[ThirdTerm]

DS: I vaguely located the formation of this group sometime in the 1970s and imagined that once you’ve eliminated quotas at Harvard and Yale, all these Jewish kids came in and they had money and they were smart and then the WASP ruling class picked off the bright ones and let them into their finals clubs and other institutions. But you located the formation of the WASP-Jew alliance much earlier, in the Second World War, back when the quotas still existed, and the moment you suggested that in your book I thought, “Oh my God, he’s right.” So, what I want you to do is to flesh out that argument. [The quotas, such no more than 10%, meant Jews could only be over-represented up to 400% in the universities, which was considered a terribly oppressive restraint on further over-representation as opposed to a noble affirmative action for under-represented goyim.]
BG: Yeah, that was one factor—the Yids. So, the old aristocracy accuses the WASP robber barons of being no better than the Jews. This, after a series of political struggles, leads the WASP part of the first WASP-Jewish alliance to cast the Jews off and to ally themselves instead with the old WASP aristocracy. They create a system of “exclusive” institutions, meaning no Jews—exclusive clubs, exclusive hotels, and exclusive boarding schools—which are sort of run by the old aristocrats but funded by the new ones. So, it takes the Jews a long time to recover. During the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, the Jews, even if they have some money, are very much at the social margins. But then just before the beginning of the Second World War, the Jews and the WASPs re-ally again—against the Nazis.

In addition to the Jewish quotas in US universities in the pre-war era, American Jews also faced other forms of discrimination as Jews were systematically excluded certain residential areas and jobs. But some American Jews worked as real estate agents and implemented segregationist measures for their white clients, thus preventing blacks and others from living in predominantly white neighbourhoods. America's upper classes traditionally exhibited strong anti-Semitic biases and it's unclear if Jewish students are really treated equally by exclusive clubs at Yale or Harvard nowadays, given the history of the old WASP aristocracy. FDR made it clear that America was not fighting the war to save the European Jews and he was very reluctant to accommodate Jewish refugees from Europe, especially those who were from Eastern Europe.

Lipstadt and Breitman had explained earlier that the planes were not able to reach Auschwitz until late in the war and that, in any case, bombing the camp would probably not have stopped the killing. But that did not satisfy the woman. “If they would have bombed the crematoria, they could have at least stopped them from murdering the Jews,” she said, her voice rising in indignation. “That’s why I blame the Allies for it, including the United States. My parents died there—my whole family died over there, OK? And I was 16, so it’s not like you said that Roosevelt couldn’t do nothing.”

The audience of several hundred, which had been largely subdued during the talk, suddenly erupted in applause and shouts of encouragement. It’s a scene that I have seen play out with minor variations many times over the last decade at similar public events about the Holocaust. No matter the evidence to the contrary, it has become received wisdom among many American Jews that Roosevelt deliberately and coldly abandoned Europe’s Jews in their hour of need.

This marks a dramatic reversal in the image of a president who won more than 80 percent of the Jewish vote in all four of his successful campaigns, who surrounded himself with Jewish advisers and was portrayed by Hitler’s propagandists as Jewish (and not in a good way). Roosevelt brought thousands of Jewish professionals into government, prevented Hitler from overrunning Britain and Palestine (thus saving their large Jewish populations), chose to fight Germany first after the United States was attacked by Japan, and paved the way for New York’s first Jewish governor and senator.

Presidential scholars have consistently ranked Roosevelt as the best chief executive in the nation’s history for his handling of the Great Depression and World War II. But even among liberal Jews who still hold him in high regard for those achievements, his reputation has been tarnished as he has been viewed increasingly through the prism of the Holocaust. What started out in the late 1960s as legitimate historical revisionism—looking critically at what the Roosevelt administration and American Jewry did during the Holocaust—has morphed into caricature, with FDR often depicted as an unfeeling anti-Semite.

This historical debate has a significant contemporary subtext, one that helps explain the intensity of the passions it still arouses. That subtext is today’s debate among American Jews about Israel. In recent years, the distorted view of FDR has been promoted by a small group of Israel supporters who cherry-pick the historical record to portray his handling of the Holocaust in the most negative light possible. These scholar-activists deploy similar sleight of hand to paint a picture of most American Jews as having been disengaged and apathetic about the fate of their European counterparts at the hands of the Nazis, and to cast as heroes a small group of right-wing Zionists who mounted an aggressive public relations campaign to pressure Roosevelt to act. In this narrative, the complexities of history are erased and the passage of time is unimportant. The not-so-subtle message: like the Jews of Europe in 1939, Israel is under an existential threat and cannot count on anyone for help—even the United States, even liberals, even Jews in the United States, most of whom are insufficiently committed to Zionism. Betrayal happened before, and no matter how friendly a president or a country may appear to be, it can happen again.

http://www.thenation.com/article/175315/fdrs-jewish-problem

[KlassWar]

Nazism wasn't defeated by the Jews, it was ground into dust under the might of the glorious Red Army.

[layman]

I hope they don't mean the T34 which the German armour destroyed in something like a three to one ratio. It had good armour and a high velocity gun, but over all it was a crappy tank and a waste of resources.

I was a bit of a tank geek in my youth and I know this is bullshit. The reason they were killed in that ratio was the superiority in german training, tactics and the general hammer doctraine that the soviets used. They had no problem throwing them into german fixed positions as long as they could produce them faster.

I think shermans were destroyed in similar ratios BTW. Classic quantity vs quality.

The germans themselves considered the T34 to be better than any medium tank they had at the time it was introduced. That says it all really.

[fuser]

It also depends on the role of the Armor, Sherman's primarily role was not to be a Tank killer but something that could roll over infantry and in its supposed role, it was a good Tank.

Your plans will have to be pretty dumb, if your Tanks are bogged down in a massive Tank vs Tank battle as Tanks were meant to exploit the gaps in the enemy lines and not create them, the latter German Armor was getting more on Tank destroying role as Germans were reduced to defensive posture and hence an increasing need for rapid counter attacks to restore the frontline by trying to seal off any breaches.

Nazism wasn't defeated by the Jews, it was ground into dust under the might of the glorious Red Army.

And This.

[wiseraphael]

Nazism wasn't defeated by the Jews, it was ground into dust under the might of the glorious Red Army.

The British had something to do with it....fighting Hitler alone while the Soviets were Hitler's ally, supplying him with millions of tons of raw materials and oil....so he could bomb England!

I'm also amused by the previous quote that Roosevelt prevented Hitler invading England! (Third Term's post).
Nothing to do with the RAF and the Royal Navy then!!

[fuser]

The British had something to do with it....fighting Hitler alone while the Soviets were Hitler's ally, supplying him with millions of tons of raw materials and oil....so he could bomb England!

No, Soviets were never an ally. When Soviets were asking Britain and France to actually form an alliance to fight Nazi, the formers were busy selling Czeckoslovakia to the Hitler and refused any such proposals by USSR. Only after being disappointed by west, USSR turned to Germany in order to bide time and prepare, which of course paid the dividend.

USSR was not supplying Germany anything for free but was also getting a swet number of industrial goods which would later be put to good use in killing Nazis.

[Oxymoron]

Few observations:

1. As a Soviet Jew emigre, the American Jews are pretty much psychologically weak. They are typically progressive, typically anti gun, typically anti contact sports especially for their kids. They breed a culture of physical weakness, and a personality of easily intimidated and lack of confidence. I dont know what this has to do with, but it does drive me and my community crazy.

2. If Germany did not abuse its Jews, and waste tons of resources in killing them, and instead used their skills in the war, the outcome could have been much different.

[pikachu]

Reading the article, his answer to the question of emergence still eludes me.

On one hand,
"There was no “the Jews,” there were no Elders of Zion directing the effort. “The Jews” were created because Jews responded to a common threat."
But on the other hand,
"The Jews, who are scattered all over the place, do have a sense of communal identification, because of a set of institutions that depends upon and works hard to maintain that identification. Absent the Jews, these institutions would have no constituency. And this goes back to the Babylonian exile."

And then he also goes on about the inherited ancient rituals and building codes. It makes one wonder to what extent have the Jews existed before WW2, how can it be properly quantified/analyzed, and what does it even mean...

On a different note, here's a friendly suggestion, DT: Omitting your "Wow."s will make the article more, not less enjoyable to read. At the very least, you could save them till after.

[Ombrageux]

I suppose my snark might get in the way sometimes. I guess I find it cathartic re: the censorious denialists.