|
GRUESOME HARVEST The Costly Attempt To Exterminate The People of Germany By Ralph Franklin Keeling In view of all that has happened in Germany, it
is small wonder that the people have been overtaken
by extreme shortages of basic necessities,
especially food. Months after the war had ended and the
conquerors had assumed complete control of the
German government and therefore responsibility for
the German people and their future, the Bishop of
Chichester, quoting a noted German pastor,
said: A wireless to the New York Times in April, 1946,
says: Despite conditions, the German people are
putting up a brave struggle for existence. After a
five-week tour of Europe, including Germany,
Malcolm Muir, publisher of BUSINESS WEEK, told the
Union League Club of Chicago: What harvesting machinery remains is mostly
small, old fashioned and run down, often useless
for want of parts. Draught work is supplied by
animals and men. Oxen are used where available, and
a horse and cow hitched together are common. It is
not unusual to see a wagon of straw moving along a
road with one or two old men at the tongue and a
flock of women and children pushing. One observer
writes: Crop yields have been reduced by the five year
fertilizer famine, which continues and the fact, as
mentioned before, that the soil for the most part
has been worked for 1,000 to 2,000 years. Food reserves which were ample when the war
ended were soon depleted, thanks in part to
deliberate destruction by invading armies, and, in
the case of the Russians and French, to armies of
occupation living off the land. When we first
invaded Normandy we were surprised by the large
stores of food we found. It was the same elsewhere.
Although his statement contrasted sharply with the
current propaganda which had all Europe starving,
Prof. Theodore Shultz of the University of Chicago,
in November, 1943, had said that continental Europe
that year had harvested good crops, that "farm
production had been so well maintained despite the
war that Europe will meet 90 to 95 per cent of her
food requirements in the year after peace is
declared."[5] Although distribution was
disrupted at the end of the war, aggregate food
stocks were large. But under Allied management they
were soon dissipated. The situation, worsened by the loss of the
eastern "bread basket" and the large number of
displaced persons and evacuees from the east,
became critical and then catastrophic. For six months our military govemment refused to
supply any food from the outside to supplement the
vanishing German stocks; however, the terrible
consequences of this policy ultimately got under
the tough hides of the occupation authorities to
such an extent that by December they appealed to
the U.S. Government to send sufficient food to
prevent universal starvation. Relief was finally
promised, and after many heartbreaking delays, a
dribble arrived. The intensity of the famine through which
Germany is passing can be guaged by comparing the
German diet with our own and with what experiments
prove to be the minimum to maintain life. An average slice of bread yields around 200
calories. The average American diet is 3,000
calories per person per day. To maintain weight and
health, a lumberjack needs as much as 7,600
calories, an active woman at least
3,000.[6] Herbert Hoover, famed for his
work in famine relief, says that 2,200 calories "is
a minimum in a nation for healthy human
beings."[7] Various studies have been made to determine the
effects of subnormal diets and the limits of
starvation. The University of Minnesota conducted a
test during the war in which a group of
conscentious objectors voluntarily lived for
several months on a daily diet of 1,650 calories.
Within six months each man lost a fourth of his
weight and experienced fainting spells, dizziness,
and a feeling of always being cold. Their hearts
shrank and some had to have two blankets even in
summer. All lost three-fourths of their energy and
work ability. "Each individual gradually tended to
withdraw to himself, to shun social companionship .
. . The main interest in life became the next
meal."[8] Northwestern University Medical School conducted
a similar experiment with similar effects. A diet
with protein and vitamin contents 40 per cent and
25 per cent of normal, respectively, was tried with
results which in the words of Dr. Andrew C. Ivy,
"hold out a dismal prospect for the people of
food-restricted countries." He said little change
was noted in the patients during the first month
and a half; "after six weeks, however, they showed
a slow, progressive deterioration in physical and
mental health, accompanied by loss of endurance,
skin lesions, leg pains, and mental slowness." It
was difficult to get the subjects back to normal:
"the time of recovery was in no case less than a
month."[9] In response to a question on the subject of
minimum diets, the National Research Council
states: These facts prove the excruciating character of
the rations imposed upon the German populace by the
conquerors. In the American zone where the level
has been consistently higher than in other zones
the base ration since V-E Day has ranged between a
high of 1,550 to a low of 1,180 calories per person
per diem. Here is the record: before November 11,
1945, 1,262 calories; from that date through the
following March, 1,550 calories; from April 1,
1946, through most of the following May, 1,275
calories; from then on through most of the summer,
1,180 calories. In August, 1946, it was raised to
1,350 calories, and in the fall was restored to
1,550 calories where it was supposed to remain
during the winter of 1946-47. Herbert Hoover in April, 1946, in commenting on
the European situation in general called the 1,550
calorie level a "grim and dangerous base" and said:
"At this level we believe most of the adults can
come through the short period of four months until
the next harvest. The children's health will become
suceptible to disease. Many of the children and
aged will fall by the wayside."[11] The
consequences of keeping the base German rations at
or below the 1,500 calorie level since V-E Day are
not difficult to imagine. Although some of the
German workers, such as farmers and miners, are
allowed somewhat higher rations, the base ration
applies to the great majority, including housewives
and children. Such reports as the following made by
an official of the food branch of the American
Military Government should therefore cause no
surprise.[12] Karl Brandt The following is taken from a report prepared by
the German Central Administration for Health, a
German agency created by the Russian occupation
authorities: The following dispatch from Wiesbaden, Germany,
portrays the lot which has befallen the
children: Dr. Lawrence Meyer, Executive Secretary of the
Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, after returning
from Germany said on January 13, 1946: Dorothy Thompson reported: Edd Johnson of P.M., on October 3, 1945, wrote
from Germany: A United States Press dispach from Berlin,
February 8, 1946, reads: Hal Foust wrote from Berlin, February 20,
1946: A United Press dispatch from Hamburg, Germany,
March 22, 1946, reads: Dorothy Thompson wrote: General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower in
November, 1945, solemnly warned that if our
military victory is to have lasting significance,
the United States and other nations must "assist
the war devastated countries back on their feet"
and added: After giving Herbert Hoover, serving as Chairman
of President Truman's Famine Investigating
Commission, a grim report of Germany's food
situation on April 13, 1946, Generals Joseph T.
McNarney and Lucius Clay said in a formal
statement: The statement went on to point out that the
American zone even in normal times had been a
deficit area with regard to food, requiring
2,000,000 tons of imports in 1943-44. It said that
the German economic pump must be primed with food
imports, because the American zone and other
western areas cannot produce enough to sustain life
even at starvation levels. Ten months after V-E Day, only 600,000 tons of
food had been imported into our zone by AMG, or
about one ounce per person per meal. Yet AMG
officers asked GI's to remind the Germans they owe
America a debt of gratitude for feeding
them.[24] Senator Homer E. Capehart of Indiana in an
address before the United States Senate February 5,
1946, said in part: These remarks were interspersed with a mass of
supporting evidence. There can be no question that there has been a
deliberate attempt to keep the facts from the
American public. Senator Eastland of Mississippi,
for example, in a stirring address to the United
States Senate December 3, 1945, exposing the
chaotic conditions in Germany, told of the great
difficulty he had encountered in gaining access to
the official report on conditions in the Reich made
by Calvin Hoover. He said the State Department at
first refused to furnish him a copy of the report,
but that through the intercession of a high
official in the department he had been able to
obtain it, but only "with the understanding and the
promise received from me first that the information
therein would be made available to the people of
this country." Senator Eastland continued: Victor Gollancz, influential left-wing British
publisher and pamphleteer, in his book "Leaving
Them to Their Fate - the Ethics of Starvation,"
after marshalling voluminous proof explains the
starvation in these words: He describes the ample British diet and stocks
of food while the Germans starve and says: He rejects the thesis that we should starve the
Germans because they would have starved us had they
won, on the ground that those who reason as the
Nazis are no better than the Nazis. He could have
added that starvation of children of an enemy
country is to admit having enemy children. One
leading daily thinks Mr. Gollancz fails to plumb
the depths of the infamy: Ample food stocks nearer to Germany even than
those in England existed while the Germans starved.
On the same page of a newspaper in the autumn of
1945 two articles appeared under the following
headlines: An Associated Press dispatch from Copenhagen a
month earlier had told the same story: Another report, by Robert Conway of the New York
News, written March 22, 1946, from Rome, under the
headline: "FINDS EUROPEAN 'SHORTAGES' ARE
EXAGGERATION reads: That the general European famine advertised by
Washington is for the most part German, as reported
by Senator Butler of Nebraska after a trip through
33 countries, is indicated by the fact that UNRRA
has been used "to finance governments and not to
feed the hungry." UNRRA has in effect supported
these governments, mostly satellites of the Soviet
Union, by supplying them with billions of dollars
worth of goods which they, in turn, have sold to
those with the money to buy, thus bringing to
themselves handsome revenues in lieu of
taxes.[30] In Germany, where there is
widespread hunger and poverty, UNRRA is
specifically forbidden to function for the benefit
of any but "displaced persons," and then only by
making requisitions against the starving
Germans.[31] In August, 1946, Cyril Osborn,
M.P., denounced the so-called relief agency of the
United Nations as "the biggest racket in
Europe." For another thing, no Central Red Cross has been
permitted to function in the stricken Reich. And it
is now a matter of history that the Washington
administration for nearly a year hotly resisted all
efforts to bring private relief to the Germans, and
only permitted a miserable dribble when it finally
did allow it, at the urgent request of AMG
officials. It placed the limit at 2,000 tons a
month, limiting packages to 11 pounds and 72 inches
in girth, with shipping charges of 14 cents a
pound. Senator Albert W. Hawkes, of New Jersey had made
a strong appeal to the President urging that
private relief packages be permitted to prevent
mass starvation of the German people. In his reply,
dated December 21, 1945, President Truman professed
that "there is as yet no possibility of making
deliveries of individual packages in Germany,"
because "the postal system and the communications
and transportation systems of Germany are in the
state of total collapse." He then said: This letter makes perfectly clear that we are
deliberately discriminating against "the Germans,"
that Mr. Truman expeeted to be at least a little
cruel in his treatment of them, and that he had not
the slightest consciousness of the German children,
as such, and the agonies they must suffer, although
they surely "had little to do with Nazi terror" and
certainly could be as easily located as Nazis and
war criminals. It is difficult, indeed, to see how
those responsible for our policy can escape
condemnation under the following principles laid
down by General Eisenhower: Michael Foote, M.P., in discussing this question
reminded the House of Commons that there is an
older law than any promulgated at Potsdam for the
protection of victims or our policy: It later came out that Russian objection in the
Control Council was at least partly responsible for
our inability to send private relief packages to
Germany. Four Senators, after being rebuffed at the
White House in their request that the mails be
opened to permit relief packages to Germany,
learned that permission to do so must meet with
unanimous consent of all four occupying powers and
that the Soviet Union had opposed the idea. The
four gave out this information in a statement which
said in part: Russia's inhuman truculence was referred to
indirectly by General McNarney in a letter to
Senator Wiley (February 14, 1946). He
explained: In other words, the difficulty was a question of
agreement, rather than lack of
facilities. In close harmony with Russia's inhuman attitude,
which had an ulterior purpose as part of a larger
program, as we shall see, the "liberal" press has
for the most part greeted with silence or derision
all efforts to publicize the facts concerning
German prostration and to bring relief to the
suffering German masses. Eleanor Roosevelt, Senator
Connelly, and the late Sidney Hillman, backed by
personages in AMG, upon visiting Germany professed
to see no evidence of starvation or suffering
beyond what they considered tolerable. The New
Republic expressed its horror over the possibility
that Senator Wherry, who had agitated for a Senate
investigation of conditions in Europe, including
Germany, might become more influential. In the New
Republic's own words, this was his crime: "His
present efforts are devoted to getting more food
for Germany and Austria." In commenting on the New Republic attitude and
PM's professed liberalism, William Henry
Chamberlain, in his excellent article "The Crisis
of Liberalism," which was entered in the
Congressional Record, says: "Liberals" have, however, indulged in some
relief activities. Here is one case, as reported by
correspondent Philip Warden: Reference Notes: |