Zero Hedge

Via Capitalist Exploits,

HUNGRY?

Good, according to the central planners.

The folks over at the UN stopped destroying the world for a brief few minutes to publish a piece (snapshot below) justifying their behavior and explaining the “benefits” of the famine they’ve engineered.

I am not making this up…

The article remained on the UN website for a day or so before being deleted after it went viral on social media, with people horrified at the truly unbelievable evil.

The good thing about this is that as they continue with their predictive programming and NLP (seriously, look into both and it promises to blow your mind), more and more people wake from their trance.

Once woken, they realize the incredible danger they are all in. And that is a good thing because you can’t fight an enemy until you understand one exists.

And on the ground in the everyday world, the repercussions are now spilling over into the lives of Joe Sixpack.

Joe doesn’t really care to hear about the United Nations “sustainability agenda” or about their “absolute zero” report. Which details (very clearly) and precisely what is taking place right now.

None of this is an accident. Contrary to what many think was or is incompetence is neither.

The “great reset” requires a populace beholden to the government and nobody else. As the central planners pursue their agenda of getting there, this is bound to be fraught with an awakening and a lot of angst.

Via https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/hungry-benefits-famine-according-central-planners

Shutterstock

Titre du Site

Help Jenny Porter recover from her vaccine injury: LifeFunder

(LifeSiteNews) – The Canadian federal government has so far paid out eight death and injury claims due to the COVID jab, with almost 700 claims still under review, according to statistics from the government.

The amount of money received has not been revealed to the public, but the Canadian government set aside 75 million dollars as a preliminary amount to pull from for settlements.

National statistics for jab injuries and deaths are publicly available through the Vaccine Injury Support Program which began accepting claims in June of 2021 as the COVID jabs were being rolled out.

A total of 774 claims have been received by the program. Of the 26 claims fully assessed, 8 have been awarded financial support.

The review process is lengthy, and applicants’ cases go through multiple layers of consultation and assessment before it can be deemed that an applicant did in fact die or was injured from the jab.

The process by which someone is alleged to have died from COVID in Canada is much less precise. According to the college of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, for example: “COVID-19 should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for all decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.”

The same college also said that COVID should be listed as a cause if other serious illnesses are present. Regardless of how someone dies, if they test positive for COVID at or around the time of their death, their positive test results are released as part of national and provincial statistics which cause the declared COVID death toll to rise.

The most common test used to determine a supposed COVID infection is the PCR test, which has been shown to vary in accuracy “by the time of day,” and Canadian epidemiologist Dr. Paul Elias Alexander has told LifeSiteNews that PCR tests for COVID can be inaccurate upwards of 95 per cent of the time.

In addition to the jab injury/death claims being reviewed for compensation, almost fifty thousand post-COVID jab adverse events have been reported in Canada.

[…]

Via https://lettreelectronique.wordpress.com/2022/07/30/canadian-govt-has-paid-out-only-8-covid-jab-injury-claims-with-hundreds-still-on-waiting-list/

By Alan MacLeod

Mintpress News

Google – one of the largest and most influential organizations in the modern world – is filled with ex-CIA agents. Studying employment websites and databases, MintPress has ascertained that the Silicon Valley giant has recently hired dozens of professionals from the Central Intelligence Agency in recent years. Moreover, an inordinate number of these recruits work in highly politically sensitive fields, wielding considerable control over how its products work and what the world sees on its screens and in its search results.

A spook in every department

Chief amongst these is the trust and safety department, whose staff, in the words of then Google trust and safety vice president Kristie Canegallo, “[d]ecide what content is allowed on our platform” – in other words, setting the rules of the internet, determining what billions see and what they do not see. Before Google, Canegallo had been President Obama’s Deputy White House Chief of Staff for Implementation and is currently Chief of Staff at the Department of Homeland Security.

“We lied, we cheated, we stole”

Many of the team helping Canegallo make calls on what content should be allowed in Google searches and on platforms like YouTube were former CIA employees. For example:

• Jacqueline Lopour spent more than ten years at the CIA, where she served as “a leading U.S. Government expert on security challenges in South Asia and the Middle East and the go-to writer of quickly needed papers for the U.S. President.” She joined Google in 2017 and is currently a senior intelligence collection and trust and safety manager.

• Between 2010 and 2015, Jeff Lazarus was an economic and political analyst for the CIA. In 2017, he was hired as a policy advisor for trust and safety at Google, where he worked on suppressing “extremist content.” He moved to Apple in 2021.

• Ryan Fugit spent eight years as a CIA officer. Then, in 2019, Google convinced him to leave and become a senior manager of trust and safety.

• As a director of trust and safety, Bryan Weisbard led teams that adjudicated “the most sensitive YouTube trust and safety escalations globally” and “enforced” the most “urgent and highest priority” misinformation and sensitive content decisions. Between 2006 and 2010, he was an intelligence officer with the CIA. He is now a director at Facebook.

• Like Lopour and Lazarus, Nick Rossman concentrated on Iraq while he was a CIA analyst (2009-2014). Since January, he has been a senior manager in Google’s trust and safety division.

• Jacob Barrett, Google’s global lead for safe browsing operations, was an analytic lead and open source officer at the CIA between 2007 and 2013.

• A 12-year CIA political and leadership analyst, Michelle Toborowski, left the agency in 2019 to take a job as the intelligence analyst lead in trust and safety at YouTube.

The problem with former CIA agents becoming the arbiters of what is true and what is false and what should be promoted and what should be deleted is that they cut their teeth at a notorious organization whose job it was to inject lies and false information into the public discourse to further the goals of the national security state. John Stockwell, former head of a CIA task force, explained on camera how his organization infiltrated media departments the world over, created fake newspapers and news agencies, and planted fake news about Washington’s enemies.

[…]

An inordinate amount of Google’s intelligence and security teams appear to come from the intelligence and security services. These include the following individuals:

• Deborah Wituski, who between 1999 and 2018, rose up the CIA’s ranks, becoming chief of staff to the director. She left the agency for Google, where she is now vice president of global intelligence.

• Chelsea Magnant also left the CIA for Google in 2018, leaving an 8-year career as a political analyst for a job as a global threat analyst for the tech giant.

• Yong Suk Lee spent 22 years at the CIA, leaving to take a position in global risk analysis and global security at Google. In May, he was promoted to become a director.

• Beth Schmierer worked as a strategic analyst for the CIA between 2006 and 2011. She then became a political officer at the State Department. She joined Google in January as a global threat analyst and is now an Americas intelligence manager for the company.

• Toni Hipp joined Google as a global threat team manager (intelligence) in 2017 and is now a global affairs and public policy manager in strategy and operations. Before joining Google, she spent nearly six years at the CIA as a foreign policy analyst.

• Jamie W. is the director of threat assessment for Google and the company’s former global intelligence manager. Before Google, she held a number of senior positions in the CIA, including chief of targeting for the near east region. Before her 13-year stint in the CIA, she also worked as an analyst for the FBI.

• Meaghan Gruppo worked as an intelligence analyst and public affairs officer at the CIA from 2008 until 2014. Since 2018, she has worked in security risk analysis and threat management for Google.

• Clinton Dallas’ LinkedIn profile notes that, until December, he was a CIA officer. In January of this year, he became a risk programs specialist at Google.

[…]

A spook in every department

Google employs ex-CIA agents in a myriad of different departments, a selection of which includes:

• Michael Barlett. Between 2007 and 2017, Barlett was chief of operations at the CIA. Since 2019, he has worked as a risk lead in workforce solutions for Google.

• Nicole Menkhoff. Menkhoff spent more than ten years as a weapons analyst at the CIA. In February 2015, she left the CIA for Google, where she was a senior human resources business partner and later became engineering chief of staff.

• Candice Bryant. Bryant spent nearly 17 years at the CIA, where she rose to become its chief of public communications. In September, she was headhunted from the CIA by Google to become its executive communications manager.

• Kyle Foster. Foster spent six years at the agency, then four more at the CIA’s venture capitalist wing, In-Q-Tel. He left In-Q-Tel in 2016 for a job as a software engineer at Google.

• Joanna Gillia. Gillia was a leadership analyst at the CIA until 2014, the same year she took a job with Google. She worked in staffing until 2020.

• Katherine Tobin. Tobin was a CIA branch chief between 2014 and 2018. She is now head of workspace innovation for Google.

• Christine Lei. Lei left her job as an economic intelligence analyst for the CIA in 2015 for the post of executive compensation manager at Google, where she continues to work to this day.

• Justin Schuh. Schuh retired last year after 11 years as engineering director for Google Chrome. Before Google, however, he had a long career in national security, working as an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Marine Corps, a global network exploitation analyst for the NSA, and a technical operations officer for the CIA.

• Tom Franklin. Franklin worked as a program manager at the CIA between 2011 and 2013. Between 2015 and 2021, he was a product manager for Google.

• Katherine Pham. According to her LinkedIn profile, Pham did “some cool stuff” at the CIA in 2016. Since October, she has been a software engineer for Google.

[…]

Via https://www.mintpressnews.com/national-security-search-engine-google-ranks-cia-agents/281490/

Peter Koenig

Global Research

Is Russia about to leave the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) – and possibly other UN and international bodies?

This topic has received little or no coverage by the western mainstream media.

According to Russian Duma’s Deputy Speaker Pyotr Tolstoy, the Russian Government is evaluating the possibility to withdraw from a number of UN agencies, most visibly WHO and WTO which they consider do Russia more harm than good. This may be particularly the case with WTO which Russia only joined in 2012 after 8 years of negotiations, because WTO allows countries under the western sanctions program to increase tariffs on Russian goods way above the WTO guidelines.

WTO removed Russia’s “most favored nation” status in response to its invasion of Ukraine, which led several countries to suspend Moscow’s trade preferences and impose tariffs in excess of what WTO rules typically allow. WTO, created under the Charter of the UN, is not to take political decisions in favor, or against a member of its 164 member-organization.

See this.

Under pressure from the US and European governments, hundreds of western businesses, from Adidas, McDonald’s, and Pepsi to BP, Renault, British American Tobacco, Starbucks and many many more, have pulled out of Russia for fear of direct western sanctioning. McDonald’s said its cost for leaving Russia was equivalent to US$ 1.3 billion. Is the sacrifice worth it?

Never mind, it is contributing to anti-Russian propaganda – which in itself, contributes to the ever-mounting western pressure for “regime change”. 

As to WHO – while the agency pretends being non-political, in reality it is just the contrary, only political. WHO, under pressure from Bill Gates and the US, never approved the Russian Sputnik V as an official “vaccine” – like Pfizer, J&J, Moderna and all the western fake vaxxes.

WHO joined the west in condemning Russia for the war in Ukraine, never looking at the reasons that may have prompted the war, and never looking into the health impacts of 8 years bombarding and aggressing the Donbas Region by the Kiev regime with the help by Neo-Nazi Azov Battalions.

While no war is justified, analyzing the reasons that led up to war might help negotiating for peace and preventing other wars.

Nor did WHO evaluate independently the damage on Eastern Ukraine’s health facilities and inhabitants since the beginning of the war on 24 February 2022. Because most, if not all, attacks on Donbas health facilities, as well as outright killing of civilians Kiev claims and the west confirms, were Russian inflicted, when in fact the very Ukraine government carried out “false flags” against their own people.

It would behoove a neutral WHO to analyze causes of mass death, disease and injury reports. Not doing so and instead simply supporting the western version is a serious breach of WHO’s Constitution and role in determining the cause of the deteriorating state of a society’s wellbeing.

No war is justified – including economic wars (sanctions), wars with fear as the chief weapon, and wars destroying food, causing famine and death. The UN Human Rights Commission did not speak out against the WEF’s Great Reset nor did the UN. In fact, on June 13, 2019, the UN signed a Strategic Partnership Framework with the WEF, outlining areas of cooperation, notably the infamous UN Agenda 2030.

By doing so, the 193 member-UN body not only lost its luster (if it still had any), but more importantly its role as Peace Arbiter in the world, and as a defender of justice and human rights. The WEF is an insanely wealthy NGO at the service of Big-Big Finance and individual oligarchs.

The Great Reset which was in the making long before the Partnership Framework Agreement with the UN, is the ultimate control mechanism for the world’s resources and for humanity.

Russia is not only by far the world’s largest country, surface-wise, but arguably also by far the wealthiest in terms of natural resources. Russia is, therefore, in the crosshairs of western empire forces, including and foremost the WEF and its handlers.

Hence, the Russian Foreign Ministry is right when claiming that many of the UN institutions are working against the interests of Russia — which is a good reason to exit them.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-exit-who-wto-other-un-agencies/5788056

Dr Eddy Betterman

Oh, the lengths the vaccine industrial complex will go to “sell” Americans on getting injected with experimental, toxic prions for the ultimate scamdemic, the Wuhan Flu. As of late, Novavax has created a fourth Fauci-Flu jab that incorporates tree bark and moth cells, clearly trying to make the vaccine sound “natural” which is stupid, because you don’t go around INJECTING tree sap into your blood.

This is just a sinister attempt at trying to make experimental COVID vaccines sound like they are herbal medicine. What a joke. Realizing nobody trusts Bill Gates’ death jabs anymore, and since people do trust NATURAL medicine, Novovax is trying to position their new virus stab as “herbal.” One major problem. In herbal medicine, we don’t INJECT herbs into our blood. Nice try pharma goons.

4th COVID-19 “vaccine” using spike proteins already authorized in US

A Big Pharma shill at the University of Nebraska Medical Center says “diversity in vaccine production” should convince people who are terrified of mRNA and other deadly allergens in COVID jabs to get injected with some new “proteins” from moths and trees that allegedly and magically prevent you from catching China Flu, or spreading it, or getting a bad case of it, or something like that.

Don’t be fooled. The Novavax “vaccine” does use coronavirus spike proteins (SARS-CoV-2 antigens) to influence the immune system to create antibodies. There is ZERO proof this protects against future COVID-19 infection, or any of its variants, for that matter.

The scientists basically put the SARS-CoV-2 genes into an insect virus, infecting the moth cells until it begins replicating them. Then they extract the spike proteins and claim this is the “traditional” way to get the “purified” spike proteins.

There’s nothing traditional or “herbal” about it though. Again, in herbal medicine, nobody is injecting herbs and tinctures into their veins. Ready for your moth ball and tree sap injection sir/ma’am? It’s very “safe and effective” don’t you know.

Soapbark tree extract used as adjuvant to increase immune response to spike proteins

Supposedly, humans can get injected with fewer spike proteins than the typical billion that are being used now in the protein payload injections from J&J, or from the relentless spike-protein-creating, DNA-reconfiguring mRNA jabs, and still create immunity against “gain of function” syndrome, a.k.a. the Fauci Flu. Dangerous adjuvants are used in nearly all vaccines to conjure up an unnatural, fight-or-flight style immune response, and this alone can cause severe, deadly side effects and adverse events.

Injecting soapbark tree extract from the Quillaja Saponaria (a.k.a. Matrix-M) allegedly “encourages immune cells to activate” thus conjuring up a potent immune response. There’s nothing at all natural about injecting this extract, and the immune response cannot simply be calibrated or up-regulated in some scientifically-formulated fashion that’s “safe and effective,” as pharma and the CDC ALWAYS claim about all vaccines.

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2022/07/29/propagandists-position-covid-vaccine-novavax-herbal-medicine/

A federal judge in Cincinnati on Wednesday halted the Biden administration for the foreseeable future from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate globally on any servicemembers in both the Air Force, Space Force and Air National Guard who requested religious exemptions.(Provided by Attorney Chris Wiest)

Jennifer Edwards Baker

CINCINNATI (WXIX) – A federal judge in Cincinnati on Wednesday blocked the Biden administration for the foreseeable future from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate globally on any servicemembers in the Air Force, Space Force and Air National Guard who requested religious exemptions.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew McFarland’s preliminary injunction stops the military from discharging or disciplining servicemembers in this local lawsuit that now has an international impact on the military and class-action status as it heads toward trial.

Judge McFarland has criticized the Air Force, writing that they sweepingly rejected each exemption request and failed to carefully consider the merits of each.

“Members face the same injury: violation of their constitutional freedom by defendants’ clear policy of discrimination religious accommodation requests,” he wrote two weeks ago when he issued the temporary injunction.

Doster v. Kendall comes down to this: Do the rights of those defending our country to exercise their religious freedom and eschew the vaccine supersede the Air Force’s insistence that allowing them to do so will irreparably harm the military’s ability to do its job?

So far, the judge has sided all the way with the servicemembers and now he has included the Air National Guard in the litigation.

The government is expected to swiftly appeal this decision, as they have previous ones in this case.

FOX19 NOW has a request for comment from a spokeswoman for the Air Force. We will update this story once we hear back.

The judge’s decision impacts 200 to 300 servicemembers stationed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, who filed the lawsuit against top military leaders back in February.

It also affects 7,000 to 9,000 service members nationally, according to the attorney for the local plaintiffs, Chris Wiest of northern Kentucky.

[…]

Via https://www.fox19.com/2022/07/28/cincinnati-federal-judge-stops-air-force-air-national-guard-globally-discharging-religious-vaccine-refusers/

Timofei Bordachev

Internationalist 360°

The United Nations is a product of Western intellectual common sense, which after the Second World War created relatively fair conditions in order to maintain its centrality in international politics.

The fact that Western countries are now losing this position is for natural reasons. This inevitably affects their ability to project influence in world affairs, which was based not on formal status, but on unique capabilities of power.

The contraction of these advantages, the consequences of which we are now clearly witnessing, cannot bypass institutions created in a previous era.

This means that the fate of the UN will in any case come into question. The only issue is who decides to raise the subject and for what purpose – the West (in order to preserve its position in the emerging world) or the other great powers (in order to create institutions more in line with the reality of international politics)? A third option is also possible – a new cycle, in which there is little scope for a monopoly position of a narrow group of countries, will have no need for the traditional institutions of international governance at all.

We should not be confused by the fact that powers now as hostile as Russia or China to the Western community are members of the ruling circle of the UN system – as permanent members of the Security Council (UNSC).

“The UN’s ability to really run the world has always remained largely an illusion.”

The real reason for these two states to retain this status was the rational desire of the US and its closest allies to avoid a repeat of the situation in which powers perceived to be dangerous to global stability were excluded from formal institutions. The lesson of the destruction that emerged from Versailles after World War I by an aggrieved Germany and Japan was well learned – in both theory and practice.

All the more so because the presence of the USSR and (after the Communist Party had succeeded in asserting its authority) China at the Security Council table did not increase their competitive advantage. Where they were tactically stronger than the US, it was not because of their formal status (not to mention that when official Beijing was allowed into the body, its relations with Moscow were openly hostile, with the two then-socialist powers blocking each other.)

There is no doubt that on occasion, the permanent members of the UNSC have been able to act as an all-powerful ‘world government’, defining for the weaker members of the international community the boundaries of what is allowed.

But this institution has never dealt with questions of war and peace between its members. This mission has always remained the privilege of bilateral relations, determined by the ‘real’ rather than ‘formal’ balance of power.

This is still the case today – the only ‘institution’ in Russia-US relations is their capacity for mutual assured destruction. The Security Council can only reflect the real balance of power in the world, which is much broader and more diverse than the Moscow-Washington confrontation.

However, it is precisely this possibility that it is now lacking as a result of its composition, which pursues, not ‘global governance’, but ‘global containment’ of both Russia and China by maintaining the hegemonic position of the West.

This statement may seem paradoxical, since Russia and China have the same rights in the Security Council as the other three permanent members. This is true, but beyond the purely legal status that confers veto power on the quintet, there is the practical ability to influence world governance through the control of procedural practices (personnel assignments in the international bureaucracy, for example).

Here too, the US and its allies had an enormous advantage at the creation of the UN in 1945, and retain it to a large extent due to the inertia of the institution itself. As a result, the inclusion of Moscow and Beijing in the most important mechanism restrains their hypothetical revolutionary behavior, but does not provide them with the same degree of influence on world governance as the West.

In other words, the UNSC is becoming a very sophisticated form of deterrence which is carried out by granting two adversary countries a special status. This status narrows their scope for independent behavior and separates them from the rest of the international community. For the latter, the status is a privilege that the self-appointed ‘world elite’ has arrogated to itself and which it refuses to share. Thus, in its modern form, the UNSC is a way to maintain the monopoly of the US and Western Europe in international politics.

The world is indeed changing, and not only as a result of the dynamics of power relations between the Great Powers. While Russia’s military assertiveness and China’s economic weight remain the main battering rams against the international system led by the West, their actions are not determinants of the irreversibility of change. Otherwise, the revisionism of Moscow and Beijing would repeat the fate of revolutionary France in the early 19th century, or of Germany and Japan, which rebelled in the second quarter of the previous century against the injustice of the world order of that time. But we already see that this is not a likely prospect, precisely because the majority of developing countries are in fact on the side of the Russian-Chinese front.

Even if some of them formally condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine during the UN General Assembly vote, their policies show that they are aware of their changing position in the international system. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Vietnam have generally opted for a position of benevolent neutrality.

That said, we do not know whether the Russian leadership itself was convinced that it would be impossible to isolate Moscow. However, Russia’s military assertiveness on the Ukraine issue has helped everyone see that the status quo favored by the West is already a thing of the past.

The fundamental transformation of the global balance of power has three main sources. Firstly, economic globalization, which emerged under the shadow of Western domination, has provided many medium and large countries with new resources to meet their development challenges. Secondly, the objective reduction of the material capabilities of the West, which is no longer able to offer the rest of the world attractive sources of prosperity that are worth giving up their own interests for. Thirdly, there is a rising self-confidence of a host of relatively new actors in international politics derived from the first two factors.

[…]

Via https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/07/28/the-un-is-no-longer-fit-for-its-purpose-should-it-be-abolished-or-reformed/

The World We Live In

Call it callousness, call it reprisal, call it a policy of hostile neglect: a million Germans taken prisoner by Eisenhower’s armies died in captivity after the surrender.

[…]

“Hungry and frightened, lying in grain fields within fifty feet of us, awaiting the appropriate time to jump up with their hands in the air”; that’s how Captain H. F. McCullough of the 2nd Anti-Tank Regiment Division described the chaos of the German surrender at the end of the Second World War.

In a day and a half, according to Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery, 500,000 Germans surrendered to his 21st Army Group in Northern Germany.  Soon after V-E Day–May 8, 1945–the British-Canadian catch totalled more than 2 million.  Virtually nothing about their treatment survives in the archives in Ottawa or London, but some skimpy evidence from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the armies concerned, and the prisoners themselves indicates that almost all continued in fair health.  In any case, most were quickly released and sent home, or else transferred to the French to help in the post-war work of reconstruction.  The French army had itself taken fewer than 300,000 prisoners.

Like the British and Canadians, the Americans suddenly faced astounding numbers of surrendering German troops: the final tally of prisoners taken by the U.S. army in Europe (excluding Italy and North Africa) was 5.25 million.  But the Americans responded very differently.

Among the early U.S captives was one Corporal Helmut Liebich, who had been working in an anti-aircraft experimental group at Peenemunde on the Baltic.  Liebich was captured by the Americans on April 17, near Gotha in Central Germany.  Forty-two years later, he recalled vividly that there were no tents in the Gotha camp, just barbed wire fences around a field soon churned to mud.  The prisoners received a small ration of food on the first day but it was then cut in half.  In order to get it, they were forced to run a gauntlet.  Hunched over, they ran between lines of American guards who hit them with sticks as they scurried towards their food.

On April 27, they were transferred to the U.S. camp at Heidesheim farther wet, where there was no food at all for days, then very little.  Exposed, starved, and thirsty, the men started to die.

Liebich saw between ten and thirty bodies a day being dragged out of his section, B, which at first held around 5,200 men. He saw one prisoner beat another to death to get his piece of bread.  One night when it rained, Liebich saw the sides of the holes in which they were sheltered, dug in soft sandy earth, collapse on men who were too weak to struggle out.  They smothered before anyone could get to them.  Liebich sat down and wept.  “I could hardly believe men could be so cruel to each other.”

Typhus broke out in Heidesheim about the beginning of May.  Five days after V-E Day, on May 13, Liebich was transferred to another U.S. POW camp, at Bingen-Rudesheim in the Rhineland near Bad Kreuznach, where he was told that the prisoners numbered somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000, all without shelter, food, water, medicine, or sufficient space.

[…]

When a little food finally did arrive, it was rotten.  In none of the four camps had Leibich seen any shelter for the prisoners.  the death rate in the U.S. Rhineland camps at this point, according to surviving data from a medical survey, was about thirty per cent per year.  A normal death rate for a civilian population in 1945 was between one and two percent.

One day in June, through hallucinations of his fever, Liebich saw “the Tommies” coming into the camp.  The British had taken over Rheinberg, and that probably saved his life.  At this point, Liebich, who is five-foot-ten, weighed 96.8 ponds.

[…]

Under the Geneva Convention, three important rights are guaranteed prisoners of war: that they will be fed and sheltered to the same standard as base or depot troops of the Capturing Power; that they can send and receive mail; and that they will be visited by delegates of the International Red Cross (ICRC) who will report in secret on their treatment to a Protecting Power.

[…]

In fact, German prisoners taken by the U.S. Army at the end of the Second World War were denied these and most other rights by a series of specific decisions and directives stemming mainly from SHAEF–Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force.  General Dwight Eisenhower was both supreme commander of SHAEF–all the Allied armies in northwest Europe–and the commanding general of the U.S. forces in the European theatre.

[…]

In March, 1945, a message to the Combined Chiefs of Staff signed and initialled by Eisenhower recommended creating a new class of prisoners–Disarmed Enemy Forces, or DEFs–who, unlike Geneva-defined prisoners of war, would not be fed by the army after the surrender of Germany.  This would be a direct breach of the Geneva Convention.

[…]

On April 26, 1945, the Combined Chiefs approved the DEF status for prisoners of war in American hands only: the British members had refused to adopt the American plan for their own prisoners.  The Combined Chiefs stipulated that the status of disarmed troops be kept secret.

By that time, Eisenhower’s quartermaster general at SHAEF, General Robert Littlejohn, had already twice reduced rations for prisoners, and a SHAEF message signed “Eisenhower” had reported to General George Marshall, the U.S. Army Chief of staff, that the prisoner pens would provide “no shelter or other comforts….”

The problem was not supplies.  There was more than enough material stockpiled in Europe to construct prison camp facilities.  Eisenhower’s special assistant, general Everett Hughes, had visited the huge supply dumps at Naples and Marseille and reported:

[…]

In addition, the International Red Cross had over 100,000 tons of food in storage in Switzerland.  When it tried to send two trainloads of this to the American sector of Germany, U.S. Army Officers turned the trains back, saying their warehouses were already overflowing with ICRC food which they had never distributed.

[…]

For three and a half days, we had no water at all.  We would drink our own urine….”

[…]

The conditions in the American camps along the Rhine in late April were observed by two colonels in the U.S. Army Medical Corps, James Mason and Charles Beasley, who described them in a paper published in 1950:

“Huddled close together for warmth, behind the barbed wire was a most awesome sight–nearly 100,000 haggard, apathetic, dirty, gaunt, blank-staring med clad in dirty field grey uniforms, and standing ankle-deep in mud….The German Divisions Commander reported that the men had not eaten for at least two days, and the provisions of water was a major problem–yet only 200 yards away was the River Rhine running bank full.”

[…]

Via https://luis46pr.wordpress.com/2022/07/28/eisenhowers-death-camps-the-last-dirty-secret-of-world-war-two/