Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Proving they are one step away from the Westboro Baptist Church, anonymous celebrates Holocaust Memorial Day by hacking Israeli websites and replacing them with pro-terrorist and anti-semitic propaganda   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Westboro Baptist Church, Israelis, Holocaust, Holocaust memorial day, e-government, programmers, Holocaust victims  
•       •       •

7338 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Apr 2013 at 5:19 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



371 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-09 02:45:42 AM  

Frederick: owlie: Amos Quito: owlie:

This is exactly right. Jews didn't leave Spain or England because they were exiled, or Russia because of pogroms, or Nazi occupied Europe because of the Holocaust, or Arab countries in the 1930s onward because they were expelled, but out of fears of assimilation and fervent Zionist sentiment. Thanks for clearing that up.


Have you ever considered whether it MIGHT be productive to pause at being so obsessed with WHAT happened (over and over and over - here, there and everywhere!) and start asking yourselves WHY?

Just a thought.

Did you really go there? That's cute.

Is this a deflection to avoid answering?

In my conversations with seemingly neutral observers it is a valid historical question.  And IMO without a sincere, meaningful discussion of "why", "never again" is empty rhetoric.


Deflection? To suggest that there's some deeply rooted dysfunction among Jewish people that has persisted for millennia which justifies their persecution is a functional definition of antisemitism.
 
2013-04-09 03:46:50 AM  

owlie: Frederick: owlie: Amos Quito: owlie:

This is exactly right. Jews didn't leave Spain or England because they were exiled, or Russia because of pogroms, or Nazi occupied Europe because of the Holocaust, or Arab countries in the 1930s onward because they were expelled, but out of fears of assimilation and fervent Zionist sentiment. Thanks for clearing that up.


Have you ever considered whether it MIGHT be productive to pause at being so obsessed with WHAT happened (over and over and over - here, there and everywhere!) and start asking yourselves WHY?

Just a thought.

Did you really go there? That's cute.

Is this a deflection to avoid answering?

In my conversations with seemingly neutral observers it is a valid historical question.  And IMO without a sincere, meaningful discussion of "why", "never again" is empty rhetoric.

Deflection? To suggest that there's some deeply rooted dysfunction among Jewish people that has persisted for millennia which justifies their persecution is a functional definition of antisemitism.


I didnt hear anyone suggest that in this conversation.  Is it your opinion there is a deeply rooted dysfunction among Jewish people?

From what I have read the reasons given for repeated exiles of Jews is largely due to finance/economics.  Now, that is from the point of view of the exilers -Spanish, German, English.  I think it is a worthwhile conversation to have because, for example, if the Spanish are saying Jews are being exiled for their implementation of usury, that might be something a non-Catholic should be sensitive to in a predominantly Catholic society.  Again just an example.

But I find it disingenuous for Jews to then later ignore the reasons given by their exilers and to simply suggest the exile is due to antisemitism.  This tactic is similar to the United States ignoring stated reasons from Al Qeada for their terrorism and instead saying "they hate us for our freedoms".

Also if laws or customs are being broken, resulting in exile, it is again disingenuous to equate exile with persecution.
 
2013-04-09 04:35:28 AM  
Frederick:

Deflection? To  suggest that there's some deeply rooted dysfunction among Jewish people that has persisted for millennia which justifies their persecution is a functional definition of antisemitism.

I didnt hear anyone suggest that in this conversation.  Is it your opinion there is a deeply rooted dysfunction among Jewish people?

From what I have read the reasons given for repeated exiles of Jews is largely due to finance/economics.  Now, that is from the point of view of the exilers -Spanish, German, English.  I think it is a worthwhile conversation to have because, for example, if the Spanish are saying Jews are being exiled for their implementation of usury, that might be something a non-Catholic should be sensitive to in a predominantly Catholic society.  Again just an example.

But I find it disingenuous for Jews to then later ignore the reasons given by their exilers and to simply suggest the exile is due to antisemitism.  This tactic is similar to the United States ignoring stated reasons from Al Qeada for their terrorism and instead saying "they hate us for our freedoms".

Also if laws or customs are being broken, resulting in exile, it is again disingenuous to equate exile with persecution.


How is this not an extension of the "If girls don't want to get date raped, they shouldn't get drunk and wear short skirts" argument? Sure, there'd be a lot less date rape if women didn't imbibe, but it's not a very satisfying solution.

With respect to Jews, you really don't have to make stuff up as the historical records are all right there. Usury was forbidden to Christians, but not to Jews. Strictly speaking, as a Christian you can borrow money at interest; you just can't lend. The only sensitivity (if you've ever studied group dynamics) stems from people's innate tendency to be distrustful of The Other. So how do you resolve that? Maybe you can come up with a better answer than "assimilation", but if not, you would do well to keep in mind where assimilation has not been successful for Jews. Spain convinced quite a lot of Jews to convert to Christianity, but those who were able to resist were perceived as a negative influence on the conversos, and so it was decided that all of them should be expelled. German Jewry is well known for having assimilated, and it isn't even rare to hear about individuals who were Jews by birth yet dissociated themselves so much from their ancestry that they were active collaborators in Jewish persecution and self-proclaimed antisemites. Still, you could be a fully assimilated practicing Christian with one Jewish grandparent, and still find yourself in line for the gas chambers. (And anyway, assimilating a culture away is sometimes called ethnocide, and surely no one wants to be accused of that.)

I will also add, with unfarklike honesty, that it's quite sickening to me to have a conversation around what a victimized group should do not to stop being victimized, but to stop being hated. Sickening because the hatred is irrational (not just antisemitism, but racism and homophobia too), yet here you are picking apart what the victims do to provoke that hatred and how they can change it, as if you could ever exhaust all the reasons someone might come up with to hate.
 
2013-04-09 05:58:37 AM  

owlie: How is this not an extension of the "If girls don't want to get date raped, they shouldn't get drunk and wear short skirts" argument? Sure, there'd be a lot less date rape if women didn't imbibe, but it's not a very satisfying solution.


I can see that aspect from a Jewish perspective.  But at what point is the victim playing with fire, so to speak?

owlie: I will also add, with unfarklike honesty, that it's quite sickening to me to have a conversation around what a victimized group should do not to stop being victimized, but to stop being hated. Sickening because the hatred is irrational

...

I agree there is significant historical hatred for Jews especially in Christian nations.  And because much of it stems from religion I'd also agree the hatred is largely irrational.  But I think to dismiss all of histories exiles of Jews to hatred is an oversimplification and risks missing many valid points that could benefit posterity.

To use your example from above; if the drunk and provocatively dressed girl does get date raped even though she broke no laws, I'd still expect her to change her behavior before she takes the stance of "never again".  And I wouldnt object too vociferously if you argued I was wrong for thinking that; but I would object if you boiled my stance down to some form of hatred.

/I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion maturely with you
 
2013-04-09 06:00:14 AM  

owlie: Yes, because in civilized countries like the United States, where audiences clamor for calm, reasoned, level-headed debate, only moderate views shared by the entire population are presented in mainstream media op-eds.


No, but if you'll read the preceeding posts you'll notice that my point was that there are people in positions of authority both in Palestine and Israel who exhibit hateful, genocidal attitudes towards the others. If we disregard the crazies on both sides, then we can start to improve the situation.

NostroZ: By supporting Hamas? A religious group that kills gays?
What do you do besides railing against Israel? Seriously man. Do you have ANY connection to the land or the people there?
Or is this just your way of political masturbation?


k, several things:
(1) No I don't support Hamas, they seem pretty crazy, but their craziness is the product of contempt from years of oppression and mistreatment much in the same way the ANC had some real nutcases. It doesn't make it ok, but it's kind of understandable.
(2) What connection do I have? Like I need to have a personal relationship to people over there to feel that the way  they are being treated is wrong? Guess what, I don't personally know anybody who survived the holocaust, so am I not allowed to think that that was a bad thing? If you must know, however, yes, I do have friends in Lebanon who have family members who were killed in 2006 when Israel decided it would be fun to start dropping bombs in residential neighbourhoods.

How do you support fair treatment?

Right now, if you're Jewish, you can claim Israeli citizenship and come live there regardless of whether you've ever had any connection to the area in you(or your family's) life. If you're palestinian and your family has lived on a spot for generations, you can get told to GTFO and watch while your house gets bulldozed anytime Netanyahu feels like he wants to grab some more land that every other developped nation on earth agrees does not belong to Israel.
Meaning if you are born into one race you are given special priveleges, and if you are born into another race you are demoted to a lower class of citizenship. I think that's unfair -does that make me antisemitic?

liam76: This is the problem with people like you. You try and pretend both sides are the same (the desire to wipe out the other is th esame) I call you out on it, and you pretend I am arguing their attitude is good or ok. I can disagree with both and recognize one is a bigger impediment to peace.


No I don't. I made it very clear here that the moral failures in this situation are not symmetric. At this point, Israel happens to be the one holding all the weapons and could therefore take the initiative to treat the less powerful party with a basic level of human decency. Instead the Israeli government has chosen to repeatedly shiat on the basic human rights of a bunch of people who don't have anything to fight back with.
Do you think that the black and white South-African attitudes represented morally equal and equivalent principles in the era of apartheid? no. Neither do I.
And if you want to talk about the biggest impediments to peace, why don't you tell your friends in Israel to stop stealing land by expanding settlements in every direction, and then we can talk about the biggest impediment's to peace. Until then, STFU.
 
2013-04-09 06:53:02 AM  

Amos Quito: The shiattiest part of this whole deal is that what they do reflects HORRIBLY on ALL JEWS, no matter where they are or what they believe


In your mind, apparently.  I for one fail to see why even the most pernicious acts committed by Israelis in some town in the West Bank should reflect on Sammy the owner of the corner store in Brooklyn, or Dr. Goldstein the dentist in Chicago, or even Mr. Weissberg the big businessman in San Francisco, unless they happen to be active supporters of Israel.  Or at least I don't see why such acts should reflect on them any more than they do on anyone else here.

A lot of people who critique Israel these days will tell you that they are not anti-Jewish, only anti-Zionist.  And many such people are what they say they are, no doubt about that.  But forgive me if I see a couple of problems that frequently crop up when it comes to modern anti-Zionism.  One is that "Zionist" has turned into a term that can mean just about anything these days.  And another is that there are still plenty of people out there whose distinction between "Zionist" and "Jew" is quite blurred.  I don't know whether that is true of you, but I think that the comment that I quoted is characteristic of such thinking.

Amos Quito: I wish I could say that I could offer a reasonable, practical solution to the mess over there


I'll broach one that I've made a move in the direction of alluding to before on this blog:  We could take in as immigrants here a million or two million Jewish Israelis.  This would severely weaken Israel and might even put a stop to its policy of colonizing the "1967 territories" in the West Bank.  I'm sure a lot of Palestinians would be delighted if we did this.  But I don't see much support for such a policy here from any quarter.
 
2013-04-09 07:17:56 AM  

NostroZ: Seriously man. Do you have ANY connection to the land or the people there?
Or is this just your way of political masturbation?


oh yeah, and btw, every time I pay taxes I'm helping supply the Israeli government with weapons to continue committing crimes. When my government stops paying the bills for Israel's weapons, then maybe you can try to claim that I have no "dog in the fight" -as if that argument even made any sense in the first place, which it doesn't.
 
2013-04-09 07:35:39 AM  

Frederick: owlie: How is this not an extension of the "If girls don't want to get date raped, they shouldn't get drunk and wear short skirts" argument? Sure, there'd be a lot less date rape if women didn't imbibe, but it's not a very satisfying solution.

I can see that aspect from a Jewish perspective.  But at what point is the victim playing with fire, so to speak?


I don't see a problem with the analogy. A woman should be able to drink and dress as she pleases without fear of rape. The point is that she could change, and indeed many women do drink a little less and cover up a little more because of the potential rape in the back of their minds, but I'd rather live in a society where a woman doesn't have to think more about her level of intoxication or the provocativeness of her clothes than any man. Attempting to reduce the level of harm to the victimized group without addressing the irrational inequality (that a woman's state of inebriation and her clothing have some bearing on whether or not it's okay to rape her), doesn't actually solve the societal problem. (And yes, men are raped too, and sometimes women rape men, etc. The example obviously holds for all groups, but language makes accounting for all gender situations very tedious.)

owlie: I will also add, with unfarklike honesty, that it's quite sickening to me to have a conversation around what a victimized group should do not to stop being victimized, but to stop being hated. Sickening because the hatred is irrational...

I agree there is significant historical hatred for Jews especially in Christian nations.  And because much of it stems from religion I'd also agree the hatred is largely irrational.  But I think to dismiss all of histories exiles of Jews to hatred is an oversimplification and risks missing many valid points that could benefit posterity.


It's not an oversimplification, but it is a generalization, and a good one. I challenge you to examine the long, depressing history of Jewish exile and find rational reasons for the expulsion.

To use your example from above; if the drunk and provocatively dressed girl does get date raped even though she broke no laws, I'd still expect her to change her behavior before she takes the stance of "never again".  And I wouldnt object too vociferously if you argued I was wrong for thinking that; but I would object if you boiled my stance down to some form of hatred.

I think you understand by this point that I wouldn't argue a woman is date raped out of hate, but rather that the rape is the outcome of the perpetrator's (and apologists') irrational justification that it's permissible to rape girls who behave and dress a certain way.
 
2013-04-09 07:38:40 AM  

sudo give me more cowbell: owlie: Yes, because in civilized countries like the United States, where audiences clamor for calm, reasoned, level-headed debate, only moderate views shared by the entire population are presented in mainstream media op-eds.

No, but if you'll read the preceeding posts you'll notice that my point was that there are people in positions of authority both in Palestine and Israel who exhibit hateful, genocidal attitudes towards the others. If we disregard the crazies on both sides, then we can start to improve the situation.


Yeah, only the person who posted the op-ed isn't in a position of leadership. Meanwhile, within Israeli leadership, anything that would count as a "hateful, genocidal attitude" is rare, but describes quite well the platform of the ruling Hamas party.
 
2013-04-09 07:45:58 AM  

Amos Quito: FARKING BASTARDS!

They made the bridge too low...

ON PURPOSE!


/Why do they hate me???


This clown posts pictures like this when talking abotu causes for things like th ehoocaust then cries when you point out he believes the Jews were responsible for the holocaust.


Frederick: Is this a deflection to avoid answering?

In my conversations with seemingly neutral observers it is a valid historical question. And IMO without a sincere, meaningful discussion of "why", "never again" is empty rhetoric


"Why" is kind of tough to get to with the crowd that needs convincing it even happened.

But I am bored, so please why don't you enlighten us as to why you think it happened?
 
2013-04-09 08:07:36 AM  

sudo give me more cowbell: No I don't. I made it very clear here that the moral failures in this situation are not symmetric. At this point, Israel happens to be the one holding all the weapons and could therefore take the initiative to treat the less powerful party with a basic level of human decency. Instead the Israeli government has chosen to repeatedly shiat on the basic human rights of a bunch of people who don't have anything to fight back with.


They aren't holding all the weapons.

Before they were lobbing rockets they were using suicide bombers, nessecetaiting the checkpoints and walls to keep the m out of Israel. They had one opf the fastest growing enconomies in the ME before the Palestenians ruined their chances fo working in Israel by taking advantage of easy border crossings to run suicide missions.

sudo give me more cowbell: Do you think that the black and white South-African attitudes represented morally equal and equivalent principles in the era of apartheid? no. Neither do I.


Not in any way releveant. White SA's thought they were superior to black SA hence wanted them to have no olitical power. Israel has arab voters and they even sit ont he supreme court. Their opposition to Palestenains citizenship stems fromt hem not being ISraeli and wanting to wipe out everything that made Israel what it is.

sudo give me more cowbell: And if you want to talk about the biggest impediments to peace, why don't you tell your friends in Israel to stop stealing land by expanding settlements in every direction, and then we can talk about the biggest impediment's to peace. Until then, STFU


I don't agree with the west bank settlements, but if you lloked at what happened in Gaza after they left you would realize that taking land isn't the main problem.

sudo give me more cowbell: No, but if you'll read the preceeding posts you'll notice that my point was that there are people in positions of authority both in Palestine and Israel who exhibit hateful, genocidal attitudes towards the others. If we disregard the crazies on both sides, then we can start to improve the situation.


You can't "disregard" the crazies when they are the elected eladers.

This is what you stubbornly or dishonestly refuse to realize.


Frederick: I agree there is significant historical hatred for Jews especially in Christian nations. And because much of it stems from religion I'd also agree the hatred is largely irrational. But I think to dismiss all of histories exiles of Jews to hatred is an oversimplification and risks missing many valid points that could benefit posterity.

To use your example from above; if the drunk and provocatively dressed girl does get date raped even though she broke no laws, I'd still expect her to change her behavior before she takes the stance of "never again". And I wouldnt object too vociferously if you argued I was wrong for thinking that; but I would object if you boiled my stance down to some form of hatred.


Nevermind the intrinsic antisemetism of that analogy (that jews can be compared to one person as if they are some monolithic group), she isn't date raped becuase she did something "wrong" but because the person tought they could get away with it. In the case of the jews that was because they were a small minority. Hwo coudl they have changed that?

but I know you are trying to hint at soemthing "wrong" the jews did to bring this on themselves. Plese enlighten us. What did tje jews on 1920's germany do to cause the holocaust?
 
2013-04-09 08:08:21 AM  

Frederick: owlie: Amos Quito: owlie:

This is exactly right. Jews didn't leave Spain or England because they were exiled, or Russia because of pogroms, or Nazi occupied Europe because of the Holocaust, or Arab countries in the 1930s onward because they were expelled, but out of fears of assimilation and fervent Zionist sentiment. Thanks for clearing that up.


Have you ever considered whether it MIGHT be productive to pause at being so obsessed with WHAT happened (over and over and over - here, there and everywhere!) and start asking yourselves WHY?

Just a thought.

Did you really go there? That's cute.

Is this a deflection to avoid answering?

In my conversations with seemingly neutral observers it is a valid historical question.  And IMO without a sincere, meaningful discussion of "why", "never again" is empty rhetoric.


Well, since you seem to solicit a discussion, I'll bite.  My theory is that many Germans in the 1930s and 1940s believed that it was their country's destiny to rule over Europe, and that many of those same Germans believed that European Jews were an obstacle to the fulfillment of that destiny, and that some of those same Germans believed that the best method of removing this obstacle was to kill as many of those Jews as possible.  And acted on those beliefs.  And I'll add that I applaud anyone of any ethnicity or religion who acted as such an obstacle in any way.
 
2013-04-09 08:26:22 AM  
tirob:

Well, since you seem to solicit a discussion, I'll bite.  My theory is that many Germans in the 1930s and 1940s believed that it was their country's destiny to rule over Europe, and that many of those same Germans believed that European Jews were an obstacle to the fulfillment of that destiny, and that some of those same Germans believed that the best method of removing this obstacle was to kill as many of those Jews as possible.  And acted on those beliefs.  And I'll add that I applaud anyone of any ethnicity or religion who acted as such an obstacle in any way.

That's just a series of (if I may borrow from psychology) loose associations, without explanatory power. The big "Why" question isn't about confirming the timeline of events, but constructing if-then statements we can learn from. I suppose you could conclude that the Jews should have acted in such a way that they did not present an obstacle, but you'd have to ignore a whole lot of glaring problems to be satisfied with that conclusion.
 
2013-04-09 08:47:03 AM  

owlie: tirob:

Well, since you seem to solicit a discussion, I'll bite.  My theory is that many Germans in the 1930s and 1940s believed that it was their country's destiny to rule over Europe, and that many of those same Germans believed that European Jews were an obstacle to the fulfillment of that destiny, and that some of those same Germans believed that the best method of removing this obstacle was to kill as many of those Jews as possible.  And acted on those beliefs.  And I'll add that I applaud anyone of any ethnicity or religion who acted as such an obstacle in any way.

That's just a series of (if I may borrow from psychology) loose associations, without explanatory power. The big "Why" question isn't about confirming the timeline of events, but constructing if-then statements we can learn from. I suppose you could conclude that the Jews should have acted in such a way that they did not present an obstacle, but you'd have to ignore a whole lot of glaring problems to be satisfied with that conclusion.


1.  A good many Jews *did* act as such obstacles, and more power to them as far as I'm concerned.

2.  Any question of "why" the massacres perpetrated by Germany in Europe during 1939-45 took place can only be answered by theories.  My answer was therefore a theory.

3.  I have seen this kind of question asked on this blog before, and the answer by the person who posed it is usually one or another variation of "The Jews brought it on themselves."  I don't buy that, so I thought I'd present another point of view.
 
2013-04-09 08:53:11 AM  

tirob: 1. A good many Jews *did* act as such obstacles, and more power to them as far as I'm concerned.


Were "many" German Jews acting as obstacles to the Nazi's before they were targets of the Nazi's?
 
2013-04-09 09:01:54 AM  

tirob: owlie: tirob:

Well, since you seem to solicit a discussion, I'll bite.  My theory is that many Germans in the 1930s and 1940s believed that it was their country's destiny to rule over Europe, and that many of those same Germans believed that European Jews were an obstacle to the fulfillment of that destiny, and that some of those same Germans believed that the best method of removing this obstacle was to kill as many of those Jews as possible.  And acted on those beliefs.  And I'll add that I applaud anyone of any ethnicity or religion who acted as such an obstacle in any way.

That's just a series of (if I may borrow from psychology) loose associations, without explanatory power. The big "Why" question isn't about confirming the timeline of events, but constructing if-then statements we can learn from. I suppose you could conclude that the Jews should have acted in such a way that they did not present an obstacle, but you'd have to ignore a whole lot of glaring problems to be satisfied with that conclusion.

1.  A good many Jews *did* act as such obstacles, and more power to them as far as I'm concerned.

2.  Any question of "why" the massacres perpetrated by Germany in Europe during 1939-45 took place can only be answered by theories.  My answer was therefore a theory.

3.  I have seen this kind of question asked on this blog before, and the answer by the person who posed it is usually one or another variation of "The Jews brought it on themselves."  I don't buy that, so I thought I'd present another point of view.


Nice try, but you haven't shed light anywhere new, and if anything you underestimate Nazi intentions, such as wanting to exterminate Jews worldwide, not just in Europe. What Nazis believed is well documented and beyond theory. You're missing where the underlying question others have brought up is not just "Why did it happen?" but "Why do people hate Jews so much?" My own answer is "antisemitism", which you'd think wouldn't be controversial because it's tautological ("People hate Jews because they're antisemites"), but apparently it is.
 
2013-04-09 10:03:11 AM  

owlie: You're missing where the underlying question others have brought up is not just "Why did it happen?" but "Why do people hate Jews so much?" My own answer is "antisemitism", which you'd think wouldn't be controversial because it's tautological ("People hate Jews because they're antisemites"), but apparently it is.


Well that's just f*cking genius, that is.
 
2013-04-09 12:04:07 PM  

liam76: tirob: 1. A good many Jews *did* act as such obstacles, and more power to them as far as I'm concerned.

Were "many" German Jews acting as obstacles to the Nazi's before they were targets of the Nazi's?


I don't know how many is many, but there were plenty of European Jews, both German and not, who tried, in many different ways, to resist the Nazis from very early on.  For that matter there were plenty of European Gentiles, both German and not, who did the same.  Some of these people were rewarded for their efforts by the Nazis and their allies everywhere with trips to some pretty sinister places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hilferding
 
2013-04-09 12:15:23 PM  

tirob: liam76: tirob: 1. A good many Jews *did* act as such obstacles, and more power to them as far as I'm concerned.

Were "many" German Jews acting as obstacles to the Nazi's before they were targets of the Nazi's?

I don't know how many is many, but there were plenty of European Jews, both German and not, who tried, in many different ways, to resist the Nazis from very early on.  For that matter there were plenty of European Gentiles, both German and not, who did the same.  Some of these people were rewarded for their efforts by the Nazis and their allies everywhere with trips to some pretty sinister places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hilferding


I don't like "squishy" words like "plenty" in conversations like this.

Any big political movement is going to have people against it.  I am looking for the "why" that people (Amos, Fredrick, etc) alledge was rooted in Jewish action that allowed people to be turned against them.
 
2013-04-09 12:20:08 PM  

owlie: tirob: owlie: tirob:

1.  A good many Jews *did* act as such obstacles, and more power to them as far as I'm concerned.

2.  Any question of "why" the massacres perpetrated by Germany in Europe during 1939-45 took place can only be answered by theories.  My answer was therefore a theory.

3.  I have seen this kind of question asked on this blog before, and the answer by the person who posed it is usually one or another variation of "The Jews brought it on themselves."  I don't buy that, so I thought I'd present another point of view.

Nice try, but you haven't shed light anywhere new, and if anything you underestimate Nazi intentions, such as wanting to exterminate Jews worldwide, not just in Europe. What Nazis believed is well documented and beyond theory. You're missing where the underlying question others have brought up is not just "Why did it happen?" but "Why do people hate Jews so much?"


I gave a theoretical response to the "why did it happen" that you disagree with.  It's your privilege.  My theoretical assertions are, I would suggest to you, backed up to some extent by the very documentation you cite; in January 1939, I believe it was, Hitler, in a speech, said something much like this: "If International Finance Jewry once again plunges Europe into war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of Europe and thus a victory for the Jews, but, on the contrary, the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe."  Hannah Arendt rightly, I believe, translated this as, "I intend to start a war [of conquest] and I intend to kill all the European Jews."

I don't really have an answer to your second question, although I wouldn't take it for granted that all or even most people hate Jews.
 
2013-04-09 12:24:09 PM  

owlie: tirob: owlie: tirob:

Well, since you seem to solicit a discussion, I'll bite.  My theory is that many Germans in the 1930s and 1940s believed that it was their country's destiny to rule over Europe, and that many of those same Germans believed that European Jews were an obstacle to the fulfillment of that destiny, and that some of those same Germans believed that the best method of removing this obstacle was to kill as many of those Jews as possible.  And acted on those beliefs.  And I'll add that I applaud anyone of any ethnicity or religion who acted as such an obstacle in any way.

That's just a series of (if I may borrow from psychology) loose associations, without explanatory power. The big "Why" question isn't about confirming the timeline of events, but constructing if-then statements we can learn from. I suppose you could conclude that the Jews should have acted in such a way that they did not present an obstacle, but you'd have to ignore a whole lot of glaring problems to be satisfied with that conclusion.

1.  A good many Jews *did* act as such obstacles, and more power to them as far as I'm concerned.

2.  Any question of "why" the massacres perpetrated by Germany in Europe during 1939-45 took place can only be answered by theories.  My answer was therefore a theory.

3.  I have seen this kind of question asked on this blog before, and the answer by the person who posed it is usually one or another variation of "The Jews brought it on themselves."  I don't buy that, so I thought I'd present another point of view.

Nice try, but you haven't shed light anywhere new, and if anything you underestimate Nazi intentions, such as wanting to exterminate Jews worldwide, not just in Europe. What Nazis believed is well documented and beyond theory. You're missing where the underlying question others have brought up is not just "Why did it happen?" but "Why do people hate Jews so much?" My own answer is "antisemitism", which you'd think wouldn't be controversial because it's tautological ("People hate Jews because they're antisemites"), but apparently it is.



As you mentioned earlier in this thread, prior to WWI, the Germans Jews of Germany were very highly respected, accepted and quite assimilated. Following WWI, all that changed. What happened?

Consider the role played by the Zionists.

As it happens, I have studied this topic quite extensively, and have had numerous discussions here on Fark - some of which have included some of the participants in this thread. I have neither the time nor inclination to rehash the details at present, but should anyone be interested in further reading (and I somehow doubt that anyone will) you will find many links to enlightening documents from highly respected sources (such as the famed Jewish historian Sir Martin John Gilbert) in this thread. Feel free to ignore my opinions and conclusions if you like. There is much valuable information in the links I have provided in that thread.

There is no doubt that much of the mistrust, animosity and enmity that arose between ethnic Germans and the Jews can in large part be attributed to the Zionists - the methods and manipulations that they undertook in their efforts to create a "Homeland" for Jews in Palestine.

To ignore the Zionist factor in the years leading up to the Holocaust - and the fruits that Zionism has born post WWII (including the political situation as it exists today) is a SERIOUS mistake that can only lead to perpetual hostilities and repeated calamity.

As I said, feel free to disregard my observations - the sources I cite are much more valuable.

Have a nice day.
 
2013-04-09 12:31:21 PM  

liam76: tirob: liam76: tirob: 1. A good many Jews *did* act as such obstacles, and more power to them as far as I'm concerned.

Were "many" German Jews acting as obstacles to the Nazi's before they were targets of the Nazi's?

I don't know how many is many, but there were plenty of European Jews, both German and not, who tried, in many different ways, to resist the Nazis from very early on.  For that matter there were plenty of European Gentiles, both German and not, who did the same.  Some of these people were rewarded for their efforts by the Nazis and their allies everywhere with trips to some pretty sinister places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hilferding

I don't like "squishy" words like "plenty" in conversations like this.

Any big political movement is going to have people against it.  I am looking for the "why" that people (Amos, Fredrick, etc) alledge was rooted in Jewish action that allowed people to be turned against them.


1.  I'm one of those people who believes that we ought to remember the early anti-Nazi resisters, and I seldom can resist the temptation to put in a good word for them.  And you did ask.

2.  You'll have to ask Amos and Frederick about that.  I for one believe that the Nazis tried to turn people against Jews not because of anything that Jews were particularly guilty of, but because they believed that it was in the interest of the Third Reich (and themselves) to do so.  Half pathological and half calculated, if you please.
 
2013-04-09 12:43:14 PM  

tirob: owlie: tirob: owlie: tirob:

1.  A good many Jews *did* act as such obstacles, and more power to them as far as I'm concerned.

2.  Any question of "why" the massacres perpetrated by Germany in Europe during 1939-45 took place can only be answered by theories.  My answer was therefore a theory.

3.  I have seen this kind of question asked on this blog before, and the answer by the person who posed it is usually one or another variation of "The Jews brought it on themselves."  I don't buy that, so I thought I'd present another point of view.

Nice try, but you haven't shed light anywhere new, and if anything you underestimate Nazi intentions, such as wanting to exterminate Jews worldwide, not just in Europe. What Nazis believed is well documented and beyond theory. You're missing where the underlying question others have brought up is not just "Why did it happen?" but "Why do people hate Jews so much?"

I gave a theoretical response to the "why did it happen" that you disagree with.  It's your privilege.  My theoretical assertions are, I would suggest to you, backed up to some extent by the very documentation you cite; in January 1939, I believe it was, Hitler, in a speech, said something much like this: "If International Finance Jewry once again plunges Europe into war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of Europe and thus a victory for the Jews, but, on the contrary, the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe."  Hannah Arendt rightly, I believe, translated this as, "I intend to start a war [of conquest] and I intend to kill all the European Jews."

I don't really have an answer to your second question, although I wouldn't take it for granted that all or even most people hate Jews.


I didn't disagree with what you said, because it's factually reasonably accurate. Facts aren't theory; they're just facts.

"If International Finance Jewry once again plunges Europe into war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of Europe and thus a victory for the Jews, but, on the contrary, the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe." --Suggests that there's such a thing as International Finance Jewry, and that if war broke out, that it would be their fault. You'd have to subscribe to that to say that Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves.
 
2013-04-09 12:44:29 PM  

tirob: 1. I'm one of those people who believes that we ought to remember the early anti-Nazi resisters, and I seldom can resist the temptation to put in a good word for them. And you did ask.


Fair enough.

tirob: 2. You'll have to ask Amos and Frederick about that. I for one believe that the Nazis tried to turn people against Jews not because of anything that Jews were particularly guilty of, but because they believed that it was in the interest of the Third Reich (and themselves) to do so. Half pathological and half calculated, if you please


I think we are on the same page.

Amos Quito: As I said, feel free to disregard my observations - the sources I cite are much more valuable


Observations?  Pretending that Germany under Nazi's invested in Israel isn't an "observation" it is a pile of shiat with a peanut of truth in it.  The same type of shiat that fills all your rants on Jews.
Saying you will help Jews leave if they buy german goods to use in Israel isn't "investing".
 
2013-04-09 12:45:02 PM  

Amos Quito: owlie: tirob: owlie: tirob:

etc. etc.


Duly ignored in the face of German antisemitism that predates the Zionist movement. As I've said elsewhere in so many words, haters gonna hate.
 
2013-04-09 12:56:20 PM  

owlie: Amos Quito: owlie: tirob: owlie: tirob:

etc. etc.

Duly ignored in the face of German antisemitism that predates the Zionist movement. As I've said elsewhere in so many words, haters gonna hate.



Yeah, so you ignore all of the info in the links I provided in that thread - plug your ears and hum - just like I figured.

Opt instead for the "jews are snowflakes and its all becuz antisemitizm" excuse that has brought nothing but FAIL for the past 2,000 years.

Why break with tradition?


/No skin off my nose, bub
 
2013-04-09 01:02:18 PM  
Amos Quito: There is no doubt that much of the mistrust, animosity, and enmity that arose between ethnic Germans and the Jews can in large part be attributed to the Zionists


This would explain why Hitler and the Nazis mentioned Zionists and Zionism so often during the Nazi political campaigns before 1933, and why Hitler spends so much time denouncing Zionism in Mein Kampf.

I mean, come now.  If you're going to make an assertion like this, at least try to back it up with a little bit of evidence from German and Nazi sources.

There may be no doubt in your mind that Germans and Jews became estranged after 1918 mainly because of Zionism, but I put it to you that Zionism was an infinitesimal factor in this estrangement compared to things like German resentment at having lost WWI and a willingness among many Germans to blame anyone but themselves for having brought that defeat on, a perception among German revanchists that many Jews did not favor their views (which was correct in many cases), the idea that Jews were the bearers of ideas like democracy, Social Democracy, and Bolshevism which were "un-German" and corrupt, the idea that Jews were an inferior race of people compared to Germans and that children born of unions between Jews and "Aryans" were a danger to the future of the German bloodline---these kinds of things appear all over Mein Kampf and other Nazi literature of the '20s and '30s, and were part and parcel of the appeals that Nazis made to Germans.  Zionism is mentioned once in Mein Kampf, if I recall correctly.  Germans cited many "reasons" for getting worked up about Jews after 1918.  Zionism just wasn't one of them.
 
2013-04-09 01:13:28 PM  

tirob: I for one believe that the Nazis tried to turn people against Jews not because of anything that Jews were particularly guilty of, but because they believed that it was in the interest of the Third Reich (and themselves) to do so. Half pathological and half calculated, if you please.



Sometimes certain segments of a given society or group take actions that cause the entire society or group to suffer repercussions. Sadly this is a fact of life.

Earlier you I said that the actions of Zionists cast a pall on Jews in general, regardless of their persuasion. You disagreed. Well bub, the actions of Osama Bin Laden sure brought HELL down on a bunch of innocent Afghans - men women and children, didn't they?

Why don't you peruse this post in which I quote from the memoirs of David Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister of Britain during WWI. Written in 1939, he had no doubt as to why the animosity existed between Germany and Jewry.

Do you think he would have been in a position to know?

Again, the actions of a few can rain hell on the many - whether they "deserve" it or not.
 
2013-04-09 01:14:27 PM  
owlie: 
International Finance Jewry

The quote is Hitler's, not mine.  And I'm sure that Hitler *did* believe that Jews (and for that matter anyone else whom he identified as enemies) brought all their misfortunes on themselves.

Read my entire paragraph.  I think Hannah Arendt's "translation" of Onkel Adolf's quote is pretty accurate.
 
2013-04-09 01:15:43 PM  

tirob: Amos Quito: There is no doubt that much of the mistrust, animosity, and enmity that arose between ethnic Germans and the Jews can in large part be attributed to the Zionists


This would explain why Hitler and the Nazis mentioned Zionists and Zionism so often during the Nazi political campaigns before 1933, and why Hitler spends so much time denouncing Zionism in Mein Kampf.

I mean, come now.  If you're going to make an assertion like this, at least try to back it up with a little bit of evidence from German and Nazi sources.

There may be no doubt in your mind that Germans and Jews became estranged after 1918 mainly because of Zionism, but I put it to you that Zionism was an infinitesimal factor in this estrangement compared to things like German resentment at having lost WWI and a willingness among many Germans to blame anyone but themselves for having brought that defeat on, a perception among German revanchists that many Jews did not favor their views (which was correct in many cases), the idea that Jews were the bearers of ideas like democracy, Social Democracy, and Bolshevism which were "un-German" and corrupt, the idea that Jews were an inferior race of people compared to Germans and that children born of unions between Jews and "Aryans" were a danger to the future of the German bloodline---these kinds of things appear all over Mein Kampf and other Nazi literature of the '20s and '30s, and were part and parcel of the appeals that Nazis made to Germans.  Zionism is mentioned once in Mein Kampf, if I recall correctly.  Germans cited many "reasons" for getting worked up about Jews after 1918.  Zionism just wasn't one of them.



Ya think?

Read the link in my previous post.
 
2013-04-09 01:31:39 PM  

Amos Quito: Read the link in my previous post


The link where you blame German Anti Semetism on Zionists, yet say Nazi's were helping Zionism, and "uinvesting" in their plan?

On top of not being true, it doesn't make sense.

Amos Quito: Sometimes certain segments of a given society or group take actions that cause the entire society or group to suffer repercussions. Sadly this is a fact of life.


Very tough for you to justify your "actions of a few" with those clever pictures you posted about the guy driving into an overpass.  Well tough to justify for an honest person, so maybe no problem for you.


Amos Quito: Why don't you peruse this post in which I quote from the memoirs of David Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister of Britain during WWI. Written in 1939, he had no doubt as to why the animosity existed between Germany and Jewry.


Or he could peruse the responses that you ignored, or all the incovneient facts you ignore that go hand in hand with that quote.
 
2013-04-09 01:42:53 PM  

Amos Quito: tirob: I for one believe that the Nazis tried to turn people against Jews not because of anything that Jews were particularly guilty of, but because they believed that it was in the interest of the Third Reich (and themselves) to do so. Half pathological and half calculated, if you please.

Sometimes certain segments of a given society or group take actions that cause the entire society or group to suffer repercussions. Sadly this is a fact of life.

Earlier you I said that the actions of Zionists cast a pall on Jews in general, regardless of their persuasion. You disagreed. Well bub, the actions of Osama Bin Laden sure brought HELL down on a bunch of innocent Afghans - men women and children, didn't they?
.


I fail to see the logic here, and that may be because I have never seen bin Laden accused of acting on behalf of Afghans.  I'll concede that there are those who blame all Jews for the actions of Zionists; it's a fact of life, as you say.

Amos Quito:

Why don't you peruse this post in which I quote from the memoirs of David Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister of Britain during WWI. Written in 1939, he had no doubt as to why the animosity existed between Germany and Jewry.

Do you think he would have been in a position to know?



I assume this is the most pertinent part of the quote from LL. G's memoirs as far as you're concerned; correct me if I am mistaken:

But we have good reason to believe that Jewish propaganda in Russia had a great deal to do with
the difficulties created for the Germans in Southern Russia after the peace of Brest-Litovsk. The Germans themselves know that to be the case, and the Jews in Germany are suffering to-day for the fidelity with which their brethren in Russia and in America discharged their obligations under the Zionist pledge to the Allies.


If Jews were among those who made life for the German occupiers of the Ukraine unbearable in 1918, and if Jewish American soldiers helped defeat Imperial Germany in 1918, all I can say is good for them.

You do seem to imply that these people acted because they were instructed to by the Zionists.  Maybe that's what Lloyd George believed, but I have a simpler explanation for the actions of the Russian Jews you refer to:  They were defending their homes from invaders.  And as for the Jews in the US Army in France in 1918, I think that many of *them* were motivated by a desire to prove to their fellow citizens that they were as patriotic and as willing as anyone else to defend their country--the United States, that is--from its enemies.
 
2013-04-09 01:45:19 PM  

Amos Quito: tirob: Germans cited many "reasons" for getting worked up about Jews after 1918.  Zionism just wasn't one of them.

Ya think?

Read the link in my previous post.


Yep.  Read *my* previous post.
 
2013-04-09 01:48:29 PM  

tirob: You do seem to imply that these people acted because they were instructed to by the Zionists.


He frequently switches between Jews and Zionists when it is convenient.
 
2013-04-09 03:01:50 PM  

tirob: I assume this is the most pertinent part of the quote from LL. G's memoirs as far as you're concerned; correct me if I am mistaken:

But we have good reason to believe that Jewish propaganda in Russia had a great deal to do with
the difficulties created for the Germans in Southern Russia after the peace of Brest-Litovsk. The Germans themselves know that to be the case, and the Jews in Germany are suffering to-day for the fidelity with which their brethren in Russia and in America discharged their obligations under the Zionist pledge to the Allies.

If Jews were among those who made life for the German occupiers of the Ukraine unbearable in 1918, and if Jewish American soldiers helped defeat Imperial Germany in 1918, all I can say is good for them.



Did you miss this part?

"Quite naturally Jewish sympathies were to a great extent anti-Russian, and therefore in favour of the Central Powers. No ally of Russia, in fact, could escape sharing that immediate and inevitable penalty for the long and savage Russian persecution of the Jewish race."

It might behoove you to read the entire quote again.

While the Czar remained in power, Jews (yes, JEWS, including Zionists) all over the world largely supported the Central Powers. You will notice that BOTH Britain AND Germany were seriously courting the Zionists - willing to offer them Palestine in exchange for their support.

Now why would huge powers such as Britain and Germany give a shiat about a bunch of scraggly Jews with goofy ambitions? Why would the support of a rag tag bunch of nobody's be worthy of winning? Because the Zionists were a MUCH more powerful force to be reckoned with than they are commonly portrayed in history. For a hint, look at the name of the party addressed in the Balfour Declaration.

The Zionists weren't ideological in this war. They were going to support whoever they felt would best served THEIR interests. Both Germany and Britain made overtures, and Britain won.

Once the Czar was on the ropes and the Bolshevik Revolution was in the works, and the Balfour Declaration was signed, the JEWS (yes Jews) at the behest of the Zionist leaders, "switched sides", and began to work against German interests. The Zionists (Rothschilds) secured funding (as mentioned by George) and the Jewish people actively began to sabotage the German war effort. There is also the matter of the US, who had been "officially neutral", entering the war on the side of the Brits.

What followed was a crushing defeat, a PUNISHING treaty of Versailles, and Germany was utterly destitute. As quoted in George above, this perceived "stab in the back" did NOT go unnoticed by the Germans - and neither did the largely "Jewish flavor" of the vicious and expansionist Bolshevik regime.

Were the Germans "justified' in their mistrust of the Zionists? Certainly. Of Jews in general? Not necessarily, but when one considers the broader context of the political movements in Eastern Europe at the time, we would be silly to try to claim that the German animosity toward Jewry was simply "mindless antisemitism" - or purely the result of Hitler's made-up fairy tales. Like I said, the bad actions of a few can lead to the misery of many.

Look, this is a busy day for me - I haven't time to link to every point I've made - many such links can be found in the threads I liked to earlier.

As they say, history is written by the winners, and the roles played by various parties are often exaggerated or ignored entirely. This does NOT serve us - ANY of us well, as without access to all of the facts, and perspectives, important lessons remain unlearned.

If you want to discuss any of this further, I'll try to check back - IF the thread remains open.

In the meantime, Liam76 can call me an "anti-Semite, a Jew hater and a Nazi apologist" - as if that will change the fats of history, of the fate of modern Palestine.
 
2013-04-09 03:20:25 PM  
Amos Quito:
...
In the meantime, Liam76 can call me an "anti-Semite, a Jew hater and a Nazi apologist" - as if that will change the fats of history, of the fate of modern Palestine.


Slightly divergent idea here, but it occurs to me how irrelevant Hitler, the 3rd Reich, and Nazi-ism are becoming as time moves on - and this is as it should be.  I'm sure today's HS students can't really tell the difference between WWI and WWII - it's all just a bunch of blah blah blah about people in ancient history.

Soon talking about Nazis and concentration camps will carry the same weight as telling people about King Leopold and the Congo, or Montezuma and Mexico, or South America, or the North American Indians, or the slave trade of Africans.

Which is to say, they were some of the most horrible crimes ever committed against human beings, but talking about them just makes people yawn.
 
2013-04-09 03:23:11 PM  

Amos Quito: In the meantime, Liam76 can call me an "anti-Semite, a Jew hater and a Nazi apologist" - as if that will change the fats of history


But you don't adress the "facts of history" you bring up kernels of truth buried under your piles of shiat, and ignore any facts you don't like.
 
2013-04-09 03:43:15 PM  

liam76: Amos Quito: In the meantime, Liam76 can call me an "anti-Semite, a Jew hater and a Nazi apologist" - as if that will change the fats of history

But you don't adress the "facts of history" you bring up kernels of truth buried under your piles of shiat, and ignore any facts you don't like.



Then correct me. And  NEENER-NEENER-NEENER! is not acceptable.

Rather. specifically state where I am mistaken, provide the correct information, and back it up with links to reputable sources (and no, CAMERA is NOT a reputable source).

Off you go, then.
 
2013-04-09 03:48:52 PM  

noitsnot: Amos Quito:
...
In the meantime, Liam76 can call me an "anti-Semite, a Jew hater and a Nazi apologist" - as if that will change the fats of history, of the fate of modern Palestine.

Slightly divergent idea here, but it occurs to me how irrelevant Hitler, the 3rd Reich, and Nazi-ism are becoming as time moves on - and this is as it should be.  I'm sure today's HS students can't really tell the difference between WWI and WWII - it's all just a bunch of blah blah blah about people in ancient history.

Soon talking about Nazis and concentration camps will carry the same weight as telling people about King Leopold and the Congo, or Montezuma and Mexico, or South America, or the North American Indians, or the slave trade of Africans.

Which is to say, they were some of the most horrible crimes ever committed against human beings, but talking about them just makes people yawn.



You are correct in that time affects the relative perceived relevance of history. The catch is that many of the problems we face to day are the direct result of our failure to understand the lessons of the past, so when we fail, whether by design or accident, to grasp a comprehensive view of hallmark events in history, we're setting ourselves up for similar mistakes in the future.
 
2013-04-09 05:11:58 PM  

owlie: Nice try, but you haven't shed light anywhere new, and if anything you underestimate Nazi intentions, such as wanting to exterminate Jews worldwide, not just in Europe. What Nazis believed is well documented and beyond theory. You're missing where the underlying question others have brought up is not just "Why did it happen?" but "Why do people hate Jews so much?" My own answer is "antisemitism", which you'd think wouldn't be controversial because it's tautological ("People hate Jews because they're antisemites"), but apparently it is.


I'm reading Mein Kampf on and off (still on the first book). What I got from it is that:

1) Hitler hated jews because he read a christian paper (Deutche Volksblatt, IIRC) which was loaded with propaganda against both jews and socialists. He came for the anti-socialism and stayed for the anti-semitism. The editors at Deutche Volksblatt hated jews because they were christians, because that's what christians did until 1945-48.

2) Once sucked into the generic christian jew-hate, Hitler blamed the jews for all sorts of things, including losing WWI. Specifically, he thought Germany lost because of a strike at a munitions plant, which in his opinion was orchestrated by jewish socialists.

As for why "people hate jews," until 1945-48, the christians hated jews because they killed jeebus. During most of this period, muslims thought of jews as a brethren people (of the book). The muslims reversed their opinion because of zionism in Palestine and the creation of modern Israel.
 
2013-04-09 05:48:25 PM  

Amos Quito: liam76: Amos Quito: In the meantime, Liam76 can call me an "anti-Semite, a Jew hater and a Nazi apologist" - as if that will change the fats of history

But you don't adress the "facts of history" you bring up kernels of truth buried under your piles of shiat, and ignore any facts you don't like.


Then correct me. And  NEENER-NEENER-NEENER! is not acceptable.

Rather. specifically state where I am mistaken, provide the correct information, and back it up with links to reputable sources (and no, CAMERA is NOT a reputable source).

Off you go, then.


Correct you on what? You take out of context quotes and pretend it is proof that zionists were some huge force n WWI that were only ever concerned with Israel where it is now. You have no evidence other than that.

In your own links about the Balfour Declaration you ignore the German response that was promising the same thing. Your "proof" of how important it was is that Rothschild supported britian and ignore he was a British citizen. You have never provided an ounce of proof that he wasn't helping them before. You have never provided an ounce of proof that jews were picking sides based on the Balfour declaration.

YOu go on and on about how Nazi's were rightly mad about Zionists (which I don't buy) then ignore your own BS by lying and saying that they provided material support to Israel. You can't even keep your own BS straight. Your own words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#German_and_Ottoman_r e action
 
2013-04-09 05:49:09 PM  

Amos Quito: tirob:
Did you miss this part?

"Quite naturally Jewish sympathies were to a great extent anti-Russian, and therefore in favour of the Central Powers. No ally of Russia, in fact, could escape sharing that immediate and inevitable penalty for the long and savage Russian persecution of the Jewish race."



No.

Amos Quito: if you want to discuss any of this further


I would be open to doing so at some point, but before we do may I suggest that you read a college textbook on German history--mine was Gordon A. Craig's Germany 1866-1945, Oxford University Press, 1978--beforehand?  I also suggest Fritz Fischer's Germany's Aims in the First World War, W.W. Norton & Co., 1967, which may among other things open your eyes to the role of the *Imperial German Government* in bringing about the Bolshevik Revolution.  (Fischer does mention the Wilhelmstrasse's abortive dealings with Zionists, btw.)  I am finding it more and more difficult to respond to your points because I am increasingly under the impression that your grasp of 20th century German history isn't any too good, and I also think your analysis of that history suffers because you view all of it through the prism of your distaste for Zionism.

Amos Quito: George


Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't be related to someone named Farker T, would you?  He--I think he was a male--and I had a couple of discussions about this topic and similar ones, and not only did he make the same kinds of arguments you do, using the same writing style, he also (mistakenly) called Lloyd George "George," if my memory serves me.
 
2013-04-09 06:53:10 PM  

liam76: Amos Quito: liam76: Amos Quito: In the meantime, Liam76 can call me an "anti-Semite, a Jew hater and a Nazi apologist" - as if that will change the fats of history

But you don't adress the "facts of history" you bring up kernels of truth buried under your piles of shiat, and ignore any facts you don't like.


Then correct me. And  NEENER-NEENER-NEENER! is not acceptable.

Rather. specifically state where I am mistaken, provide the correct information, and back it up with links to reputable sources (and no, CAMERA is NOT a reputable source).

Off you go, then.

Correct you on what? You take out of context quotes and pretend it is proof that zionists were some huge force n WWI that were only ever concerned with Israel where it is now. You have no evidence other than that.


Which out of context quotes? You mean this?

"In addition to this, the German General Staff, with their wide outlook on possibilities, urged, early in 1916, the advantages of promising Jewish restoration to Palestine under an arrangement

"{p. 726} to be made between Zionists and Turkey, backed by a German guarantee. The practical difficulties were considerable; the subject was perhaps dangerous to German relations with Turkey; and the German Government acted cautiously. But the scheme was by no means rejected or even shelved, and at any moment the Allies might have been forestalled in offering this supreme bid. In fact in September, 1917, the German
Government were making very serious efforts to capture the Zionist Movement."


Or this?

"It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfilment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would
be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.
It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry. "


Obviously winning the favor of the Zionists was seen as strategically vital by both the Central Powers and the Entente. Indeed, some might say that it turned the direction of the war, and altered the course of history.

Imagine that.

liam76: In your own links about the Balfour Declaration you ignore the German response that was promising the same thing. Your "proof" of how important it was is that Rothschild supported britian and ignore he was a British citizen.



LOL! The Rosthchilds don't "belong" any county. Countries belong to the Rothschilds. International banking has been the family business since the 1700's when Mayer Amschel Rothschild sent each of his five sons to establish banking houses in five different European countries - each son becoming a "citized" (lol) of the nation where he landed. They have financed wars (often both sides simultaneously) since the time of Napoleon. Big profits to be had in war, you know. Read up.


liam76: You have never provided an ounce of proof that he wasn't helping them before. You have never provided an ounce of proof that jews were picking sides based on the Balfour declaration.


Quoting George:

"There is no better proof of the value of the Balfour Declaration as a military move than the fact that Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an endeavour to provide an alternative scheme which would appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V.J.O.D.,* was formed, and in January, 1918, Talaat, the Grand Vizier, at the instigation of the Germans, gave vague promises of legislation by means of which "all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to find their fulfilment."

The Zionists made a deal with the Brits: "We support your war efforts, you carve out a chunk of Palestine for us". Quid pro quo. The Germans attempted a counter offer - but it was too late.

So the thanks to the Zionists (Rothschilds) the Brits won the war, and the British Mandate was established, AS PROMISED, and the Zionists had their paws on the long sought-after real estate for their Zionist State.

But as it turned out, that was the EASY part. Populating that stinking desert with enough savvy, cultured European Jews to make the dream a POLITICAL reality was another matter - as most Jews were perfectly happy where they were - in Germany, in France, in Poland, in England and with the Czar gone, even in Russia... and had few had any desire to go to a place that had long been the ancestral home of OTHER people, who weren't exactly keen on having the area flooded with European and Asian aliens.

But we'll cover the "population problem" in our next chapter.
 
2013-04-09 07:05:14 PM  

Amos Quito: LOL! The Rosthchilds don't "belong" any county. Countries belong to the Rothschilds. International banking has been the family business since the 1700's when Mayer Amschel Rothschild sent each of his five sons to establish banking houses in five different European countries - each son becoming a "citized" (lol) of the nation where he landed. They have financed wars (often both sides simultaneously) since the time of Napoleon. Big profits to be had in war, you know


You have some proof the level of support he gave rose after the Balfour Declaration?

Amos Quito: Obviously winning the favor of the Zionists was seen as strategically vital by both the Central Powers and the Entente. Indeed, some might say that it turned the direction of the war, and altered the course of history.


A sliver of unwanted land hardly proves they were "strategically vital".  And you never answered the questions.  Show me numbers.  Show me people that picked up arms because of this.


Amos Quito: The Zionists made a deal with the Brits: "We support your war efforts, you carve out a chunk of Palestine for us". Quid pro quo. The Germans attempted a counter offer - but it was too late.

So the thanks to the Zionists (Rothschilds) the Brits won the war, and the British Mandate was established, AS PROMISED, and the Zionists had their paws on the long sought-after real estate for their Zionist State.


You never provided any proof of the underlined.

And you are still ignoring the glaring problem with your own theories.

If the Nazi's were so mad about zionists, why do you claim they provided material support? Your own nonsense makes no sense.  Even if I am to swallow all the BS that comes with the quotes you toss out.
 
2013-04-09 07:07:05 PM  

Amos Quito: But we'll cover the "population problem" in our next chapter


No you won't.  You re afraid to be clear here because it makes it very easy to see how absurd you are.
 
2013-04-09 07:13:53 PM  

tirob: Amos Quito: if you want to discuss any of this further

I would be open to doing so at some point, but before we do may I suggest that you read a college textbook on German history--mine was Gordon A. Craig's Germany 1866-1945, Oxford University Press, 1978--beforehand? I also suggest Fritz Fischer's Germany's Aims in the First World War, W.W. Norton & Co., 1967, which may among other things open your eyes to the role of the *Imperial German Government* in bringing about the Bolshevik Revolution. (Fischer does mention the Wilhelmstrasse's abortive dealings with Zionists, btw.) I am finding it more and more difficult to respond to your points because I am increasingly under the impression that your grasp of 20th century German history isn't any too good, and I also think your analysis of that history suffers because you view all of it through the prism of your distaste for Zionism.



I am well aware of the role that the "Germans" (especially the Warburgs) played in facilitating the Bolshevik Revolution, as well as the role that the "American" Jacob Schiff (Rothschild agent) played in financing the scheme. You can read a bit here.

You go ahead and read your little filtered textbooks. Where possible, I prefer to go to the source material, rather than rely on snippets that the editors have deemed "suitable" for public consumption.


tirob: Amos Quito: George

Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't be related to someone named Farker T, would you?



I don't know. What's his mother's maiden name?


tirob: He--I think he was a male--and I had a couple of discussions about this topic and similar ones, and not only did he make the same kinds of arguments you do, using the same writing style, he also (mistakenly) called Lloyd George "George," if my memory serves me.



Mistakenly? The man's name was David Lloyd George. I referred to him by his surname, "George", as one might refer Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill simply as "Churchill", or to Barack Hussein Obama II  simply as "Obama".

Is there something wrong with that?
 
2013-04-09 07:21:21 PM  

Amos Quito: rather than rely on snippets that the editors have deemed "suitable" for public consumption.


Yeah, you prefer snippets that you can use to paint Zionists as the cause of all the problems leading to WWII...
 
2013-04-09 07:45:57 PM  

Amos Quito: as well as the role that the "American" Jacob Schiff (Rothschild agent) played in financing the scheme. You can read a bit here


So the Rothschilds and their Zionist agents betrayed Germany after the Balfour declaration (of course you have presented zero proof of change in Rothschild support  after it was signed).

Funny that, from your own link, Schiff stopped financing transactions for Germany or the Central Powers as of 1914, stopped speaking German in public and was eager to demonstrate his moral and financial commitment to the Allied cause.  Three years before the Balfour declaration was signed...

Are some of these Zionists time travelers?
 
2013-04-09 08:42:31 PM  
The question, I believe, was in regards to repeated Jewish exiles, and not in regards specifically to the Holocaust.  As in why have Jews been repeatedly exiled?

The most replied answer, especially from Jews is because of antisemitism.  Owlie basically echoed that sentiment.  But I think that is irresponsible and oversimplified.  The Spanish, English, German have all given reasons and they dont cite antisemitism.

I would ask those who hold onto the antisemitism cause if they have read and understood the reasons given by those who exiled Jews.  I dont think Jews can sincerely forward the "Never Again" mantra without objectively contemplating the "why".  And simply suggesting antisemitism is the reason for why implies a disregard for the reasons given.
 
2013-04-09 09:43:44 PM  

liam76: Amos Quito: LOL! The Rosthchilds don't "belong" any county. Countries belong to the Rothschilds. International banking has been the family business since the 1700's when Mayer Amschel Rothschild sent each of his five sons to establish banking houses in five different European countries - each son becoming a "citized" (lol) of the nation where he landed. They have financed wars (often both sides simultaneously) since the time of Napoleon. Big profits to be had in war, you know

You have some proof the level of support he gave rose after the Balfour Declaration?



Quoting George:

"The Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies
committed themselves
to giving facilities for the establishment of a
National Home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to
rally to the Allied cause Jewish sentiment and support throughout the
world
. They kept their word in the letter and the spirit, and the only
question that remains now is whether we mean to honour ours."


Coming from the Prime Minister of Great Britain at the time, I'd say that's pretty solid evidence, wouldn't you?


liam76: Amos Quito: Obviously winning the favor of the Zionists was seen as strategically vital by both the Central Powers and the Entente. Indeed, some might say that it turned the direction of the war, and altered the course of history.

A sliver of unwanted land hardly proves they were "strategically vital".



Unwanted? Apparently that land was VERY MUCH wanted by SOMEONE:

Constantinople, Ottoman Empire, June 15, 1896:

"[Theodor] Herzl presented his proposal to the Grand Vizier that the Jews would pay the Turkish foreign debt, and attempt to help regulate Turkish finances, if they were given Palestine as a Jewish homeland under Turkish rule."

Now who on EARTH could afford to pay the Turkish foreign debt? And for a "sliver" of land?

Rothschilds. Pocket change. And this was 20 years before the Balfour Declaration (the Ottoman Empire had crumbled in the interim).


The

liam76: And you never answered the questions. Show me numbers. Show me people that picked up arms because of this.



There is more to war than simply boots on the ground, liam76. There is MONEY, and political support both open and behind the scenes, and the Zionists offered all of the above. David Lloyd George already stated the importance of gaining access to additional finances, and the workings of the Jews in spoiling the logistics for the Germans on the Eastern Front. There is also the little matter of the US abandoning "neutrality", and entering the war on the side of the Allies that same year.

Probably just a coincidence.


liam76: Amos Quito: The Zionists made a deal with the Brits: "We support your war efforts, you carve out a chunk of Palestine for us". Quid pro quo. The Germans attempted a counter offer - but it was too late.

So the thanks to the Zionists (Rothschilds) the Brits won the war, and the British Mandate was established, AS PROMISED, and the Zionists had their paws on the long sought-after real estate for their Zionist State.

You never provided any proof of the underlined.



Sorry, that should read "Thanks largely". Is that better? (And in history, "proof" is hard to come by - we must rely on EVIDENCE, liam76)


liam76: And you are still ignoring the glaring problem with your own theories.

If the Nazi's were so mad about zionists, why do you claim they provided material support? Your own nonsense makes no sense. Even if I am to swallow all the BS that comes with the quotes you toss out.



You are well aware of the Haavara Agreement , you know damn well that through the 1930's, the Nazis and the Zionists were working cooperation to achieve essentially the same goal: Germany wanted its Jews OUT, and the Zionists wanted them to land in ONE PLACE and ONE PLACE only: Palestine.

For practical purposes, Hitler was a Zionist. You like Zionists, liam76?
 
Displayed 50 of 371 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report