Blitzted: The Third Reich as a Society on Drugs(harrowell.org.uk)
harrowell.org.uk
Blitzted: The Third Reich as a Society on Drugs
http://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2016/10/10/blitzed-the-third-reich-as-a-society-on-drugs/
99 comments
That would be because the book I reviewed is about Nazi Germany.
I try to be skeptical about these sorts of explanations, but that might just be to stave off paranoia. What will be the amphetamines/leaded glass/DDT of today? Will future generations look back and say "of course the early 21st century was insane, they were all overdosing on sugar and caffeine!"
I think humans when exposed to new technology tend to do stupid things for a while until they get smarter and figure out what to actually do. The early decades of the 20th century brought many new and powerful abilities, mostly fueled by the combo of war and technological advancements. It wasn't clear to leaders then that giving soldiers meth or even taking it yourself wasn't such a smart move.
Humans are much smarter today (about substance abuse) and we are slowly walking down the list eliminating over-use of less damaging substances like sugar, caffeine. Products like coca cola are facing a huge consumption gap in certain, very developed areas.
Humans are much smarter today (about substance abuse) and we are slowly walking down the list eliminating over-use of less damaging substances like sugar, caffeine. Products like coca cola are facing a huge consumption gap in certain, very developed areas.
I'm with you on the sugar, but caffeine? From the (very thorough) Wikipedia page, it appears that there are as many good side effects of caffeine (such as lower risk of certain cancers, Alzheimers and diabetes) as there are bad ones.
Are the benefits attributable to caffeine? I think they've all been linked to coffee specifically, and there may be other agents in coffee other than the caffeine that are responsible.
I think caffeine is great in the right dosage and setting (recreational). I don't advise using it at work if you are after high productivity http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/spiderdrugs.htm
It's a fascinating study, but the problem with extrapolating to humans is that spider brains are closer to a more basic stimulant-response behavior than we are.
On the other hand, spiders DO build web 'sites' and await food delivery...
On the other hand, spiders DO build web 'sites' and await food delivery...
Never mind that the reason plants produce caffeine is that it is useful as a pesticide.
Some may find the accompanying video to be more convincing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2HipedgM3I
Really? A spiders reaction to caffeine is your reason? I just quit caffeine. I'm ready for some conformation bias to justify my decision, but this is pretty weak.
I agree the spider-caffeine-thing is "weak". But it's a popular argument and I don't have anything more substantial at hand. Most people I know, that still drink coffee/caffeine do tell tales of feeling "wired" and "scattered" after consumption.
That will depend on person and dosage thought.
From persona experience i either have to go a few days without or drink my third cup (drip brewed) of the day to get anything noticeable.
From persona experience i either have to go a few days without or drink my third cup (drip brewed) of the day to get anything noticeable.
Really!? Nice web. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://...
L-Theanine (amino acid found in green tea) supplements solve that problem.
Got any good sources to read more about that?
Not a great source but it's in these and works for me: https://nootrobox.com/go-cubes
No jitters but if I take all 4 at once I get a pretty unpleasant "coming up" feeling for about 15 minutes. I usually just have 2 a day, and I'd recommend people start with 1 just in the morning.
No jitters but if I take all 4 at once I get a pretty unpleasant "coming up" feeling for about 15 minutes. I usually just have 2 a day, and I'd recommend people start with 1 just in the morning.
Likewise, I hope you avoid onions and chocolate as both are toxic to dogs.
> I'm with you on the sugar
there are many good side of sugar as well, as there are bad ones. let's stop being religious with food. it's a question of education, and measure. The same could be said with fats, caffeine and so on.
there are many good side of sugar as well, as there are bad ones. let's stop being religious with food. it's a question of education, and measure. The same could be said with fats, caffeine and so on.
>Humans are much smarter today (about substance abuse)
What about the rise of prescription drug use, supplements, and synthetic designer drugs?
What about the rise of prescription drug use, supplements, and synthetic designer drugs?
[deleted]
> substances like sugar, caffeine. Products like coca cola are facing a huge consumption gap in certain, very developed areas.
What are the safe alternatives to those, if you crave the taste?
What are the safe alternatives to those, if you crave the taste?
Contrary to popular belief, there's no evidence to suggest that artificial sweeteners are bad for you ("cause cancer" or otherwise).
I personally never drink soda anymore except for diet ginger ale. The acidity is still there but in my opinion it's worth satisfying that type of sweet carbonation craving. No sugar and no caffeine, also moves your taste away from the sickly sweetness of standard colas.
An even more mild option is sparkling water, which to me is sometimes the most refreshing thing on earth and sometimes so bland that I can't stomach it.
I personally never drink soda anymore except for diet ginger ale. The acidity is still there but in my opinion it's worth satisfying that type of sweet carbonation craving. No sugar and no caffeine, also moves your taste away from the sickly sweetness of standard colas.
An even more mild option is sparkling water, which to me is sometimes the most refreshing thing on earth and sometimes so bland that I can't stomach it.
I'd point out that amphetamines and other drugs are still being used by military forces around the world.
The US military, at least, has gotten smarter about it. They still need "go pills", but they've switched from the obviously problematic amphetamines to a more narrowly focused anti-narcoleptic - modafinil.
Though during Afghanistan no one knew how modafinil worked, or possible long term effects. British military were buying thousands of them at that period too.
Regarding possible long-term effects: Modafinil was invented in the late 1970's. Some people in Europe have been taking it for over 30 years. People in the US have been taking it since 1998. No study of modafinil has found it to be neurotoxic. A few studies have found slight neuro-protective effects. In a review of modafinil studies[1], the authors really had to stretch to find disadvantages and dangers.
In short: If this drug is bad for you, it's only slightly bad. And it's far safer than the drug it substitutes for: amphetamines.
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2654794/
In short: If this drug is bad for you, it's only slightly bad. And it's far safer than the drug it substitutes for: amphetamines.
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2654794/
Even in very occasional, very small half-doses I found it definitely creates overly intense focus (can be unpleasant/unsuitable depending upon your environment) and withdrawl issues (scatterbrained). I also have a friend who began taking it 5-6 days a week for work, who had issues weening himself. It's certainly a very interesting substance, but not something I would recommend as solely positive. I disagree that it replaces amphetamines, as its primary focus is to produce mental focus rather than physical energy, unlike amphetamines which produce the latter. I would argue instead that Modafinil is more like a long-term (10+ hour) auto-dispensing teapot, albeit perhaps slightly spiked with additional herbal stimulants, in a pill form.
As someone with ADHD, that's really interesting. You describe the effect I get from amphetamines - focus and ability to ignore some distractions - your withdrawal, scatterbrained, that sounds familiar! Maybe dopamine levels are taking a little while to reset to normal and you get a day experiencing temporary ADD. At ADHD amphetamine dosages I've never noticed withdrawal effects.
So I went looking to see if it was being studied with ADHD. Despite showing effectiveness in several studies, it wasn't FDA licensed for ADHD because of "serious dermatological toxicity" {1]. That seems a bit odd.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18729534
So I went looking to see if it was being studied with ADHD. Despite showing effectiveness in several studies, it wasn't FDA licensed for ADHD because of "serious dermatological toxicity" {1]. That seems a bit odd.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18729534
[deleted]
And we give them to our kids as well.
There has been some minor hysteria around Captagon, an amphetamine popular with ISIS.
plastics and phthalates used to manufacture plastics -
* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/undergoing-fertil...
* https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=24
* https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/phthala...
* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/undergoing-fertil...
* https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=24
* https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/phthala...
Alcohol (ethanol) will be considered insane to drink at some point. There are chemicals, including other alcohols, that induce the same effect but with far less toxicity.
Smoking will also be seen as a stupendously bad idea. I'm sure nicotine and marijuana will still be around. But they will be packaged and vaporized.
The idea of putting a raw leaf into a funnel and lighting it on fire will seem entirely barbaric.
Smoking will also be seen as a stupendously bad idea. I'm sure nicotine and marijuana will still be around. But they will be packaged and vaporized.
The idea of putting a raw leaf into a funnel and lighting it on fire will seem entirely barbaric.
Well yeah, after the singularity chemical substances like these will be entirely barbaric. But there's a troubling new trend emerging with our kids experimenting with EMPs. Sure, it might alter the consciousness of our robot bodies, but EM radiation is dangerous!
caffeine is a pretty potent drug for sure; going from regularly drinking 5+ cups of coffee a day to nothing really drove this home for me. reality has a whole different feel.
beyond that, there are tons of people on strong antiaxiety and antidepression drugs, 100% of the time. that's pretty crazy imo.
& we give lots of kids amphetamine. which is extra-special-crazy.
(no value judgements here if any drug at all works for a person, but i don't buy at all the "correcting a chemical imbalance" explanation for the drugs. it's just being on drugs, for better or for worse.)
beyond that, there are tons of people on strong antiaxiety and antidepression drugs, 100% of the time. that's pretty crazy imo.
& we give lots of kids amphetamine. which is extra-special-crazy.
(no value judgements here if any drug at all works for a person, but i don't buy at all the "correcting a chemical imbalance" explanation for the drugs. it's just being on drugs, for better or for worse.)
As a counter-point, there are tons of drugs already in your head from various activities and e.g. Food. Orgasms release tons of drugs, as does exercise in general. Though I agree with your overall sentiment, where does one draw the line w.r.t. being "on drugs"?
I have been everything from completely sedentary to riding a bike 14 miles, lifting weights, and running 5 miles, all every day. I have never felt any kind of lift from exercise. Junk food and caffeine, on the other hand, never failed to make me feel awesome.
Can confirm, some people don't get "exercise high". I've never experienced it either, not even when I was a full-time martial arts instructor.
But a chocolate chip cookie, still warm from the oven... Uuuh, later dudes.
But a chocolate chip cookie, still warm from the oven... Uuuh, later dudes.
I used to run a few miles a day, almost every day for about a year. During that time I had runners high exactly 1 time. It was truly amazing - I felt like I could run forever. Had no muscle pain, no shortness of breath, it was like running on air.
I only stopped because I was at the end of the run, and normally I would have collapsed, but I could have kept going that day no problem. I have never been able to repeat it.
I wonder if I would have eventually died like a horse if I kept going? ;)
I wonder if I would have eventually died like a horse if I kept going? ;)
That's very strange. Exercise with significant cardio has significant and immediate effects on mood after periods of inactivity in my experience. Endorphin highs are fantastic. However, in my experience I only get them if I exercise occasionally, rather than regularly. That said, overall mood does noticeably improve also (all day). This seems to be what most writers suggest. Perhaps you have not been noticing (are you exercising in quiet nature, or in a busy urban environment with headphones then rushing off from a gym to do things? In the latter case self-insight may be reduced) or have abnormal body chemistry.
That's very strange
Have exercised in all the above environments. Have done it both regularly and intermittently, in noisy gyms, leafy suburbs, with and without headphones, swimming, basketball, swing dancing, martial arts, heavy bag, body weight, aerobic, anaerobic. I hate it all.
I ma not a very good runner, but runners high is the single amazing high I have ever felt in my life. I have tried few things that give you high so I had some baseline to compare to. I don't know if everyone gets runner's high
[deleted]
i draw the line at "is the substance itself acting as a neurotransmitter in your brain". definitely sex exercise diet &c are indirectly drugs, in that they inspire your body to adjust its own mix of chemicals in the brain, but it's a whole 'nother thing to directly inject substances into the mix yourself.
i think where people tend to get into trouble with drugs is that since it is an external effect changing the brain's chemical balances contrary to its self-regularted levels, the brain tries to adapt, leading to tolerance – the user tries to counter-adapt, upping the dosages, "chasing the high", & often ending up in a no-fun place of dependence, addiction, side-effects...
(obviously more true w/ some drugs & some people than others...)
i think where people tend to get into trouble with drugs is that since it is an external effect changing the brain's chemical balances contrary to its self-regularted levels, the brain tries to adapt, leading to tolerance – the user tries to counter-adapt, upping the dosages, "chasing the high", & often ending up in a no-fun place of dependence, addiction, side-effects...
(obviously more true w/ some drugs & some people than others...)
No drug is just a cap of endorphins though. They're always signaling mechanisms, like an orgasm or running or hearing some good music.
As someone who once stayed awake on amphetamine for six days, I'll testify that caffeine isn't that bad.
But it probably does have some general overall affect leading to users being a bit more driven.
But it probably does have some general overall affect leading to users being a bit more driven.
Birth control and antidepressants...?
It's gonna be something like DEET/pesticide/weedkiller and some mysterious brain condition like Alzheimers or autism.
Coffee, sugar, preservatives, absence of exercise, food/air/water pollution.
We know, now, there are adverse side effects to everything you listed. I thought the game we were playing was, "what is accepted as healthy now that will be obviously dangerous to a future generation?"
I just can't imagine tricking the body into perpetual pregnancy is without side effects. I can't imagine drugs that purposely alter the chemistry of the brain and that are used (abused?) by tens of millions each day is without dangerous side effects. I hope I'm wrong.
I just can't imagine tricking the body into perpetual pregnancy is without side effects. I can't imagine drugs that purposely alter the chemistry of the brain and that are used (abused?) by tens of millions each day is without dangerous side effects. I hope I'm wrong.
> I can't imagine drugs that purposely alter the chemistry of the brain and that are used (abused?) by tens of millions each day is without dangerous side effects.
Your broad strokes include any and all kinds of psychoactive substances, though.
But to your point: wouldn't any dangerous side effects of SSRIs be pretty obvious by now?
Your broad strokes include any and all kinds of psychoactive substances, though.
But to your point: wouldn't any dangerous side effects of SSRIs be pretty obvious by now?
My guess would be SSRIs, Statins and the various smart drugs.
I don't know about SSRIs. They've been around for a long time, and I think it's generally understood that they're only useful as a fallback if therapy alone doesn't cut it.
And yet in many cases they're prescribed without even trying therapy because they're cheaper.
Because success rate of therapy is very low and takes a significant amount of time to work, if at all. I have had anxieties all my adult life, I have tried most things under the sun before starting taking meds. Frequent anxiety/panic attacks were affecting every single aspect of my life. I have pissed away years of life trying to manage it and nothing works. I wouldn't even call my anxiety an extreme case, I have seen people with far worse, It's a bit higher than mild anxiety, but I couldn't do anything when I was getting it.
So I gave up trying "natural way" and start taking very small dose of benzo and boom and I have never been happier or productive in any other points in my life. Yes, I know benzo is highly addictive and has numerous side-effects, but for me, it was a gamble that was worth taking. I am still taking a very small dose (.5mg once a day) and I am a bit addicted to it, I can tell the difference when I missed a day, but for me (and countless other people who also suffered), its worthed. I have looked into SSRI and MAOIs and they seem to have much worse side effect so I didn't bother with them.
So I gave up trying "natural way" and start taking very small dose of benzo and boom and I have never been happier or productive in any other points in my life. Yes, I know benzo is highly addictive and has numerous side-effects, but for me, it was a gamble that was worth taking. I am still taking a very small dose (.5mg once a day) and I am a bit addicted to it, I can tell the difference when I missed a day, but for me (and countless other people who also suffered), its worthed. I have looked into SSRI and MAOIs and they seem to have much worse side effect so I didn't bother with them.
Statins are a class of drugs designed and prescribed to lower cholesterol. I don't think I have ever heard of them being used in any other context. Could you elaborate on their association as a "smart drug"? I have never heard this before.
My doctor tells me that Statins have health benefits beyond the stated goal of lowering cholesterol. What isn't he telling me?
In practice they can have a very high NNT (number to treat) for low-risk patients. Google says they are prescribed to 250+ people for 5 years each for every 1 heart attack prevented.
Plausibly also amphetamines. Any guess to the proportion of our elites pounding adderall and modafinil (yes I know, not technically a stimulant) at least at ages 15-30 or so as they grind their way through school / billable hours / medical residency / etc?
For that matter I would be totally unsurprised if many of our political candidates had some chemical augmentation on the campaign trail as well.
For that matter I would be totally unsurprised if many of our political candidates had some chemical augmentation on the campaign trail as well.
Sugar, meth, OxyContin, Xanax, etc.
This was an excellent review of a book that has been given standard reviews elsewhere. I may be buying this book.
The content reminds me of the documentary film 'Spin':
* Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George H. W. Bush talks to Larry King about Halcion—all presuming they are off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality.*
Yep, H W Bush was on Halcion, not good!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(1995_film)
A highly recommended film given the election season and on youtube too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlJkgQZb0VU
The content reminds me of the documentary film 'Spin':
* Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George H. W. Bush talks to Larry King about Halcion—all presuming they are off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality.*
Yep, H W Bush was on Halcion, not good!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(1995_film)
A highly recommended film given the election season and on youtube too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlJkgQZb0VU
>Yep, H W Bush was on Halcion, not good!!!
Benzodiazepines are the very least of the drugs US presidents have taken over the years, and they're fine if you don't abuse them.
Benzodiazepines are the very least of the drugs US presidents have taken over the years, and they're fine if you don't abuse them.
"Spin" is surreal. Thank you very much for the pointer! Are satellite uplinks scrambled/encrypted these days? If they uplink via something like MPEG-TS, I don't imagine it would be too hard.
Very poignant ending.
"See, everyone watches"
"See, everyone watches"
Meanwhile in the US, depending on which set of numbers you believe, something like 13-20% of the US population (including perhaps as many as 25% of women) are dosing on antidepressants.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/246755...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/women-and-prescript...
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/246755...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/women-and-prescript...
Surprised it's that low. I read somewhere that 50% of women are on anti depressants.
There was a 40 minute interview with the author on a recent episode of Dan Snow's History Hit podcast. http://www.historyhitpodcast.com/blitzed-drugs-in-nazi-germa...
I listened to that as well. It was interesting to hear Snow's scepticism about it, and also his respect for the guys archival research (which would probably answer a lot of the scepticism on this thread too).
Thank you, I found this article fascinating and was looking for more!
Remotely apropos, and slightly interesting: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/30/philippine-president-im...
Interesting to compare the discussion of a couple of weeks ago when the Guardian reviewed the same book: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12575020
I've never seen any "hard evidence" on this - but some sources I've read also mention steroid usage by the German troops (synthetic testosterone was invented by the Germans in 1935).
Testosterone is mentioned in the article, though unclear if it was synthetic. It's also mentioned that the trippy Dr. Morelo, who went on to be Doctor to the Stars in the U.S., needed a constant supply of animal glands.
Probably a detail previously considered too minor for foreign consumption.
Imperial Japan also made use of meths, called "ヒロポン" at the time.
Imperial Japan also made use of meths, called "ヒロポン" at the time.
The linked article says that German scientists "pinched" methamphetamine from Japan; does that mean it was originally invented there?
Wikipedia says it was "first synthesized in 1887 in Germany" by a Romanian scientist and then "in 1893 by Japanese chemist Nagai Nagayoshi".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#History.2C_soc...
Maybe the Germans learned the synthesis that they ended up using from Japanese research, despite being familiar with the substance before?
Wikipedia says it was "first synthesized in 1887 in Germany" by a Romanian scientist and then "in 1893 by Japanese chemist Nagai Nagayoshi".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#History.2C_soc...
Maybe the Germans learned the synthesis that they ended up using from Japanese research, despite being familiar with the substance before?
> It fit with a society built on hyper-motivation.
Rings a bell.
Rings a bell.
I'm willing to believe anything bad about the Nazis. Upvoted!
They mention slaughterhouses in Ukraine. Does anyone know why Ukraine of all places?
It was part of a Nazi plan called "Lebensraum" where people of the wrong ethnic group would be killed, those of slightly wrong groups would be enslaved and those of the correct group would be indoctrinated into Nazi values.
All vaguely steaming from looking at British, French and Spanish colonies were large numbers of their ethnic groups had taken hold.
Also in the '30s Italy invaded Ethiopia and Japan invaded Manchuria to create belated empires though with less overtly genocidal intentions.
(However dry the above description, I personally do not want to suggest that the Nazi project is equivalent to those other nation's actions)
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskommissariat_Ukraine [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
All vaguely steaming from looking at British, French and Spanish colonies were large numbers of their ethnic groups had taken hold.
Also in the '30s Italy invaded Ethiopia and Japan invaded Manchuria to create belated empires though with less overtly genocidal intentions.
(However dry the above description, I personally do not want to suggest that the Nazi project is equivalent to those other nation's actions)
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskommissariat_Ukraine [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
"Japan invaded Manchuria to create belated empires though with less overtly genocidal intentions."
Given the number of people the Japanese killed at Nanking[1] alone, I don't think this is a true statement. This site[2] (at and edu) puts it around 6 million total.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
2) https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
Given the number of people the Japanese killed at Nanking[1] alone, I don't think this is a true statement. This site[2] (at and edu) puts it around 6 million total.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
2) https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
The rational for killing the local population is fundamentally different
Nanking was massacred as punitive action for resistance, not as a means of creating space for the Japanese. They Japanese did have "colonists" in Manchuria, but if you know any geography that's nowhere close to Nanking.
Nanking was massacred as punitive action for resistance, not as a means of creating space for the Japanese. They Japanese did have "colonists" in Manchuria, but if you know any geography that's nowhere close to Nanking.
6 million killed is a lot of punitive action and the second link is more than Nanking.
That was six million from the 1937 to the end of the war, and it includes things like death from disease and forced labor. It's not that the Japanese had a plan to exterminate the Chinese. It's that they viewed the Chinese as inferior to themselves and didn't care about Chinese deaths.
The Germans (or at least, the Nazis) had a plan, on paper, to kill everyone in the east and replace them with Germans. Hitler was a Malthusian who believed populations would grow until resources were exhausted, he viewed non-Germans as competition for those resources, and he thought birth control and abortion would reduce genetic competition and make the German race weak (like the French...). So the only solution was to kill everyone who wasn't German.
Here's a quote from Himmler's wiki page: "It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply." This was all planned out, and it was going to be on top of the deaths that actually occurred.
The Germans (or at least, the Nazis) had a plan, on paper, to kill everyone in the east and replace them with Germans. Hitler was a Malthusian who believed populations would grow until resources were exhausted, he viewed non-Germans as competition for those resources, and he thought birth control and abortion would reduce genetic competition and make the German race weak (like the French...). So the only solution was to kill everyone who wasn't German.
Here's a quote from Himmler's wiki page: "It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply." This was all planned out, and it was going to be on top of the deaths that actually occurred.
> It's not that the Japanese had a plan to exterminate the Chinese. It's that they viewed the Chinese as inferior to themselves and didn't care about Chinese deaths.
I regard it as a distinction without a difference. Six million people are dead because of Japan's actions. Without intervention, that number would have continued to climb.
I regard it as a distinction without a difference. Six million people are dead because of Japan's actions. Without intervention, that number would have continued to climb.
Certainly considering the uncountable victims, quibbling over semantics might seem absurd.
But I think it is very productive to look very closely at the exact rhetoric that caused murderous excesses of WWII with a view toward prevention.
After all, both Germany and Japan were not very unusual in the generations before the war. And are today among the most charmingly pacifist countries on the planet.
But somewhere in the 1930s their leadership whipped their people into a murderous frenzy using what looks like different rhetoric (and with absurdly primitive media technology too). It would be informative to know exactly how and that I suggest requires looking closely at the details of the propaganda.
But I think it is very productive to look very closely at the exact rhetoric that caused murderous excesses of WWII with a view toward prevention.
After all, both Germany and Japan were not very unusual in the generations before the war. And are today among the most charmingly pacifist countries on the planet.
But somewhere in the 1930s their leadership whipped their people into a murderous frenzy using what looks like different rhetoric (and with absurdly primitive media technology too). It would be informative to know exactly how and that I suggest requires looking closely at the details of the propaganda.
But had the Axis powers won the number of deaths would have diminished rapidly as the situation stabilized. The Japanese wanted to rule China, but they didn't have any desire to eliminate the Chinese people and culture.
The Nazis were planning to kill hundreds of millions of people. It's not a distinction without a difference. The difference is enormous.
Incidentally, what do you think was going to happen as the Germans conquered China from the West? The Germans and Japanese were destined to come to blows even if they'd destroyed the allies.
The Nazis were planning to kill hundreds of millions of people. It's not a distinction without a difference. The difference is enormous.
Incidentally, what do you think was going to happen as the Germans conquered China from the West? The Germans and Japanese were destined to come to blows even if they'd destroyed the allies.
as a person coming from Slavic territory (Slovakia), well I am damn happy they failed in their plans
Ukraine was the breadbasket of the Soviet union, so presumably they also had many slaughter houses but at the same time they probably didn't have valid pre-existing agreements with distributors, so when the Nazi army took them, they were up for grabs and holding Hitler in the palm of his hand he could get them.
Makes sense, thank you.
There probably wasn't a good reason for doing it there specifically as much as there was a good reason for not doing it in Germany.
[deleted]
Amazing text!
"While consumption levels among each of the particular services remains elusive, I have been able crudely to calculate the (previously undisclosed) overall U.S. mil- itary consumption of amphetamine from the $877,000 worth of Benzedrine purchased from SKF by the government in the course of the war years. Applying the most conservative assumptions in the calculations, for instance, that the government paid regular bulk wholesale price for 10 mg pills, yields an estimate that the American military must have bought at least 250 million Benzedrine Sulfate tablets. The true figure is most likely double that number, around 500 million tab- lets in the course of the war, allowing for procurement pricing and the fact that the military mostly used 5 mg tablets rather than the stan- dard 10 mg prescription tablets (and it could easily be higher still if other conservative assumptions are relaxed).63 This estimate of 250–500 million tablets in total corresponds very roughly to a consumption rate of 10–20 government-supplied amphetamine tablets per year per American serving in combat theaters for the years 1942–45. Although well below the scandalous 30–40 tablets per serviceman per year con- sumption rate in the Vietnam conflict, it is still several (two to four) times the comparable British figure of about 5 tablets per serviceman per year, and roughly equivalent to the German methamphetamine consumption rate at its peak, the Blitz year of 1940."
Quoted from "On Speed, the many lives of Amphetamine" by Nicholas Rasmussen.