[JPLeRouzic]

That's true, I do not disput it.

My point was about the countries as a whole, including civilians and by including the displaced people. And I did include them because you pointed at the amputation of territories, which is something that happened nearly 70 years after the WWII, so I felt I could talk about what happened in the ten years after the WWII.

You know this point about displaced people strikes me because I am French:

I did work with (old) Germans and sometimes I felt some bitterness, including an occasion where one guy in an hotel told me of bombardments on Heidelberg (not a town that suffered heavily) and I was thinking that my father suffered also from bombardments (bombs exploded around him) as a 18 years old in France, so what was his point? Many years later I learned that the Allied discourse of "the good and the bad people" was an heavy (re) writing of history.

[taway_1212]

> Many years later I learned that the Allied discourse of "the good and the bad people" was an heavy (re) writing of history.

I agree that that was heavily the case on the Eastern front (with the Allies doing heavy cover-ups for USSR genocides so that they are not associated with a "bad guy"), but how did that happen on the Western front?

[JPLeRouzic]

That is what I point out in my previous replies. You can look also at:

* US (Roosevelt) planned for nearly destruction of after war Germany, fortunately Hoover stopped that policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_plans_for_German_indust...

* Living with 1200 calories per day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_in_occupied_Germany

* Another strange behavior is that Allied forces imposed to De Gaulle to "whitewash" its troops before entering Paris. I suppose it was a only trick to make it impossible for French troops to enter in Paris without having to refuse bluntly, but that shows that the demand of "having only white soldiers" was considered to be perfectly normal and acceptable by UK and US forces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7984436.stm