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 371
    More: Asinine, Westboro Baptist Church, Israelis, Holocaust, Holocaust memorial day, e-government, programmers, Holocaust victims  
•       •       •

7317 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Apr 2013 at 5:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-09 09:44:26 PM  

Amos Quito: 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.
.



I don't mean Germans.  I mean the Imperial German Government.  Erich Ludendorff.  Richard Kuehlmann.  Ulrich Brockdorff-Rantzau.  But I see I am not going to persuade you to crack open Fischer's opus, although I assure you that neither it nor Craig's is "filtered" by editors.  Suit yourself.

Amos Quito: Is there something wrong with that?


I can't prevent you from calling Lloyd George "George" if that's what you want to do, but according to the source that you yourself provide, his family name was Lloyd George, and I have never known any British person to refer to him in any other way.

Amos Quito:

tirob: Amos Quito: George

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

he also (mistakenly) called Lloyd George "George," if my memory serves me.

mother's maiden name



I found it.

http://www.fark.com/comments/6023673/Media-Matters-the-Southern-Pove rt y-Law-Center-are-real-racists-for-smearing-a-patriotic-American-who-si mply-tried-to-blow-people-up-at-MLK-parade?startid=67520868

"George describes the depth of the skulduggery pretty well, doesn't he?"
 
2013-04-09 10:28:45 PM  

Frederick: 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.


The term antisemitism itself is recent, but it still quite neatly describes attitudes towards Jews that justified using them as scapegoats for various ills, which in turn led to those expulsions. Sure, the "official" reason may have been something or other that Jews supposedly did or were responsible for, but you don't even need to use your imagination to figure out what were the underlying motives for expulsion, because the historical record is so clear on that. Usury comes up a lot, and it's a great example. Not only were Christians and Muslims forbidden from money lending, but in many places Jews were forbidden from owning land. Not only does this burst the myth of Jews "having it good" for a time (although some periods and places were more tolerable than others), but it also demonstrates quite clearly the push-pull factors that resulted in Jews taking on a role that has (not surprisingly) always been in demand. Simply put, it's hardly a mystery why people would gladly hate someone to whom they are in financial debt, especially if that hate could eventually result in their not having to worry about that debt anymore.

Feel free to dig deeper, but I expect you'll be hard pressed to find actual instances of Jews using the blood of Christian babies to make matzos for Passover, roving bands of Jewish proselytizers, or other evidence of Antichrist conspiracies perpetrated by Jews.
 
2013-04-09 11:52:06 PM  

owlie: Frederick: 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.

The term antisemitism itself is recent, but it still quite neatly describes attitudes towards Jews that justified using them as scapegoats for various ills, which in turn led to those expulsions. Sure, the "official" reason may have been something or other that Jews supposedly did or were responsible for, but you don't even need to use your imagination to figure out what were the underlying motives for expulsion, because the historical record is so clear on that. Usury comes up a lot, and it's a great example. Not only were Christians and Muslims forbidden from money lending, but in many places Jews were forbidden from owning land. Not only does this burst the myth of Jews "having it good" for a time (although some periods and places were more tolerable than others), but it also demonstrates quite clearly the push-pull factors that resulted in Jews taking on a role that has (not surprisingly) always been in demand. Simply put, it's hardly a mystery why people would gladly hate someone to whom they are in financial debt, especially if that hate could eventually result in their not having to worry about that debt anymore.

Feel free to dig deeper, but I expect you'll be hard pressed to find actual instances ...



Remove the "anti" from "anti-Semitism" and you've found the root of your problem.

Do you know why there are no anti-gorfscheneyars?
 
2013-04-10 07:35:33 AM  
Amos Quito:
Haavara

For practical purposes, Hitler was a Zionist
.


Did anything else Hitler ever do offend you, Farker T--I mean Amos Quito--or just this one thing?
 
2013-04-10 09:37:03 AM  

tirob: Amos Quito:
Haavara

For practical purposes, Hitler was a Zionist
.

Did anything else Hitler ever do offend you, Farker T--I mean Amos Quito--or just this one thing?



Oh, most certainly. The very names "Hitler" and "Nazi" have become pejorative, and rightfully so, expansionist murderous machines - virtual evil incarnate.

Not that these were the only villains of the era - our "ally" Stalin and his Commies were their own piece of work, don't you agree?

You know, I was perusing the thread that you linked to earlier - your last post, specifically, where you mention a book by Fritz Fischer who ponders how history may have been different had Germany actually won WWI. Sounds like an interesting read.Food for thought.

What if the Zionists had thrown their support behind Germany, rather than the Brits? One thing thing comes to mind is that things would have likely gone MUCH differently in Russia - would the Bolsheviks have been able to launch the Soviet Union, killing their tens of millions? Or would the Germans have kept them in check? Anyone's guess, I suppose.

It seems certain that there would have been no Hitler. A Second World War? Who knows?

One thing seems certain, if the Zionists had thrown their support behind Germany, they still would have gotten Palestine, though I have no idea how they might have populated it.

And the Palestinians would likely have fared no better than they are today.
 
2013-04-10 10:08:26 AM  

Amos Quito: What if the Zionists had thrown their support behind Germany, rather than the Brits? One thing thing comes to mind is that things would have likely gone MUCH differently in Russia - would the Bolsheviks have been able to launch the Soviet Union, killing their tens of millions?


Only if you live in a fantasy land where Zionism was a driving force behind communism.
 
2013-04-10 10:24:59 AM  

liam76: Amos Quito: What if the Zionists had thrown their support behind Germany, rather than the Brits? One thing thing comes to mind is that things would have likely gone MUCH differently in Russia - would the Bolsheviks have been able to launch the Soviet Union, killing their tens of millions?

Only if you live in a fantasy land where Zionism was a driving force behind communism.


Another issue I find confoundingly stupid with your claims about the power of Zionists and how they threw completely in with the British.

You must know the British didn't support the bolshevicks, right?  They were backing the "whites".  If they zionists were so powerful, why did the "whites" not win?
 
2013-04-10 10:32:17 AM  

liam76: Amos Quito: What if the Zionists had thrown their support behind Germany, rather than the Brits? One thing thing comes to mind is that things would have likely gone MUCH differently in Russia - would the Bolsheviks have been able to launch the Soviet Union, killing their tens of millions?

Only if you live in a fantasy land where Zionism was a driving force behind communism.



No, you forget that the Germans had essentially whipped the Czar - weakened him to the point that he was doomed. But thanks to difficulties both in Eastern Europe and on other fronts, the Germans were, shall we say, preoccupied elsewhere, and were never able to "finish the job" by enforcing whatever "peace" (treaty, etc) with Russia that they may have had they been able to complete their advances.

Instead, power vacuum created by the war-weakened Czar was filled by the Bolsheviks, who quickly murdered the Czar, his family, and tens of millions of others. Bloody mess, that.

As to what degree the Zionist deal with the Brits influenced the outcome of the war may be debatable - but Lloyd George (happy, tirob?) certainly seemed to think it was considerable.

Ever read Leon Trotsky's Thermidor and Anti-Semitism?

That is also interesting. He wrote in 1937 - while in exile.
 
2013-04-10 10:46:26 AM  

Amos Quito: liam76: Amos Quito: What if the Zionists had thrown their support behind Germany, rather than the Brits? One thing thing comes to mind is that things would have likely gone MUCH differently in Russia - would the Bolsheviks have been able to launch the Soviet Union, killing their tens of millions?

Only if you live in a fantasy land where Zionism was a driving force behind communism.


No, you forget that the Germans had essentially whipped the Czar - weakened him to the point that he was doomed. But thanks to difficulties both in Eastern Europe and on other fronts, the Germans were, shall we say, preoccupied elsewhere, and were never able to "finish the job" by enforcing whatever "peace" (treaty, etc) with Russia that they may have had they been able to complete their advances.

Instead, power vacuum created by the war-weakened Czar was filled by the Bolsheviks, who quickly murdered the Czar, his family, and tens of millions of others. Bloody mess, that.


What would have changed?

You are still going to have Germany vs Tsarist Russia, no matter what side the zionists are on.

And you are still ignorning that, according to your analysis of Zionists being so powerful and in the bag for Britian, the "reds" still one despite Britian being for the whites.


liam76: liam76: 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?

No answer? Is that a yes on the time lord Zionists, or maybe your theory is a bit silly?


Still waiting on this one...
 
2013-04-10 10:57:06 AM  

liam76: liam76: Amos Quito: What if the Zionists had thrown their support behind Germany, rather than the Brits? One thing thing comes to mind is that things would have likely gone MUCH differently in Russia - would the Bolsheviks have been able to launch the Soviet Union, killing their tens of millions?

Only if you live in a fantasy land where Zionism was a driving force behind communism.

Another issue I find confoundingly stupid with your claims about the power of Zionists and how they threw completely in with the British.

You must know the British didn't support the bolshevicks, right?  They were backing the "whites".  If they zionists were so powerful, why did the "whites" not win?



Did I ever say that the "Zionists threw completely in with the British"?

The Zionists had their own agenda. Gaining Palestine was certainly one goal, while overthrowing the Czar was another. (Don't forget that clear back in 1904, the Rothschild agent Jacob Schiff financed the Japanese in the Japanese-Russian War to the tune of $200 million).

Do you think that the Zionists, having gone to all that trouble and expense, would not want to try to control who replaced the Czar? To be as certain as possible that the new regime would be more friendly to their interests?

Even Churchill noted the overwhelming "Jewish" character of the new Bolshevik regime in an article he penned in the Illustrated Sunday Herald.

I don't know what gave you the idea that I believe that the pact between the Brits and the Zionists meant that their goals were in complete alignment with one another.

Yet another of your simple fantasies, I suppose.
 
2013-04-10 11:22:41 AM  

liam76: Amos Quito: liam76: Amos Quito: What if the Zionists had thrown their support behind Germany, rather than the Brits? One thing thing comes to mind is that things would have likely gone MUCH differently in Russia - would the Bolsheviks have been able to launch the Soviet Union, killing their tens of millions?

Only if you live in a fantasy land where Zionism was a driving force behind communism.


No, you forget that the Germans had essentially whipped the Czar - weakened him to the point that he was doomed. But thanks to difficulties both in Eastern Europe and on other fronts, the Germans were, shall we say, preoccupied elsewhere, and were never able to "finish the job" by enforcing whatever "peace" (treaty, etc) with Russia that they may have had they been able to complete their advances.

Instead, power vacuum created by the war-weakened Czar was filled by the Bolsheviks, who quickly murdered the Czar, his family, and tens of millions of others. Bloody mess, that.

What would have changed?

You are still going to have Germany vs Tsarist Russia, no matter what side the zionists are on.



By the time armistice and negotiations with Germany were taking place, the Czar was finished. The Bolsheviks had taken control.


liam76: liam76: liam76: 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?

No answer? Is that a yes on the time lord Zionists, or maybe your theory is a bit silly?

Still waiting on this one...



Sorry, I'm not quite sure what point you think are tying to make here.

Schiff, the international banker who was quite literally BORN in the Rothschild house,  and spent his life representing Rothschild interests, was "playing American".


/Farking political games. How do they work?
 
2013-04-10 12:12:08 PM  

Amos Quito: Sorry, I'm not quite sure what point you think are tying to make here.

Schiff, the international banker who was quite literally BORN in the Rothschild house, and spent his life representing Rothschild interests, was "playing American".


/Farking political games. How do they work


You are claiming Schiff threw his support to US and not Germany because he was a zionist and the British promised the Zionists Palestine.  That ignores the fact eh stopped helping Germany three years before the Balfour declaration.


Amos Quito: By the time armistice and negotiations with Germany were taking place, the Czar was finished. The Bolsheviks had taken control.


Actually it was still up for grabs who would take control (reds or whites).  But for the sake of argument lets pretend you are right.  Why then would German and the Zionists working together changed the outcome of the Bolschevicks taking control?


Amos Quito: Did I ever say that the "Zionists threw completely in with the British"?


Did you ever say that?  No.  But you love to make sweeping claims based upon a quote from Lloyd George tot hat effect.  Are you saying that the support they gave the British wasn't as solid as you claimed?

Amos Quito: The Zionists had their own agenda. Gaining Palestine was certainly one goal, while overthrowing the Czar was another.


Once again, if they threw in with the Germans, who were fighting the Tsar, how would that have prevented bolschevicks from coming to power?

Was stopping the Tsar a "zionist goal" or was stopping the opression of Jews by the Tsar a jewish goal?

There is absolutly no consistency in your claims about Zionism.  You cherry pick random quotes and tiny factoids to try and paint a picture of how evil and powerful they were and ignore any facts you don't like.
 
2013-04-10 12:28:22 PM  

Amos Quito: tirob: Amos Quito:

Not that these were the only villains of the era - our "ally" Stalin and his Commies were their own piece of work, don't you agree?
.


Yes.  They were Hitler's allies, too, for almost two years.

Amos Quito:

You know, I was perusing the thread that you linked to earlier - your last post, specifically, where you mention a book by Fritz Fischer who ponders how history may have been different had Germany actually won WWI. Sounds like an interesting read. Food for thought.
.


I recommend the book.  Fischer does devote several pages to the Wilhelmstrasse's attempts to appeal to Russian Jews to turn against their government, and to Zionists everywhere, including the US, to agitate in favor of Germany.  The attempts were failures, and in the case of Russia, tragic failures, because once Russian military people got wind of what the Wilhelmstrasse was trying to do, they deported and in some cases even murdered Jews in Western Russia.

Amos Quito: tirob .

What if the Zionists had thrown their support behind Germany?



Fischer seems to think that the Zionists basically wrote Germany off after the Battle of the Marne.

p. 142:  "After the military reverses of the autumn of 1914, the Executive Committee of the World Zionist Organization in Copenhagen pronounced in favour of strict neutrality, and forced all Zionist members to resigne from the Committee of Liberation [of the Jews of Russia, a body set up by the Wilhelmstrasse]; the latter then transformed itself into a relief organisation for the Jews of the [German-] occupied [Russian] territories.

Fischer makes what I think is a convincing case that the Wilhelmstrasse's attempts to organize Jews and other minority nationalities of the Russian Empire against the Czar was part of the German government's worldwide policy to make life difficult for its British, French, and Russian enemies by fomenting dissent and rebellion in the territories their enemies controlled.  One facet of this policy was support of the Bolsheviks.  The dispatch by Berlin of Lenin and some of his Bolshevik comrades in arms from Switzerland to Finland was part of this policy.  Less well known is the fact that Germany financed the Bolsheviks after Lenin's return to Russia.

Richard Kuehlmann, Foreign Minister of Germany, December 3, 1917:  "It was only [my emphasis] the resources which the Bolsheviks received from our side, through various channels, and on various pretexts, that enabled them to develop their chief organ Pravda, to carry on a lively agitation, and greatly to expand the narrow basis of their party."

Fischer, p. 368.  I think that Kuehlmann is doing some bragging when he claims that the Bolsheviks owed their success solely to German financial help.  But he did acknowledge that such help was given.
 
2013-04-10 12:32:14 PM  
*resign* from the Committee...

*its* enemies controlled...
 
2013-04-10 12:44:02 PM  

liam76: Amos Quito: Sorry, I'm not quite sure what point you think are tying to make here.

Schiff, the international banker who was quite literally BORN in the Rothschild house, and spent his life representing Rothschild interests, was "playing American".


/Farking political games. How do they work

You are claiming Schiff threw his support to US and not Germany because he was a zionist and the British promised the Zionists Palestine.  That ignores the fact eh stopped helping Germany three years before the Balfour declaration.



Why do you keep saying that I am "claiming" things that I never claimed, liam76?  Three years before the Balfour Declaration was signed the US was still officially NEUTRAL.

You're flailing.


liam76: Amos Quito: By the time armistice and negotiations with Germany were taking place, the Czar was finished. The Bolsheviks had taken control.

Actually it was still up for grabs who would take control (reds or whites). But for the sake of argument lets pretend you are right. Why then would German and the Zionists working together changed the outcome of the Bolschevicks taking control?



AGAIN, Why do you keep saying that I am "claiming" things that I never claimed, or saying things that I never said, liar76?

You're flailing.


liam76: Amos Quito: Did I ever say that the "Zionists threw completely in with the British"?

Did you ever say that? No



Thanks. Now please quit making shiat up. It makes you look dishonest.


liam76: But you love to make sweeping claims based upon a quote from Lloyd George tot hat effect. Are you saying that the support they gave the British wasn't as solid as you claimed?


As Lloyd George said, Zionists (and Jews in general) had largely supported Germany WHILE they were fighting the hated Czar. Once the Czar had abdicated and the Bolsheviks were in power (and the Balfour Declaration signed) the tide turned against the Germans in favor of the Allies.

Do you think the Germans felt betrayed - just a little?


liam76: Amos Quito: The Zionists had their own agenda. Gaining Palestine was certainly one goal, while overthrowing the Czar was another.

Once again, if they threw in with the Germans, who were fighting the Tsar, how would that have prevented bolschevicks from coming to power?



Once again, I'll thank you to stop claiming that I said things that I never said, liar76.


liam76: Was stopping the Tsar a "zionist goal" or was stopping the opression of Jews by the Tsar a jewish goal?



Yes.

liam76: There is absolutly no consistency in your claims about Zionism. You cherry pick random quotes and tiny factoids to try and paint a picture of how evil and powerful they were and ignore any facts you don't like.



You bring up NO FACTS AT ALL. Your entire debate strategy seems to be claiming that I said things I didn't say, or made claims that I didn't make, and then attacking the "logic" of the falsehoods you invent.

You're flailing, liar76.
 
2013-04-10 01:02:38 PM  

Amos Quito: Why do you keep saying that I am "claiming" things that I never claimed, liam76? Three years before the Balfour Declaration was signed the US was still officially NEUTRAL.

You're flailing.


You never claimed that the Zionists threw their support in with Britian against Germany because of the Balfour Declaration?

You never claimed that Schiff was a Rothschild agent of Zionists?

Because the fact that Schiff was working against Germany 3 years before the Balfour Declaration hurts those claims.

Amos Quito: liam76:  But for the sake of argument lets pretend you are right. Why then would German and the Zionists working together changed the outcome of the Bolschevicks taking control?


AGAIN, Why do you keep saying that I am "claiming" things that I never claimed, or saying things that I never said, liar76?


You never said the following? 

Amos Quito: What if the Zionists had thrown their support behind Germany, rather than the Brits? One thing thing comes to mind is that things would have likely gone MUCH differently in Russia - would the Bolsheviks have been able to launch the Soviet Union, killing their tens of millions?


You should probably have a word with the person typing for you.


Amos Quito: As Lloyd George said, Zionists (and Jews in general) had largely supported Germany WHILE they were fighting the hated Czar. Once the Czar had abdicated and the Bolsheviks were in power (and the Balfour Declaration signed) the tide turned against the Germans in favor of the Allies.

Do you think the Germans felt betrayed - just a little?


Not true.  Your own link about Schiff shows that isn't the case.  That while Germany was fighting the Tsar he was working against Germany.


Amos Quito: Once again, I'll thank you to stop claiming that I said things that I never said


I quoted your own words above.


Amos Quito: liam76: Was stopping the Tsar a "zionist goal" or was stopping the opression of Jews by the Tsar a jewish goal?

Yes.


Got it.  So whenever it is convientient you can conflate a jew helping another jew with a zionist plot.


Amos Quito: You bring up NO FACTS AT ALL. Your entire debate strategy seems to be claiming that I said things I didn't say, or made claims that I didn't make, and then attacking the "logic" of the falsehoods you invent.


Any facts I bring up outside you links you claim are BS.  All the fact I mentioned in this thread are things you brought up and come from your sources.

No my debate strategy is simply highlighting the inconsitencies with your BS claims of a powerful zionist conspiracy.
 
2013-04-10 01:12:02 PM  

Amos Quito: liam76: Amos Quito: Did I ever say that the "Zionists threw completely in with the British"?

Did you ever say that? No

But you love to make sweeping claims based upon a quote from Lloyd George tot hat effect.  Are you saying that the support they gave the British wasn't as solid as you claimed?


Thanks. Now please quit making shiat up. It makes you look dishonest.

I am nto making shiat up, you are unclear.  Please clarify it for me.  Spell out exactly how much support the Zionists gave the British in return for the Balfour declaration.
 
2013-04-10 02:56:13 PM  

tirob: Amos Quito: tirob: Amos Quito:

Not that these were the only villains of the era - our "ally" Stalin and his Commies were their own piece of work, don't you agree?
.

Yes.  They were Hitler's allies, too, for almost two years.

Amos Quito:

You know, I was perusing the thread that you linked to earlier - your last post, specifically, where you mention a book by Fritz Fischer who ponders how history may have been different had Germany actually won WWI. Sounds like an interesting read. Food for thought.
.

I recommend the book.  Fischer does devote several pages to the Wilhelmstrasse's attempts to appeal to Russian Jews to turn against their government, and to Zionists everywhere, including the US, to agitate in favor of Germany.



As I said earlier, it makes sense that a government would seek to work with those who may be able to help undermine the efforts of an enemy with whom they are at war.


tirob: The attempts were failures, and in the case of Russia, tragic failures, because once Russian military people got wind of what the Wilhelmstrasse was trying to do, they deported and in some cases even murdered Jews in Western Russia.



If they were attempting to undermine / sabotage the government, they would have been seen as traitors, and treated as such,


tirob: Amos Quito: tirob .

What if the Zionists had thrown their support behind Germany?


Fischer seems to think that the Zionists basically wrote Germany off after the Battle of the Marne.

p. 142: "After the military reverses of the autumn of 1914, the Executive Committee of the World Zionist Organization in Copenhagen pronounced in favour of strict neutrality, and forced all Zionist members to resigne from the Committee of Liberation [of the Jews of Russia, a body set up by the Wilhelmstrasse]; the latter then transformed itself into a relief organisation for the Jews of the [German-] occupied [Russian] territories.



"Strict neutrality"? It sounds like they were keeping their hand close to their vest, which would make sense, as had they openly declared allegiance to either side (at that point), they would have weakened their hand, and possibly jeopardized their ability to leverage both sides - which they later did.

One thing is sure, they made no pretense of supporting the Czar.


tirob: Fischer makes what I think is a convincing case that the Wilhelmstrasse's attempts to organize Jews and other minority nationalities of the Russian Empire against the Czar was part of the German government's worldwide policy to make life difficult for its British, French, and Russian enemies by fomenting dissent and rebellion in the territories their enemies controlled. One facet of this policy was support of the Bolsheviks. The dispatch by Berlin of Lenin and some of his Bolshevik comrades in arms from Switzerland to Finland was part of this policy. Less well known is the fact that Germany financed the Bolsheviks after Lenin's return to Russia.



Once again, working with allies to defeat a common enemy is not surprising.

What was perhaps surprising (to the Germans, at least) was that these Zionist allies should suddenly turn against them the moment Goal 1 (defeat of the Czar and installation of the Bolsheviks) was accomplished, and Goal 2 (securing Palestine) took priority.

Obviously the Germans didn't appreciate this "betrayal", and I find it hard to understand why many folks flatly refuse to consider that this may have played any role in the harsh enmity that arose between Ethnic Jews and German Nationals during the inter-war years - especially given the transition that overtook Russia following the revolution.
 
2013-04-10 03:18:35 PM  

Amos Quito: liam76: You never claimed that Schiff was a Rothschild agent of Zionists?


Of course he was. I never said otherwise.


Woops!

Point of clarification here: I said that Schiff was a Rothschild agent, I never said he was "a Rothschild agent of Zionists".


Weasel-like typing detected, liar76.


/And there may be other
//Little scalawag likes to put words in people's mouths
///He does
 
2013-04-10 05:18:10 PM  

Amos Quito: tirob:

If they were attempting to undermine / sabotage the government, they would have been seen as traitors, and treated as such
.



I don't know whether they were or weren't.  I know of no records of any courts-martial that exist.  I've seen references to the business in literature, and it sounds to me as if there were no courts-martial; people got tied to posts and shot on suspicion.

Amos Quito: :

"strict neutrality?".


No, I know of no German Zionists who supported the Czar.  At the risk of repeating myself, read Fischer's book.  He makes no further mention of any attempts by the Wilhelmstrasse to get in touch with Zionists after 1914 (or vice versa); the context of this was that the German Foreign Office decided very soon that its policy of trying to subvert Russia's minority nationalities wasn't working well.  It therefore decided to put its money--literally--on Russian radicals--including the Bolsheviks--instead.

Amos Quito: Zionist allies [of Germany]
.



There was no such alliance.  It exists in your mind only. The Germans made an abortive attempt to create one in 1914.  Read Fischer's book.


Amos Quito: betrayal

I find it hard to understand why many folks flatly refuse to consider


I have considered it.

1.  There was no alliance to betray on either side.

2.  I hate to recommend Mein Kampf to anyone, but as long as you're operating under the delusion that German-Jewish enmity came about as a result of a betrayal of a nonexistent German-Zionist alliance by the Zionist side, maybe you ought to read it.  Before Hitler was a mass murdering aggressor, he was a German politician.  And a consummate politician according to every report I have read.  One of his political themes was hostility to Jews, as you are probably aware.  In Mein Kampf, in order to appeal to his audience--the voters of Germany--he accused Jews (or often "the Jews") of just about every possible dereliction that ever existed, and some that he made up.  Conspicuously excepting betrayal of a German-Zionist alliance.

The speech that Hitler never gave:  "Germans!  We must force the Jews to their knees because the Zionists went over to the British during the last war!"
--

Amos Quito: ,

working with allies to defeat a common enemy is not surprising
..



The "allies" of the Germans that I was referring to were the Bolsheviks, not the Zionists, and the common enemy of both the Germans and the Bolsheviks between February and October 1917 wasn't the Czar, who was out of power at that time, but the Russian Provisional Government, which by and large had the support of that part of Russia's Jewish population that remained under its rule.  Let me add to something I said earlier:  I think that your command of 20th century German history is poor.  I think your command of 20th century Russian history is nonexistent.  I know that it is a common mistake here to believe that the Czar was immediately replaced by Lenin, but that is not the case at all.

Again:  Read Fischer's book.  The Kuehlmann quote that I cited above should put to rest once and for all your theory, based on one anecdote from Wickham Steed, that Jacob Schiff was the money man behind the Bolos.
 
2013-04-10 08:10:24 PM  

Amos Quito: Amos Quito: liam76: You never claimed that Schiff was a Rothschild agent of Zionists?


Of course he was. I never said otherwise.

Woops!

Point of clarification here: I said that Schiff was a Rothschild agent, I never said he was "a Rothschild agent of Zionists".


That was your one "clarification"?  Ok.

So what?  Your argument seems to be that Rothschild was a "Zionist" and you can toss any action he takes as part of a Zionist plot.

What was the point of bringing up Schiff as one of his agents if he wasn't part of this Zionist plot?

Why was he important to bring up?  It seemed to me you were trying to strengthen your absurd claim of a powerful zionist conspiracy.  If he wasn't a part of that conspiracy then why are you bringing him up?  Unless, as I have said all along, you like to grab random bits of info and then pretend that proves some vast powerful Zionist conspiracy?
 
Displayed 21 of 371 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report