Dossier: The Hunger Plan: The Holocaust, Resource Scarcity, and Preventing Genocide in a Changing Climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nazi leadership sought to exploit the biological fear of starvation and scapegoat the Jewish population and other “useless eaters” for taking more than their fair share. The Nazis utilized and hyperbolized well-known prejudices against Jewish people, and entrenched narratives of Jewish parasitism as a threat to current and future German lives. In this analysis, food scarcity was one of several reasons for the Holocaust, and the first step to seeking Lebensraum for pure Germans to live to the highest international standard. This article will focus on different aspects of the complex antisemitic rhetoric surrounding issues of resource scarcity, including Hitler’s concept of Lebensraum, the ways in which the Nazi party discussed and understood food, food security, and the memory of World War I, as well as how that rhetoric influenced their policies, including Herbert Backe’s Hunger Plan. This analysis presents the so-called Final Solution as an answer to not only the Nazi’s Jewish problem, but a key aspect to their food security plans as well. Placing this analysis in the context of genocide prevention, the increasing insecurity and pressures climate change places on natural resources must be acknowledged as a trigger for future genocides.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".