atlantic and starved Britain into submission.

Stalin stopped him and there was nothing he could do.

Actually Stalin defeated Hitler because of lend lease. Without American intervention (lend lease, second front, etc.) Russia would have been defeated

The war was over by '41.

Becuase America had entered the war by the end of 41. You do remember Pearl Harbor? Bottom line: without American intervention, Germany wins the war in Europe and 100 million more people die.

I wish things had worked out in reality like you dream

You wish the Nazis had won?

but they didn't and we left Stalin in control of the East to our eternal shame.

You fail to mention that 50% of post-war Europe was free and American. So why do you prefer a Europe 100% Nazi instead of only 50% Soviet? The peoples of Eastern Europe suffered under the Stalinist system but they weren't exterminated as Hitler planned to do. Much better for the Poles to live under Stalin than to be exterminated by Hitler.

That America wasn't in immediate danger from a victorious Reich in the 1940s isn't the point (though that danger would come later with further German research into Von Braun's ICBMs and Heisenberg's atomic bombs). The point is that American intervention ended Hitler's reign sooner rather than later, saving the lives of 100 million innocent people.

Why do you wish it was otherwise?

anon:

No, the Russians had stopped him by late '41, as well as the Brits and Spanish. Our entry was a formality.

No, I believe we should have followed your scenario and let one defeat the other then we defeat the winner. Instead we gave Stalin everything we took from Hitler.

No, the Russians had stopped him by late '41, as well as the Brits and Spanish. Our entry was a formality.

Historical facts, as I have enumerated here, say otherwise. If you wish to make a counter claim please back it up with factual evidence of your own. Absent supporting facts, all you are offering is uniformed opinion derived from deep seeded biases.

No, I believe we should have followed your scenario and let one defeat the other then we defeat the winner.

First off how many 10s of millions more will die as a result of this clever little strategy of yours? Millions who deaths would be prevented by early American intervention. Second, without a Russian front tying down 2/3 to 3/4 of the Wehrmacht, how do you expect the US to defeat Germany?

Instead we gave Stalin everything we took from Hitler.

I don't follow this statement. We took western Europe from Hitler. How did we give it to Stalin?

The Soviet Counter-Offensive dates from Winter of '41--the Third Reich had passed its apogee.

There would have been less deaths had Communism lost in the 40s instead of the 80s--starting with tens of millions of Chinese and two million Vietnamese. But the mere numbers pale in comparison to the titanic damage done by fifty useless years of war.

we propped up their socialist systems and leaned them against the USSR like an A frame.

The Soviet Counter-Offensive dates from Winter of '41--the Third Reich had passed its apogee.

For a country passed in apogee, Germany managed to launch major offensive that nearly finished the Soviets in 1942, Case Blue. It was designed to cut off the rest of Russia from its only source of POLs, the Baku oil fields. Without fuel and lubricants the Red Air Force is grounded, the Red Army has to fight on foot, and Russian industry grinds to a halt. Only the mistake of committing the panzers to street fighting in Stalingrad prevented Blue from accomplishing its operational goals. German mistakes, not Russian resistance defeated the Reich.

There would have been less deaths had Communism lost in the 40s instead of the 80s--starting with tens of millions of Chinese and two million Vietnamese.

True, by definition there would have been less deaths from Communism if the USSR collapsed int he 40s. However, as Rummel's data and Hitler's colonization plans make obvious, there would have been orders of magnitude more deaths from Nazism. Not only the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and handicapped would have been exterminated but the Poles, Russians and other Slavs as well. Hitler's annual democide rate was twice that of Stalin's. His murderous plans more ambitious than Mao's. A total Communist victory in Europe would have been preferable to a total Nazi victory.

Fewer people would have died.

But the mere numbers pale in comparison to the titanic damage done by fifty useless years of war.

What devastating 50 year war causing titanic damage are you referring to?

we propped up their socialist systems and leaned them against the USSR like an A frame.

How exactly did we do that? For all their inhernet inefficiencies, socialist systems are very effective at two things: killing large numbers of people and holding on to power. Stalin was firmly in charge of the USSR long before we became enemies. The CPSU used terror from day 1 to maintain power, never needing an outside threat to stay in power. So how exactly did we keep him in power?

BTW, I'm quite willing to examine any historical facts you might offer in defense of your position. Please provide said facts.

Yes, Hitler was a nut, that's one of the reasons they were never going to win. And Russia was too big for them to swallow--that's a truism.

Yes, a dead Chinaman matters as much as a dead Jew.

The war against the USSR.

the Marshall Plan, NATO, etc. I agree it would have been better to just let Stalin keep rolling West--it wpould have prostrated the regime quicker.

Yes, Hitler was a nut, that's one of the reasons they were never going to win.

For all of his manic obsessions, hatreds, bigotries and purely evil personality; Hitler was actually a very astute geopolitician. He was the only national leader in the pre-war era that understood how the internal combustion engine completely changed warfare. When a young Col. Heinz Gunderian showed Hitler some early panzers on maneuvers, Hitler exclaimed "This I must have!" and gave Guderian carte blanche to develop the panzers and blitzkrieg tactics. Prior to 1939, Hitler's foreign policy achieved a string of bloodless victories (the Saar, the Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland, defying the Versailles treay by rearming, the Nazi Soviet pact that cleared the way for the invasion of Poland and prevented an early two front war) that has not been equalled.

If Hitler was nuts it would have been very easy to defeat him and would not have cost so much blood and treasure.

And Russia was too big for them to swallow--that's a truism.

A truism isn't a fact, it's a cliche. Russia becomes very easy to digest, once the native population had been exterminated by man-made famines.

Yes, a dead Chinaman matters as much as a dead Jew.

Who is killed is not the point. As each human life is equally valuable, what matters is how many die. A victorious Hitler would have made Mao look like an amateur.

The war against the USSR.

When was the US engaged in war with the USSR? And what "titanic damage" was caused by this war?

the Marshall Plan, NATO, etc. I agree it would have been better to just let Stalin keep rolling West--it wpould have prostrated the regime quicker.

The Soviets never needed an outside threat to perserve their power, internal terror was more than sufficient. So how exactly did American military containment of the USSR (forcing the diversion of limited resources from a inefficient economy into the non productive military sector) prolong the life of the USSR?

I'm still waiting for you to provide facts to support your position.

While I'm not as certain as OJ, one thing is for sure: there would have been millions and millions of disillusioned French, Italian, and (West) German communists within days of the Red Army's arrival. And the Gulag would have needed to be three or four times larger.

And perhaps Europe would be spiritually stronger today, because there would have been lots and lots of Scharanskys, instead of lots and lots of Chiracs and Schroeders.

Mr. Anon - Orrin is very patient with you. Your didactic is most annoying - Bart's rants were a lot more fun than your grinding dialogue. Lighten up - this is the Internet, not a courtroom.

Jim,

The hypothetical ruling Communist parties of France, Italy, etc. would have built their own gulags - like every other Communist regime.

Is the possibility of a more spiritual Europe worth the deaths of 100 million innocent people?

Actually I'm being very patient with OJ as I am still waiting for him to provide facts supporting his opinions. And while rants are to be avoided, facts are superior to both rants and unsubstantiated opinions. Even though some may find the grinding weight of facts too much bear i remain comitted to truth.

Anon:

Yes, a spiritually healthy Europe is worth any number of deaths. Just as the spiritually void Europe they have instead wasn't worth any.

Anon:

Had he been astute he'd not have attacked Britain, Russia, or the US.

Anon:

So far as I'm aware, you're the only person who doesn't think the Soviets reversed the tide of the war with Hitler in '41.

How does a continental sized charnel house produce spiritual health?

Hitler came within an ace of defeating both Britain and Russia. As for attacking the US, I thought you were the one who claimed that we declared war on Germany? Please make up your mind.

Just me and any other military historian aware of the 1942 German campaign in the Caucasus and the mistakes that led to their defeat at Stalingrad. Given the German ability to renew the offensive in 1942, the successful Russian defense of Moscow in 1941 was potentially a stay of execution. Without oil from Baku the entire Russian war machine grinds to a halt. This made Baku far more important than Moscow.

Still waiting for those facts.

"Came within an ace"? That's your version of dealing in facts? how does a nation the size of Germany hold and govern a nation the size of Russia while exterminating its population? The French were easy to control, but the Slavs are a different kettle of fish. How were the Nazis getting across the Channel?

Yes, if Hitler hadn't been insane he'd have ignored FDR and let us go off and defeat Japan before turning to him. Might have enabled him to pull back all his forces to the Eastern front and hold off the Soviets until we were done with the Japs. Of course, then he's toast anyway, but his time was always limited. Always curious why folks like you so overestimate the efficacy of Nazism.

At any rate, if Europeans had to fight to save themselves and then rebuild their nations they might not be so enervated today--though the da,age they'd done themselves even before WWII makes it unlikely they had much future regardless.

"Came within an ace"? That's your version of dealing in facts?

Well I didn't want to repeat over and over again those detailed scenarios for German victory that I had previously submitted.

how does a nation the size of Germany hold and govern a nation the size of Russia while exterminating its population?

How does the CPSU (never more than 5% of the population of the USSR) do pretty much the same thing? For that matter, how did a few thousand administrators rule the vast British Raj? How did the Mongols conquer and rule the vastly more populous China?

By definition, all empires are ruled by minority nationalities who are vastly outnumbered by the natives they are ruling. Besides, there isn't much point in ruling what is in the process of being exterminated. "Administration" during the years of Slavic democide would have consisted of preventing crops from being grown or harvested and watching as famine and disease do the work for you.

How were the Nazis getting across the Channel?

The don't have to, the u-boats would have starved Britain into submission. Or, without hope of American help, the British would have ended their futile struggle and reached an accomodation with the Reich.

Yes, if Hitler hadn't been insane he'd have ignored FDR and let us go off and defeat Japan before turning to him. Might have enabled him to pull back all his forces to the Eastern front and hold off the Soviets until we were done with the Japs.

Without the threat of an American second front and without lend lease supplies to Russia, why would Hitler want to retreat from the Soviets? He would finish them off.

At any rate, if Europeans had to fight to save themselves and then rebuild their nations they might not be so enervated today--though the da,age they'd done themselves even before WWII makes it unlikely they had much future regardless.

Without American intervention to end Hitler's reign and the Marshall Plan to rebuild the shattered nations of Europe, civilization would not have survived in the rubble. Europe would be living through a new Dark Age.

OJ, have you won a single debating point in this little argument of ours?

Or presented a single hard fact to support your opinions?

The answer to both questions is no.

Ah, so by "facts" you meant your "scenarios"? I misunderstood one of those two words in grade school then.

Bingo! So Hitler needs a security state at least the size of the one the Communists had in order to control the Russian population as they did. How does he man it, pay for it, get Germans to do it, etc.?????

Yes, why is a British accomodation with Hitler in fact, as opposed to the de facto one they did reach, a bad thing for them or us while he fights Stalin?

That is Europe today.

I realize you think Nazism worked so well that it could do all tese things, but do you imagine any limits? Could Hitler take all of Africa? India? China? the US? Is there anything he couldn't do?

Why did he lose if he was so mighty?

Anon:

Perhaps you misunderstand the debate. Let us assume you're right and that had we just stayed out for a while longer Hitler could take Spain, Britain, and Russia, ending the Soviet regime. So far, so good. Then when we entered the war he'd have been spread so think we'd have had no great problem defeating him and both isms are over and done with. This is a vastly preferable outcome to the fifty year Cold War that killed a hundred million and nearly ruined American society.

Neither of us is speaking of facts, but either of our scenarios supports my point. I'm just less impressed by Nazism than you.

Ah, so by "facts" you meant your "scenarios"? I misunderstood one of those two words in grade school then.

The scenarios were based on and included historical facts. Please go back and reread them.

Bingo! So Hitler needs a security state at least the size of the one the Communists had in order to control the Russian population as they did. How does he man it, pay for it, get Germans to do it, etc.?????

Hitler had no intention of controlling the Russian population. He was going to exterminate it. Costs of engineering man-made famines are minimal (even a poverty stricken country like China was able to kill 10s of millions in a few years with this technique). And he gets the Germans to do this by ordering them to do it. Hitler was a dictator after all.

Yes, why is a British accomodation with Hitler in fact, as opposed to the de facto one they did reach, a bad thing for them or us while he fights Stalin?

Because it is what the Catholic Church would refer to as "material cooperation with evil". And it would have resulted in far more dead bodies than even Mao achieved. Hitler killed more people per annum than Stalin. Hitler planned to kill more people than Stalin and Mao combined. Hitler and the Nazis were atheists like Stalin and the Communists, and intended to destroy Christianity when the time was ripe. Stalin's body count was higher than Hitler's only because Stalinism lasted longer.

Only American intervention prevented his evil (there is no other word for it) plans from coming to full fruition.

That is Europe today.

Well as Dark Ages go, this one's not bad. Last time I checked European cities were not in ruins and civilization was still functioning.

I realize you think Nazism worked so well that it could do all tese things, but do you imagine any limits? Could Hitler take all of Africa? India? China? the US? Is there anything he couldn't do?

Wouldn't have to. The use of puppet regimes like Vichy allowed Germany to take the economic cream from the the top of the puppets' overseas colonial empires while the puppets bore the burdens of colonial administration. Hitler never wanted overseas colonies, he thought they were a waste of time and distracted from the main goal of lebensraum to the east. Germany would rule Africa,the Middle East and India through puppets like Vichy, Italy, Belgium, and a compliant Britain. His Japanese ally would rule China.

Indirect rule has its advantages, it maximizes tribute while minimizing administration costs.

Why did he lose if he was so mighty?

Because, like Napoleon, he made mistakes. Had he avoided those few mistakes he would have joined Alexander and Genghiz Khan on the list of conquerors who achieved total victory.

I rest my case. This is just about your belief that Nazism was a workable system.