[Heinie]

Lets be clear there was no shame in collaborating with the Nazis. The suggestion is absurd. ...

Some people did have a moral compass and refused to collaborate with the Nazis, even positively resisting them. Not everyone is as venal as you believe.

[Pongo]

Lets be clear there was no shame in collaborating with the Nazis. The suggestion is absurd. Should the Finns feel ashamed for allying with Hitler? All groups whether nations, religious identities or ideological like the communists selfishly put their groups interests before others. No one acted fairly, no one acted justly, in fact its impossible to say what fair and just was. Any judgement of what was just was a biased and arbitrary and normally self serving opinion. Of course German Jews were right to collaborate with the Nazis. You couldn't live in Germany without collaborating with them. Nor in the 1930s could you engage in international diplomacy without on some level collaborating with them. It is only a problem because of this endless, puerile inane demonisation of the Nazis.
.

The current antisemitic propaganda is sort of funny. On the one hand they (taking the cue from Gobbles propaganda) blame the Jews for the war because they were the first to initiate the boycott in 1933 ("Judea declares war in Germany"), but today the antisemites rely on American Jewish Trotskyist, Lenni Brenner book which states against the Zionist who broke up this 1933 (mainly Jewish American) boycott and took their own initiative with Haavara/Transfer agreement. So the antisemites should decide was the 1933 boycott good or bad? If it's bad than why they are bitching against Zionist 1934 deal?

[ArtAllm]

But it is important if you want to gauge support, don't you think? I am not talking about their quality but simply how many were willing to fight for them.

The sheeple (more than 90% of people) can be easily swayed in any direction, dependant on the leadership.

You do not need to convince every sheep, sheep always stay with the herd.

Any society is always ruled by less than 1% of the members of a given group.

If you manage to change the point of view of these 1% of members, the rest will follow like sheep.

The so-called "democracies" are not the exception. These societies are controlled by less than 1% of their members, too, but in a democracy the foolish sheeple believes that they are governing the country, because they got the chance to elect people who are supposed to represent them.

Democracy is even more vulnerable to self-destruction, than a totalitarian regime, especially when the ruling elite feels that it is an Outgroup with different interests.

BTW, today the Likudnics got the needed support, it always takes time.

Of course German Jews were right to collaborate with the Nazis. You couldn't live in Germany without collaborating with them.

You have to distinguish between Zionists and other Jews.

Well, if you read Lenni Brenner (who supports his works with documents) you will find out that Zionist and National Socialists collaborated because they had common interests, and because NS de facto did what Zionists needed.

The Zionists dreamed since the end of the 19th century about creating a Jewish state in Palestine. They needed young, healthy and good educated European Jews and their money in Palestine.

German Jews were reluctant to abandon Germany, because they were a well-off elite in the Weimar Republic, in which most people lived a desperate life.

Jews wanted to stay in Germany, and Polish and other East European Jews dreamed about becoming German citizens.

Zionists did not have any chances to build their Jewish State, Jews did not support their crazy idea, they were ready do convert to any religion to improve their living standard.

Most Germans were severely suffering in the Weimar Republic, it is obvious that desperate people elect a leader that promises to improve their living conditions.

Hitler really improved the living conditions of Germans in a short time (1933-1938), but Jews (2% of German population) were not happy about the changes in German society, because they were targeted by the National Socialists who were dreaming about a German State. NS encouraged Jews to move out of Germany.

But this was precisely what Zionists needed who were dreaming about a Jewish State!

This was how the Haavra Agreement was born.

Unfortunately, you cannot have any rational discussion about Hitler, the National Socialism and Zionism. If you have a wrong (non violent) opinion about the history of the first half of the 20th century, even if you ask wrong questions, you will be put into prison in most EU-Countries, who claim that they are "free countries".

But it is still permissible to read the available primary sources, read the quotes of many prominent historical figurers of this time, use your brain, connect the dots and build your own opinion about this historical period.

It is always important to have an own opinion, even if you cannot freely express your opinion!

As the saying goes: Truth is the first casualty in a war.

Unfortunately, the WWII never ended in terms of propaganda, it goes on, and there are still a lot of "truth causalities" even in peaceful times.

This leading Zionist was wrong in his predictions:

A recent Zionist convert, the then world-famous popular biographer
Emil Ludwig, was interviewed by a fellow Zionist on a visit to America
and expressed the general attitude of the Zionist movement:

"Hitler will be forgotten in a few years, but he will have a
beautiful monument in Palestine.

You know", and here the biographer-historian seemed to assume the
role of a patriarchal Jew – "the coming of the Nazis was rather a
welcome thing. So many of our German Jews were hovering between two
coasts; so many of them were riding the treacherous current between
the Scylla of assimilation and the Charybdis of a nodding acquaintance
with Jewish things.

Thousands who seemed to be completely lost to Judaism were brought
back to the fold by Hitler, and for that I am personally very grateful
to him." [3]

http://www.amazon.com/Zionism-Age-Dicta ... 0985890991

Emil Ludwig was wrong, Hitler is not forgotten, he is still a very important justification for the today World Order.

Kennedy's prediction was also wrong:

After visiting these places, you can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived. He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him.

He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.


John F. Kennedy, Personal diary (1 August 1945)

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

If you do not treat Hitler as the "Devil incarnate", if you just treat him as a usual historical figure in the historical context of his time, if you do not demonize and ostracise historians who try to treat Hitler as a normal historical figure, how can you justify the creation of Israel and many other things that happened during and after WWII and are still happening today, including the demographic suicide of Europeans?

That is the reason why the war propaganda constantly creates "New Hitlers" (Milisovic, Saddam, Ahmadinedzhad, Putin, Trump, etc. etc).

You have to stick to the simplistic formula: If you are not with us, then you are against us.

If you refuse to stick to the "Mickey-Mouse-Version" of History, promoted by the Disney Land and the Hollywood, if you try to express your own opinion and try to do what is in your own interests, they will call you a "Nazi" and a "New Hitler" or a "Hitler-Sympathiser", the traditional method of smearing by association still works!

And do not forget that Europeans in all Western Countries are today committing a demographic suicide for moral reasons that cannot be questioned in the existing historical context!

[Tailz]

Indeed, shameful but that doesn't mean that the mainstream was in favor of cooperating with the Nazis, particularly at the time. It wasn't.

Just to throw my hat into the ring here between yourself and ArtAllm... The mainstream leadership of the Zionist Movement was in favor of doing whatever they felt would secure Israel. Thus why we see Zionist leaders offering to pay Nazi leaders for train loads of Jews - but only if they can be transported to Palestine. While dignitaries from the World Zionist organisation in the late 1930's lobbied the UK and USA against increasing immigration quotas. The UK and USA were considering increasing immigration quotas to help facilitate Jewish immigration from Europe as a result of Nazi discrimination. The Zionists lobbied against this because higher UK/USA immigration quotas would detract European Jews from immigrating to Palestine. The mainstream Zionist leadership was in favor of cooperating or working against anyone if it furthered their goals. This is why at the same time as the Zionists helped the British against the Axis powers in the middle-east, they were also at the same time stealing supplies from British bases in Palestine (the SOE base in Palestine was robbed a number of times).

There was/is no moral high-ground, just selfish self interest. If they felt it aided their cause, they did it. If it didn't - even at the risk of the death of European Jews in the Camps - they didn't do it.

[wat0n]

Back in the 1930s, Nazi Germany was not regarded as a threat to international security, but was a respectable member of the international community. There wasn't much the Zionists could do to help German Jews but to reach a deal with them, no matter how much they could dislike their ideology.

After WWII began, however, there was a real chance to fight Nazism and thus Zionists had a choice on whether they would fight them or not. The vast majority chose to fight.

[Rich]

After WWII began, however, there was a real chance to fight Nazism and thus Zionists had a choice on whether they would fight them or not. The vast majority chose to fight.

Oh I wasn't aware that the vast majority of American, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Belgian, Dutch, Swiss or Irish Zionists, sought to volunteer for one of the allied armies in 1939.

[redcarpet]

Mandatory Palestine Jews did, whereas Arabs joined the SS & Wehrmacht.

[pugsville]

Mandatory Palestine Jews did, whereas Arabs joined the SS & Wehrmacht.

really do you nothing about history or just don't care about accuracy.

how many arabs joined theSS & Wehrmacht? really document this claim.

of course over a thousand joined the Palestine regiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Regiment

you statement is wrong.


and 'The vast majority chose to fight.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade
It included more than 5,000 Jewish volunteers from Mandatory Palestine from a population of over 400,000 . vast majority?

[Tailz]

Back in the 1930s, Nazi Germany was not regarded as a threat to international security, but was a respectable member of the international community. There wasn't much the Zionists could do to help German Jews but to reach a deal with them, no matter how much they could dislike their ideology.

The problem was, if the Jews were immigrating to Palestine, they had the support of the Zionist movement. If they were not, they were left to their unfortunate end. If you ask my opnion, that was not the act of a movement inspired by the ideals of helping their fellow Jews.

After WWII began, however, there was a real chance to fight Nazism and thus Zionists had a choice on whether they would fight them or not. The vast majority chose to fight.

If the deeds aligned with their goals of settling Palestine and ultimate statehood - the Zionists threw their weight behind it. If it didn't, they didn't do it. Thus the Jews of Europe who wished to go somewhere other than Palestine, were discarded by the Zionist movement. Dare I rehash the quote of Ben-Gurion regarding the fate of European Jews who didn't immigrate to Palestine? It is documented.

Goodness me, it is horrific to think of how many European Jews could have been saved by just helping them flee Europe to any destination possible had the Zionist movement turned it's considerable powers to that end. Welcome to the scum at the bottom of the barrel of selfish self interest of Nationalist movements.

And you people wonder why I hate nationalism!

Mandatory Palestine Jews did, whereas Arabs joined the SS & Wehrmacht.

As Pugsville pointed out, there was no rush by the majority on the recruitment offices by Jews or Muslims for the Germans or British. Of course because the British held Palestine, thus were able to co-opted a Jewish unit and Arab Unit. While because the Germans held the Balkans (eg: Bosnian, Croatian, etc), they co-opted a Muslim unit (eg: SS Handschar). But it must also be remembered that they mutinied against their Nazi benefactors too. Thus recruitment was not a bed of roses for the British or Germans.

[wat0n]

and 'The vast majority chose to fight.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade
It included more than 5,000 Jewish volunteers from Mandatory Palestine from a population of over 400,000 . vast majority?

Oh, I don't think I said the vast majority chose to fight in a literal sense, i.e. that they served in combat units. The vast majority did choose to fight by supporting the Allies in WWII, and isolated those who didn't like Lehi just like people often say that the British chose to fight the Nazis by not buckling under German air raids and supporting the war effort.

5,000 out of 400,000 is a rather substantial force relative to the population after all.

The problem was, if the Jews were immigrating to Palestine, they had the support of the Zionist movement. If they were not, they were left to their unfortunate end. If you ask my opnion, that was not the act of a movement inspired by the ideals of helping their fellow Jews.

If the deeds aligned with their goals of settling Palestine and ultimate statehood - the Zionists threw their weight behind it. If it didn't, they didn't do it. Thus the Jews of Europe who wished to go somewhere other than Palestine, were discarded by the Zionist movement. Dare I rehash the quote of Ben-Gurion regarding the fate of European Jews who didn't immigrate to Palestine? It is documented.

Goodness me, it is horrific to think of how many European Jews could have been saved by just helping them flee Europe to any destination possible had the Zionist movement turned it's considerable powers to that end. Welcome to the scum at the bottom of the barrel of selfish self interest of Nationalist movements.

And you people wonder why I hate nationalism!

If the Zionist movement was as influential as you say, why is it that the Jewish Agency's representative wasn't even allowed to talk during the Évian Conference of 1938?

The Zionists certainly preferred to see Jewish refugees moving to the Mandate - hence Ben Gurion's hyperbole on the matter, yes I've read it - but I don't recall they ever conditioned support for persecuted European Jews to them immigrating to Mandatory Palestine.

[Potemkin]

If you ask my opnion, that was not the act of a movement inspired by the ideals of helping their fellow Jews.

Zionism was a movement inspired by the ideals of founding a Jewish state in Palestine, not "helping their fellow Jews". In order to have any success in that endeavour, they often had to act against the interests of individual Jews in Europe during the 1930s and 40s. There is often a contradiction between the best interests of a nation or a community as a whole and the best interests of individual members of that community. For example, industrialisation was very much in the interests of Britain as a nation - it vastly expanded our productive potential and enabled us to conquer and colonise a large chunk of the world. However, it was a disaster for the British working class, who constituted a majority of the population - they were shoved into overcrowded slums, their level of health and nutrition declined drastically, and they were transformed into wage slaves, dependent on the new capitalist class for their livelihood. The British workers - and the peasant masses of Britain's colonies - were the fuel for the engine of national, and later global, progress. Their lives were ruined and consumed to power the engine of historical progress. Why should Zionism have been an exception to this?

[Rich]

For example, industrialisation was very much in the interests of Britain as a nation - it vastly expanded our productive potential and enabled us to conquer and colonise a large chunk of the world. However, it was a disaster for the British working class, who constituted a majority of the population - they were shoved into overcrowded slums, their level of health and nutrition declined drastically, and they were transformed into wage slaves, dependent on the new capitalist class for their livelihood. The British workers - and the peasant masses of Britain's colonies - were the fuel for the engine of national, and later global, progress. Their lives were ruined and consumed to power the engine of historical progress.

The classic Marxist lie. Poverty in early /mid nineteenth century England was caused by massive population expansion not industrialisation. This nonsense about peasants being forced off the land into cities is another shameless Marxist lie. The agricultural population of Britain expanded by a million between 1780 and 1830.

The problem was too many people for too little land. This is why industrialisation was much nicer in the United States. Far from being some evil plot the Irish famine was the norm of the old World. Massive populations were followed sooner or later by famine or plague that brought the population back to sustainable levels. Charles Dickens was not a sign of the prosperity of Brtian not its poverty. As a country gets richer, expectations change. Entitlement increases. People feel entitled not just to a certain prosperity themselves, but that they shouldn't have to see it in others as they walk down the streets.

In the pre modern world if you felt guilty about the condition of your fellow man, you became a Christian /Buddhist monk / Nun, a renunciate. This was quite rationale, the only way to help your fellow man was to avoid procreating and creating more over population.

[Tailz]

If the Zionist movement was as influential as you say, why is it that the Jewish Agency's representative wasn't even allowed to talk during the Évian Conference of 1938?

Many representatives at the conference were not permitted to talk - but attended as observers - presenting plans either orally or in writing. Golda Meir was the attendee from the Jewish Agency for Palestine. But there was also the New Zionist Organization and the World Jewish Congress as well. The problem was that this conference was held during the depression. Most nations didn't have the resources for their own populations let alone refugees. The conference must be looked at in the environment of the time when it happened, not in a vacuum of just the plight of the Jewish refugees with no consideration of what is going on at home of those being asked to take them.

But even then I agree the conference failed the Jews of Europe. But the failure of the conference is no yard stick of the influence of the Zionist movement, just because they failed does not mean the Zionist movement was not influential.

The Zionist movement could have simply offered to pay the minimum cost of fair to leave Europe - that alone could have saved thousands. But yet there was land to buy in Palestine. Dirt was more important than people.

The Zionists certainly preferred to see Jewish refugees moving to the Mandate - hence Ben Gurion's hyperbole on the matter, yes I've read it - but I don't recall they ever conditioned support for persecuted European Jews to them immigrating to Mandatory Palestine.

They didn't condition support for leaving Europe on immigrating to Palestine - because they didn't offer support - generally you had to get there under your own steam. There were not government backed plans like there are today. Thus the rich could make it, the poor were left behind.

I tried to find the information about the Zionist Movement lobbying the UK and US in regard to immigration, but the info appears to have disappeared from the Wiki. I suspect a concerned "editor" removed it, because of its implications and who it made look bad.

[pugsville]

The classic Marxist lie. Poverty in early /mid nineteenth century England was caused by massive population expansion not industrialisation. This nonsense about peasants being forced off the land into cities is another shameless Marxist lie. The agricultural population of Britain expanded by a million between 1780 and 1830.

it's not that easy to just go cause and effect. there were a bunch of changes over time. enclosure and the loss of common lands happened in waves over a long period. a peasantry that had common lands and a small amount of land had a much more diverse range of incomes/production was less vulnerable had a better position in the market than a landless rural workforce. the demise of common lands and rights the monetisation of the rural economy created winners and losers the gentry and well off farmers benefited the lower end of peasantry lost heavily. this was political process driven from above. The new large enclosed feels became more productive and open to more change in farming techniques which lead to much more production. the ease of travel made migration of seasonal labour much more widespread, Irish and welsh workers undercutting the traditional local labour. the replacement of payment in kind with wages meant wages were much more exposed to inflation than they were previously.

the massive poverty and the real decline in living standards of the bulk of the working class was a product of a large number of factors. rural poor with even a small plot of land and access to commons had diverse incomes/production that enabled them a higher standard of living, and better market position as they were not so dependant. the cities were less healthy, and once in the cities the working class had a much worse market position as they had to work and did not have their own food production to fall back on.

the overall canes of urbanisation, monetisation, industrialisation, lead to a largely landless, urbanised working class that has much less market power and got a much lesser cut of the overall productivity, even though the overall productivity increase, the working class got a lot less proportionally and their living conditions got materially worse (living in cities was much unhealthier as was a lot of industrial work compared to the rural work) you can argue that the increase in productivity and the capture of that in large part by the capitalist class meant it was available for reinvestment and this reinvestment grew producivity of society which eventually enabled a great rose giving standards for the poor eventually, but this rise in material wealth of society depended on some of the very bottom labouring very hard in appalling conditions (coal miners being a prime example).

the overall changes in work and society resulted in the lower working class having much less power in the labour market compared to the rural poor who had some land and commons, which led to them taking less, and their wages being much less relatively in purchasing power and their material living standards declining quite a lot.

the poverty of the working class was caused by the overall changes that enabled industrialisation, and the increase in investment capital that drove a lot of late 19th century industrialisation was enabled in large part by large amounts of the working class being forced to accept low wages and poor working conditions.





but this is way of the topic at hand

[skinster]

Zionism was a movement inspired by the ideals of founding a Jewish state in Palestine, not "helping their fellow Jews". Why should Zionism have been an exception to this?

zionism was sold to Jews as having a state where Jews - who were facing persecution in many places in Christian-Europe at the time - could be safe, so it was very much about "helping their fellow Jews", even though in reality it wasn't about that and still isn't.

[Potemkin]

zionism was sold to Jews as having a state where Jews - who were facing persecution in many places in Christian-Europe at the time - could be safe, so it was very much about "helping their fellow Jews", even though in reality it wasn't about that and still isn't.

Israel is seen by the Zionists as a "safe haven" for the Jewish people. This is not the same thing as Israel being a safe haven for individual Jews - Israel is actually a rather dangerous place for an individual Jewish person to be. However, the existence of the state of Israel means that it is much more difficult for any external force to try to eradicate the Jews as a people. After all, Israel controls a significant chunk of real estate and it has nukes. Again, what is in the best interests of the group as a whole is not necessarily in the best interests of the individual members of that group. To say that individual Jews are safer in, say, Britain or the USA than they are in Israel is factually correct but is to miss the point of Zionism.

[skinster]

More Jews live outside of Israel than in it.

zionism was sold to Jews as being a safe-haven for them and so about "helping their fellow Jews".

I'll ignore the rest of what you said and the shitty analogies you bring into debates re: zionism because, wtf is even going on there with your support of it and why.

[noemon]

He's just trying to make a point and he's right, the only sad thing is that he is not making more of his points in a variety of related threads that require his knowledge.

[skinster]

But the fact remains that zionism was sold as helping Jews by Herzl himself (and many who supported him).

It was bullshit obviously, but that is how it was sold.

[Potemkin]

But the fact remains that zionism was sold as helping Jews by Herzl himself (and many who supported him).

It was bullshit obviously, but that is how it was sold.

Granted. But most of the Jewish people would likely not have been able to appreciate the true reasons for founding the state of Israel, which was to safeguard the existence of the Jews as a people rather than to safeguard the existence of each and every individual Jew. To make another "shitty analogy", if a nation is invaded by one of its neighbours, then the best way of safeguarding the existence of each individual citizen of that nation is for its leaders to immediately surrender to the aggressor. This would mean the destruction of that nation, of course, whose citizens would then become citizens of its (now enlarged) neighbour, but none of those individuals would die in a war. Is this what most nations actually do? I think not.

And none of this implies any "support" on my part for Zionism. I actually have no strong views either way, and I am merely analysing Zionism as an interesting case study of the relationship between the interests of a human community as a whole and the interests of the individual members of that community.