The New Revisionism: What if Hitler Won the War? Paul Eisen, Thursday, 9 January 2014

 

 

http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-new-revisionism-what-if-hitler-won.html

This is from the IHR by Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine

I’ve only come across Michael twice: Once when he was defending the standard Holocaust narrative and here, where he’s defending the standard World War 2 narrative – doesn’t sound very skeptical to me!

Here he is on ‘the good war’ with a brief response at the end from Mark Weber

 

 

Mark Weber, David Irving, and the Institute for Historical Review take on Winston Churchill, Pat Buchanan, and American foreign policy
By Michael Shermer
Skeptic magazine – Nov. 2008 (Vol. 14, No. 3)

Saturday, June 24 [sic], 2008. Costa Mesa, California. In this coastal city in Southern California about 80 people — an assortment of devoted fans, sycophants, acolytes and financial supporters of David Irving and Mark Weber’s Institute for Historical Review (IHR, the fountainhead of historical and especially Holocaust revisionism) — packed themselves into a smallish conference room with a dysfunctional PA system and a deafeningly-loud air conditioner that made it exceedingly difficult for the many septua- and octogenarians present to hear what their revisionist heroes had to say about their enduringly favorite passions and pastimes: Hitler and the Nazis, Jews and the Holocaust, and World War II and the decline of the West. But on these subjects a new revisionism is afoot. Consider just three short excerpts:

“All about us we can see clearly now that the West is passing away. In a single century, all the great houses of continental Europe fell. All the empires that ruled the world have vanished. Not one European nation, save Muslim Albania, has a birthrate that will enable it to survive through the century. As a share of world population, peoples of European ancestry have been shrinking for three generations. The character of every Western nation is being irremediably altered as each undergoes an unresisted invasion from the third World. We are slowly disappearing from the Earth.”

“A hundred years ago, the West ruled the world. After a century of recurrent internecine conflict between the European empires, that is no longer the case. A hundred years ago, the frontier between West and East was located somewhere in the neighbourhood of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now it seems to run through every European city. That is not to say that conflict is inevitable along these new fault lines. But it is to say that, if the history of the twentieth century is any guide, then the fragile edifice of civilization can very quickly collapse even where different ethnic groups seem quite well integrated, sharing the same language, if not the same faith or the same genes.”

“Alfred Nobel, the manufacturer of explosives, was talking to his friend the Baroness Bertha von Suttner, author of Lay Down Your Arms. Von Suttner, a founder of the European antiwar movement, had just attended the fourth World’s Peace Conference in Bern. It was August, 1892. ‘Perhaps my factories will put an end to war even sooner than your congresses,’ Alfred Nobel said. ‘On the day when two army corps may mutually annihilate each other in a second, probably all civilized nations will recoil with horror and disband their troops’.”

Was the Good War an Unnecessary War?

These observations come from neither David Irving nor Mark Weber. Nor are they from the lunatic fringe. The first is the opening passage of three-time presidential candidate and political analyst Patrick Buchanan in his 2008 book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, a history and social commentary that made the New York Times bestseller list and was the cover story for the June 23 issue of Newsweek. The second comes from the epilogue of the Harvard historian Niall Ferguson’s 2006 epochal history, The War of the World, also presented in a three-part PBS documentary series. The third is the first entry in Nicholson Baker’s 2008 anti-war book Human Smoke, widely reviewed and discussed by political pundits and talk-show hosts, which helped propel it as well onto the New York Times bestseller list. All three were pegged by Mark Weber as emblematic of historical revisionism gone mainstream.

This new revisionism aims to reconfigure “the good war” as “the unnecessary war” (Buchanan), combine the two world wars into one long ethnic and economic conflict that could have been avoided had England left Germany alone (Ferguson), and to demonstrate the moral equivalency between the Axis and the Allies in the outbreak and conductance of a war whose waging probably failed to help those who most needed it (Baker and Ferguson). Weber’s lecture — “The ‘Good War’ Myth of World War Two” — in fact, echoed these three mainstream historians, although according to Weber he wrote his lecture before these books were published. And in any case, says Weber, World War Two revisionism of this sort dates back to the 1950s when highly regarded academic historians such as Charles Beard and A.J.P. Taylor even then challenged the received wisdom that WWII was a “good war.”

The idea that Weber thinks needs revising is that the Second World War pitted freedom against tyranny, but according to Weber the reality is that the Allies included Britain and the USSR, the most imperial and tyrannical (respectively) nations on earth:

“At the outbreak of war in 1939, Britain ruled over the largest colonial empire in history, holding more millions of people against their will than any regime before or since. America’s other great wartime ally, the Soviet Union, was, by any objective measure, the most tyrannical or oppressive regime of its time, and a vastly more cruel despotism than Hitler’s Germany.”

He labels as myth the idea that in World War II we witnessed the triumph of good over evil, and claims that in reality the Allies’ goodness was indistinguishable from their opponents’ evil. Weber:

“In fact, the record of Allied misdeeds is a long one, and includes the British-American bombing of German cities, a terroristic campaign that took the lives of more than half a million civilians, the genocidal ‘ethnic cleansing’ of millions of civilians in eastern and central Europe, and the large-scale postwar mistreatment of German prisoners.”

Also labeled as myth is the belief that the Allies prevented Hitler from conquering the world, whereas it was America, Russia, and England who were set on a course for world domination. Weber:

“The three Allied leaders accomplished what they accused the Axis leaders of Germany, Italy and Japan of conspiring to achieve: world domination. During a 1942 meeting in Washington, President Roosevelt candidly told the Soviet foreign minister that ‘the United States, England and Russia, and perhaps China, should police the world and enforce disarmament [of all others] by inspection.’ To secure the global rule of the victorious powers after the war, the ‘Big Three’ Allied leaders established the United Nations organization to serve as a permanent world police force.”

Weber argues that given that the United Nations has been unable to douse the flames of even tiny brushfires that periodically erupt throughout the world, we see how poorly this world police force has worked out.

Moral Equivalency in the Second World War
Continuing along the new revisionist track, these historians reassess who really benefited from the defeat of Germany and Japan. Although the United States emerged from the conflict as the world’s foremost military, economic, and financial power, according to Weber, the war was a long-term setback for European culture and Western civilization. In support of this claim he quotes none other than Charles Lindbergh, aviation hero, crypto-fascist, and ideological leader of the America First isolationist movement. Writing a quarter of a century after the great conflict, Lindbergh lamented:

“We won the war in a military sense; but in a broader sense it seems to me we lost it, for our Western civilization is less respected and secure than it was before. In order to defeat Germany and Japan we supported the still greater menaces of Russia and China — which now confront us in a nuclear-weapon era. Poland was not saved … Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through aeons in many million lives … It is alarmingly possible that World War II marks the beginning of our Western civilization’s breakdown, as it already marks the breakdown of the greatest empire ever built by man.”

Genetic heredity formed through aeons? Could Lindbergh possibly mean an Aryan genetic heritage at the exclusion of all other peoples of the West? Perhaps his German wife and children — kept hidden for decades and only recently revealed through, ironically, genetic tests — know the answer.

Niall Ferguson also leans on the Germanophile Lindbergh in The War of the World. “Our men think nothing of shooting a Japanese prisoner or soldier attempting to surrender,” Lindbergh recalled an infantry colonel telling him. “They treat the Japs with less respect than they would give to an animal.” They? To whom is Lindbergh referring? Apparently his fellow Americans, now relegated to The Other. The Japanese fought to the death, says Ferguson in voiceover in his documentary, because they believed that the Americans were barbaric and would murder them in cold blood anyway, as images flash by of the Allied bombings of Hamburg (35,000-55,000 dead), Dresden (35,000 dead), Hiroshima (140,000 dead), and Nagasaki (80,000 dead).

Revisionists have long drawn the moral equation of Auschwitz = Dresden, and Treblinka = Hiroshima. It’s a theme that appears time and again in revisionist literature, and now a Harvard historian has fallen into the trap. Although Ferguson concedes that Hitler “put a hit out on an entire race of people” and wanted to redraw the entire ethnographic map of Europe, and to achieve this the German people needed more lebensraum in the east, which meant “expulsion and extermination” of the current inhabitants, Ferguson then shifts to a moral equivalency argument:

“What happened here at Auschwitz was so monstrous, that when American and British and Russian tourists come here they derive a certain satisfaction from the idea that in fighting Hitler the allies were waging a just war. It’s terribly easy to forget that in pursuit of victory the Allies also, though in different ways, meted out death to innocent men, women, and children. This wasn’t simply a war between evil and good. It was a war between evil and lesser evil.”

How did England and the United States become tyrannies comparable to the fascistic states they aimed to defeat?

“To win this war of the world the Western powers found that they had to ally themselves with tyranny, to adopt aspects of totalitarian rule in their own countries, and to use military methods that were comparable in their effects, if not in their intentions, with the very worst techniques of their enemies.”

In the end Ferguson holds back from asserting full moral equivalency between the Allies and the Axis, but he does so in language that is discomfortingly obtuse:

“We allied ourselves with a dictator who was every bit as brutal as Hitler. We adopted tactics that we ourselves had condemned as depraved, killing prisoners and bombing civilians. And yet all of this is not to imply some simple moral equivalence between Auschwitz and Hiroshima. The Axis cities would never have been bombed if their government had not launched wars of aggression. And they would have kept on killing people had it not been for the determination of the Allies to prevail by fair means or foul. But what I do want to acknowledge is that the victory of 1945 was a tainted victory, if indeed it was a victory at all.”

This particular moral equivalency argument has a familiar ring to it: David Irving made the same argument in his 1971 book Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden. Calling the attack on Dresden “the worst single massacre in European history,” Irving asks “Is there any parallel between Dresden and Auschwitz?” His answer has the nuance of a moral sledge hammer: “To my mind both teach one lesson: that the real crime of war and peace alike is not Genocide — with its implicit requirement that posterity reserve its sympathy and condolences for a chosen race — but Innocenticide. It was not the Jewishness of the victims that made Auschwitz a crime; but their innocence.”

Baloney. Yes, the Allies killed innocents on the road to victory, but the killing stopped the moment the Allies won. The genocide of Jews by Germans ended on VE day, and the genocide of Chinese by Japanese ended on VJ day. Auschwitz and Nanking were no more. The Allies killed in order to stop the killing by the Axis, and for no other reason. The Axis killed for geography, for political control, for economic power, for racial purification, and for pleasure, and the killing would have gone on and on and on were it not for the Allies. Anyone unable to see the difference should have his license to practice history revoked.

The Decline of Civilization

Which brings us back to the new revisionists’ deeper quest in revising the meaning of the Second World War, whether it was a victory, tainted victory, or no victory at all: the Decline of the West. The subtitles of the new revisionist books deliver the deeper moral angst in large font: “How Britain Lost its Empire and the West Lost the World” (Buchanan), “Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West” (Ferguson), and “The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization” (Baker). The echoes of Spengler thunder throughout the narratives. I asked Weber what, precisely, is in decline in the west. “First and foremost, there is a dysgenic trend,” he pronounced without even a feint toward political correctness. “The average intelligence level is falling. Everywhere the most educated and cultured peoples are having the least number of children. Music, architecture, and art are in decline. There’s a general discordance in culture.”

Moreover, he added, “A healthy society is cohesive.” What does that mean? “Ethnicity and race,” he elaborated. Ethnicity, as in the shared beliefs of a people, as in a common religion? “No. Iraqis, for example, share a common religion, but their society is not cohesive. I mean racial or genetic cohesion.” For example? Well, he said, “the Danes are reportedly the happiest people on earth. Certainly a key factor in that regard is the Danes’ racial-ethnic cohesion.” But Americans are incredibly successful — the wealthiest and most successful nation on earth — but we are a racially diverse society. “The most significant fact of America’s history and legacy is that it was settled by Europeans.”

Counterfactual “what if?” history is a dangerous game to play, but it can be a useful one in teasing out causal variables in the past. This is what Niall Ferguson attempts to do in his 1999 revisionist history of World War I, The Pity of War, in which he argued counterfactually that had Britain stayed neutral in 1914, a continental skirmish would never have escalated into a world war, that Ferguson calls “nothing less than the greatest error of modern history.” Without the First World War, millions of lives would have been saved, there would have been no 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and thus leaving Communism stillborn from Lenin’s pen, and Europe would have been spared the ravishes of that particularly destructive ideology, along with its ideological twin, fascism, which would have never gotten a toehold in subsequent decades.

“If the First World War had never been fought,” Ferguson speculates, “the worst consequence would have been something like a First Cold War, in which the five great powers continued to maintain large military establishments, but without impeding their own sustained economic growth.” A victory by Imperial Germany over her threatening rivals France and Russia would have created something like today’s European Union, and Great Britain would have remained great in world empire. And, needless to say, a politically viable and economically stable Germany would never have spawned Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, and another 40 million deaths and untold misery and economic ruin throughout continental Europe would have been forestalled.

In a follow-up telephone interview, Mark Weber picked up where Ferguson left off, speculating on what might have happened if Britain and France had not declared war against Germany, and the Axis nations had succeeded in obliterating Soviet Communism. An Axis-dominated Pax Europa, he speculated, would have been culturally dynamic, socially prosperous, politically stable, economically sound, and technologically advanced. “A victorious National Socialist Germany probably would have carried out a space exploration program far more ambitious than that of the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. It would have developed an extensive continent-wide transportation and communications network, an exemplary environmental policy, a comprehensive health care system, and a conscientious eugenics program.” Most importantly, Weber said with rising enthusiasm, “Europe would have remained European. It would have been amazing.”

Instead, despite Hitler’s efforts to make peace with England, the imperialist blackguard Winston Churchill fanned the flames of anti-German hatred and rallied both the British and (with the help of Franklin Roosevelt) the Americans to declare war on Germany and thereby brought about the end of European culture and racial unity. World War II was not a victory for the Allies; it was a defeat for all we cherish in Western values, and even though the conclusion of the Cold War brought the Soviet Union to an ignominious end, her ideology of universal egalitarianism lives on through the liberal democracies of the West.

What if Hitler Won?
It’s hard to know where to begin deconstructing the new revisionism. The Italian physicist Wolfgang Pauli’s withering critique of a colleague’s paper comes to mind: “This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.” So much of the new revisionism is counterfactual history, and it is here where their analysis goes beyond wrong and into the realm of pure fantasy.

Counterfactual “what if” history is premised on what are called counterfactual conditionals. Conditionals are statements in the form “if p then q,” as in “if Hitler fights England then he’ll lose the war,” where q (losing the war) depends on p (fighting England). Counterfactual conditionals change p to p’ and thus make it counter to the facts, thereby altering its conditional element q into q’. Change p to p’ (make peace with England) and instead of q you may get q’ (win the war), as in “if Hitler does not fight England then he avoids an unwinable two-front war, defeats Russia, and wins the war.”

This counterfactual conditional assumes that the outcome of the Second World War hinged on this single conditional. In reality, the outcome of the war depended on a long string of conditional terms in between the two termini. Instead of “if p then q,” a more realistic conditional equation would be “if p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y then z.” The counterfactual conditional, then, would be “if p’, q’, r’, s’, t’, u’, v’, w’, x’, y’ then z’.” Add a few hundred more conditionals into the equation and we begin to approximate the rich causal tapestry that is human history. That is the state of the world in the run-up to the outbreak of both World Wars, and neither outbreaks nor outcomes were conditional on one small factor (p), whereby altering its condition (p’) would change the entire sequence.

By the time England declared war on Germany in September of 1939 — in response to Germany’s invasion of Poland — the Nazi government had already embarked on a long string of conditionals that practically guaranteed they would end up in a two-front war. In violation of numerous points in the Versailles Treaty and the Locarno Pact (securing post-war borders east and west of Germany), and against the admonitions of the League of Nations, Hitler rearmed the Rhineland in 1936, annexed Austria in the spring of 1938, laid claim to the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia in the fall of 1938, and seized Bohemia and Moravia in the spring of 1939, all while rearming the German military, building tanks, planes, and ships in both size and quantity strictly prohibited by treaty. Although he promised that he would make no more territorial claims in Europe in the Munich Agreement of September 30, 1938 (after which Chamberlain famously waved the agreement to a relieved British home crowd), in the early morning hours of September 1, 1939, the Nazis staged a phony “invasion” of Germany by Polish soldiers and then “retaliated” by launching an all out invasion of Poland with troops, tanks, and planes conveniently poised to strike along the 1,750-mile Polish border. Two days later, England — in keeping with her treaty agreement to defend Poland in just such an eventuality —delivered a war ultimatum to Germany: leave Poland or else. Hitler’s reaction reveals his expectation that appeasement was indefinite. The German interpreter Paul Schmidt recalled what happened when he read the ultimatum to the Führer and his foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop: “When I finished, there was complete silence. Hitler sat immobile, gazing before him. After an interval that seemed an age, he turned to Ribbentrop, who had remained standing by the window. ‘What now?’ asked Hitler with a savage look.”

Could Hitler have won a one-front war against the Soviet Union had the Western powers turned a blind eye to his territorial ambitions? It’s possible, but not likely. That war did not hinge on the single conditional of merely being left alone by England and the United States. Many other conditions were at work throughout the new Nazi empire that was spread thin by the time Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, not the least of which was the Russian winter that would have bogged down the mighty German Wehrmacht no matter how many troops there would have been sans a Western front. Stalin had almost endless fodder to throw at the Nazis, and vast wastelands of space into which they could retreat until German supply lines were effectively dissipated and Nazi resources stretched too thin. Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812 under just such a counterfactual condition — at the height of his power, with virtually all of continental Europe either already conquered or under his control, and with the largest army ever assembled in European history — and failed nonetheless (422,000 men went in, less than 10,000 men came out). And Hitler was no Napoleon.

The notion that Hitler was a misunderstood peacemaker who simply wanted to create a Pax Europa is obscene. As he baldly explained in Mein Kampf: “This soil of Europe exists for the people which possesses the force to take it. The law of self-preservation will go into effect; and what is refused through amicable methods, it is up to the fist to take.” Hitler’s fist grabbed as much as it could on the appeasement platform of the British, and when they would appease no more, when they mobilized for war, when they lined up additional allies in the two mightiest empires on Earth — the United States and the Soviet Union (the latter having already been invaded by Nazi Germany), then and only then did Hitler decide that he needed some breathing room and make overtures for peace with the Western Allies. As he also proclaimed in Wagnerian tones in Mein Kampf: “The new Reich must again set itself on the march along the road of the Teutonic Knights of old, to obtain by the German sword sod for the German plow and daily bread for the nation.” Certainly Churchill was an ambitious and opportunist politician (is there any other kind?) who ascended to the Prime Ministership on the failures of appeasement, but there would have been no Chamberlainian appeasement process had there been no Hitlerian land grab.

Rewinding the tape of history to 1914 and replaying it with a few conditionals changed here or there is fraught with the same problems that the replay of 1939 does — too many variables to be meaningful. The revisionist counterfactual here also turns on whether or not Britain engages in a war with Germany, this time over the question of Belgium neutrality, which England promised by treaty to defend (just as she had with Poland a quarter century later). England, in fact, could not sacrifice Belgium to Germany for two very good reasons: one, the Treaty of London (signed by France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia, along with England) guaranteed protection of Belgium neutrality in 1839 after the Belgium revolution and the formation of a parliamentary democracy (so this was no Johnny-come-lately agreement); and two, Germany had expansionistic aspirations for empire that included not just African and Asian colonies, but European continental control that no self-respecting empire could allow. In fact, the British Prime Minister William Gladstone insisted on enforcing the treaty throughout the nineteenth century in order to prevent the Low Countries from being controlled by any one great power.

In Niall Ferguson’s counterfactual vision, England allows the Germans to march straight through Belgium and into France (following the famous Schlieffen Plan, “letting the last man on the right, brush the Channel with his sleeve”). A lightning war by Germany against France, says Ferguson, would have meant “the victorious Germans might have created a version of the European Union, eight decades ahead of schedule.” A European Union under Kaiser Wilhelm II? Unlikely. With his accession to power in 1888, Germany embarked on imperialistic empire building through territorial expansion and colonial building. The Kaiser wanted to match (and eventually succeed) Great Britain colony for colony and ship for ship in his foreign policy practice of gunboat diplomacy, which resulted in a financially ruinous naval arms race with Great Britain that led both countries inexorably toward conflict in 1914. Four years later Germany surrendered the German Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow, along with her nascent empire at Versailles.

The idea that upon the defeat of France and the solidification of his empire both at home and abroad the Kaiser would have cheerily handed over the reigns of power to the people and willingly turned his imperial empire into a liberal democracy with a common currency and open economic borders is an even more absurd “what if” counterfactual than Hitler’s Pax Europa.

The Aristocratic Romance
Most of this new revisionist counterfactual game playing is peripheral to the central issue of 20th century European history — race, ethnicity, and eugenics. There seems to be a longing for a return to more rigid top-down controls over the unwashed and ignorant masses, a reversion to a constitutional monarchy, perhaps, or a benevolent dictatorship. Let’s call it the Aristocratic Romance, where everyone knew their place in the rigid class system and those at the top called the shots. Of course those who desire the return to such a society always think of themselves as being in the chosen few in control. This is why, in contemplating new laws and decrees that place restrictions on people’s freedoms, that one imagine oneself as not being in the group most likely to benefit from such social changes.

The historical reality of such societies is that the vast majority of the people — the group you and I and the revisionists are most likely to be in — would be dirt poor, uneducated, with next to no power or liberty, toiling endless hours for the benefit of someone else. The Aristocratic Romance is about as realistic as the Society for Creative Anachronism, where people engage in fantasy role playing as knights and princesses, or the various reincarnation groups where everyone thinks that they were once Napoleon or Marie Antoinette, instead of the blacksmith or charwoman they most likely would have been. In any case, why restrict such retrograde fantasies to a century or two? Why not go all the way back to the Divine Right of Kings, and while we’re at it why not turn the clock back to the romance of the Middle Ages with Feudal lords and their castles and manors, and further back still to chiefs and chiefdoms, or even bands with their big man on top? Nice work if you can get it, which almost no one can.

The Aristocratic Romance, however risibly ridiculous it may seem, it still not the deeper problem with the new revisionism. The elephant in the room is racial and ethnic cleansing. There is no doubt that had Hitler been triumphant it would have meant the end of European Jewry (along with other “undesirables”), and perhaps the end of the Jewish people entirely. The Holocaust was not the unfortunate byproduct of war, or collateral damage amidst the larger carnage. Years before the war even started, Hitler went after the Jewish people with a vengeance. The Nuremberg racial laws of 1935 deprived the Jews of German citizenship and prohibited them to marry or have sexual relations with racially pure “Aryans.” In 1938 Jews were prohibited from practicing medicine, the law, and even from commerce, and in November of that year Kristallnacht left Jewish homes, synagogues, and especially businesses looted and smashed by Nazi thugs. It was just the beginning of the pathway to extermination that proceeded thusly:

Verbal abuse

Physical abuse

Marital restrictions

Physical isolation

Forced emigration

Forced deportation

Death through starvation and disease

Death through overwork

Death through extermination

Death through marches

As Hitler told his adjutants three days after the Wannsee Conference that outlined the policy against the Jews and coordinated the efforts of all the departments who were responsible for implementing the final solution: “The Jew must clear out of Europe. Otherwise no understanding will be possible between Europeans. It’s the Jew who prevents everything. I restrict myself to telling them they must go away. But if they refuse to go voluntarily, I see no other solution but extermination.” So much for the enlightened rule by educated, intelligent, and cultured European aristocrats.

Speaking of racial purity, it seems appropriate here to point out that very few of the Nazi leaders bore any resemblance whatsoever to the racial stereotype of the godlike Aryan Übermensch. Heinrich Himmler was squatty and nearsighted, Herman Goering was an obese glutton, Joseph Goebbels was diminutive and deformed, Albert Speer was balding, as was Adolf Eichmann, who also wore coke-bottle thick glasses, and even Hitler himself was a physical wreck. By their own criteria, all of them should have been sterilized before passing on their defective genes.

Extermination of masses of people racially or ethnically different from those in power is the logical outcome of the Aristocratic Romance and the belief that there is (or can be) such a thing as pure race and ethnicity. There is no such thing, of course, as modern genetic science has unequivocally demonstrated. Every person on Earth comes from a single population of a thousand to ten thousand individuals who migrated out of Africa and began to colonize Europe and the rest of the world sometime between 100,000 and 160,000 years ago. Black Australian aborigines, for example, are genetically more closely related to Southeast Asians than they are to black Africans because the route of migration was from Africa through Southeast Asia into Australia. The similarities between Australian aborigines and Africans, and the differences they show with Southeast Asians, are literally only skin deep. The principle holds for all peoples around the world, and our racial similarities vastly outweigh our racial differences.

We are one race, one folk, one people.

About the Author

Michael Shermer is publisher and editor-in-chief of Skeptic magazine, a quarterly periodical based in southern California. He is also executive director of the Skeptics society (www.skeptic.com), a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and an Adjuct Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University. He received his B.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University, M.A. in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate University (1991).

= = = =

Mark Weber responds:

A Defective Look at World War II

In a key paragraph of his article on “The New Revisionism,” Michael Shermer writes that killings of innocents by the Allies in World War II “stopped the moment the Allies won,” that the Allies “killed in order to stop the killing by the Axis, and for no other reason,” and that killings by the Axis “would have gone on and on and on were it not for the Allies.”

Let’s take these points in order:

In fact, killings and oppression by the Allies continued after the end of the war. In a 618-page book published last year, After the Reich: The Brutal History of Allied Occupation, British historian Giles MacDonogh details how some three million Germans, military and civilians, died unnecessarily after the formal end of hostilities.

Perhaps the most shocking outrage he recounts is the slaughter of a quarter of a million ethnic Germans in what is now the Czech Republic. The wretched survivors of this ethnic cleansing were pitched across the border, never to return to their homes. There were similar scenes of death and dispossession in Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia as the age-old German communities of those provinces were likewise brutally expunged.

Some thirty-forty thousand Germans died in American custody after US authorities had first stripped them of their status as prisoners of war, thereby unlawfully depriving them of their Geneva convention rights. Many more German prisoners perished after the end of the war in Yugoslavia, Poland and other countries, while millions toiled for years as slave laborers in Allied custody.

Germans were not the only victims of postwar Allied brutality. Across central and eastern Europe, the heavy hand of Soviet rule continued to take lives of Poles, Hungarians, Ukrainians, and people of other nationalities.

No sentence is more central to Shermer’s main thesis than his extraordinary assertion that “the Allies killed in order to stop the killing by the Axis, and for no other reason.”

Not even Winston Churchill dared to claim that Britain — the first of the “Big Three” Allied powers to enter the war — was waging war against Germany “to stop the killing.” In memorable speeches delivered shortly after becoming prime minister in 1940, he vowed that Britain would continue fighting to insure the survival of the British empire “and all that the British empire has stood for,” and for the “survival of Christian civilization.”

Sir Basil Liddell Hart, an outstanding twentieth-century British military historian, described the motives of the British and French leaders in going to war against Germany:

“The Western Allies [Britain and France] entered the war with a two-fold object. The immediate purpose was to fulfill their promise to preserve the independence of Poland. The ultimate purpose was to remove a potential menace to themselves, and thus ensure their own security. In the outcome, they failed in both purposes. Not only did they fail to prevent Poland from being overcome in the first place, and partitioned between Germany and Russia, but after six years of war which ended in apparent victory they were forced to acquiesce in Russia’s domination of Poland – abandoning their pledges to the Poles who had fought on their side.”

India – which in 1939 included what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh – did not go to war against Germany “in order to stop the killing by the Axis.” The millions who lived in the Indian subcontinent were thrust into war by declaration of the London-appointed Governor General, without even a pretense of consultation with the people involved. Additional millions in South Africa and other British possessions were similarly enlisted into World War II on the Allied side by imperial edict.

The Soviet Union certainly did not enter the 1939-1945 war “to stop the killing.” After the Red Army attacked Poland in September 1939, the Soviets incorporated more than half the territory of the Polish republic into the USSR. And when Soviet forces invaded Finland two months later, they hardly did so “to stop the killing.”

Nor did the United States enter the conflict for that reason. It formally entered the war only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, more than two years after the killing had commenced in Europe.

Shermer’s assertion that killings by the Axis “would have gone on and on and on were it not for the Allies” is “what if” history – no different than the speculative musings of Niall Ferguson and other dissident historians that he so sharply criticizes.

Shermer asserts that Hitler decided to “make overtures for peace with the Western Allies” only after the Soviet Union and the United States had entered the war. In fact, Hitler sought peace with Britain and France in October 1939, right after the end of the Polish campaign, as well as during the “phony war” period of late 1939 and early 1940. Then, after the fall of France in June 1940 — months before the USSR and the USA were in the war — Hitler made a renewed effort to conclude peace with Britain, most dramatically in his Reichstag address of July 19, 1940.

How sincere were these efforts? Hitler’s policies and private remarks, as well as his public statements, all indicate that his eagerness for peace was heartfelt. It was the Allies, not Hitler, who implacably rejected any possibility of a negotiated peace. The Allied leaders’ insistence on “unconditional surrender” needlessly prolonged the suffering, destruction and death, and encouraged Germans to fight to the bitter end.

Shermer concludes his essay with an emphatic assertion that humanity is “one race, one folk, one people.” This is nonsense. To claim that Japanese, Nigerians, Swedes and Mexicans all constitute “one people” and “one folk” is patently absurd.

Michael Shermer’s look at the “New Revisionism” is not a reasoned critique based on a sober and informed review of the historical record, but rather a defective, “politically correct” polemic that mirrors the social-political outlook that prevails in our society.

For Further Reading

James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950 (Toronto: Little, Brown and Co., 1997)

Nicholson Baker, Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008)

Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War’: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (New York: Crown, 2008)

William H. Chamberlain, America’s Second Crusade (Chicago: 1950)

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, Nemesis at Postsdam (Lincoln, Neb.: 1990)

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the Eastern European Germans, 1944-1950 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994)

John Dietrich, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (New York: Algora, 2002)

“Irving Describes His Austria Imprisonment at IHR Meeting” (IHR: June 2008)
( http://www.ihr.org/news/june08meeting_report.html )

Ralph Franklin Keeling, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War Against the German People (IHR, 1992). Originally published in Chicago in 1947.

Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2007)

Mark Weber, “New Book Details Mass Killings and Brutal Mistreatment of Germans at the End of World War Two” (IHR: Summer 2007)

( http://www.ihr.org/other/afterthereich072007.html )

Mark Weber, “The ‘Good War’ Myth of World War Two” (IHR: May 2008)
( http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html )

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Let’s say that the conversation below took place in 1940 and the kid in the scenario is ethnically German.

 

 

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

‘It is Zionist to think that American Jews have any connection to Israel’

on September 19, 2013 22

MJ Rosenberg posted the following story on his site, under the headline, “Jewish college kid beats the crap out of me on Israel.”

I was on the bus, returning to Washington from New York where I spent Yom Kippur.

I wouldn’t have talked to the kid next to me him except I could not find the outlet near my seat to charge my phone. He saw me struggling and helped me find it. (It was camouflaged under the seat in front of mine).  We started to talk and, after I told him I had been in Manhattan for the Jewish holiday, he said that he had been there for the same reason.

We talked about Georgetown and why he chose to go there and then he asked me what I did.

I told him “my story” which led him to say that he had no interest in the Middle East at all. His issue was income inequality in the United States.

Nonetheless, he was fairly knowledgeable about the Middle East. As the conversation went on, I discovered he was fairly knowledgeable about everything. Judging from his looks I’d have taken him for a jock or a preppy but he seemed more intellectual than either of those categories would suggest.

After telling him about my odyssey from AIPAC to critic of both AIPAC and Israel, he said this (paraphrase, obviously):

“I don’t get it. I’m Jewish but Israel is not important to me. I live here and I’d like to help out people who live here. 46 million Americans live in poverty and the situation keeps getting worse and worse. In fact, this country keeps getting worse.  Why should I worry about Israel?”

I explained why and he said:

“You may not realize it, but your premise is Zionist. You think Jews are, by definition, connected to Israel and have to care about it. But that isn’t who I am.  I’m an American kid whose religion is Jewish. Period. I have no obligation to Israel or to Palestinians because I feel no connection to either. I feel that as a privileged American I do have an obligation to Americans who aren’t privileged. I’m not saying I don’t care about people in other countries. I do.

Maybe some day I will think about Israel more than I do. But, just as likely, I’ll care about poverty in Latin America. As for your point that America is responsible for Palestinian suffering by sending aid to Israel, I agree. But how does that make the situation unique? As a taxpayer, actually  a future US taxpayer, I will be contributing to all kinds of terrible things everywhere. But my being Jewish has nothing to do with it. It’s not like I would ever take a Birthright trip! I don’t consider Israel to be my birthright.”

I asked him if he was typical of his friends. He said that he was.

“The Jewish kids who are deeply involved with Israel or Palestinians are sort of the same kids. They accept your premise that they are connected to that place. I don’t and most of my friends don’t either. I’d say we are post-national. America is our country because we live here. Period. It’s home. But then we travel, see the world, and want to help other people, at least some of us do. But Israel is not special to us and neither are Palestinians.

“You, MJ, are a Zionist. You think I have an obligation to try to stop the occupation because of my religion. To me, that is no different than telling me I have to support Netanyahu because of my religion. I see no difference. It is outmoded thinking.  Tell me why Israel and Palestine is any more my problem than that of any other American my age, or why I should think about it anymore than I think about the treatment of women in India. I have the right to choose the issues I care about and work to solve, don’t I? Or does my being Jewish mean I have my choice made for me? Show me where I’m wrong? I’m sure that if you were 20, you would feel the exact same way. Am I right?”

I had no response.

About M.J. Rosenberg

M.J. Rosenberg served as a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow with Media Matters Action Network, and prior to that worked on Capitol Hill for various Democratic members of the House and Senate for 15 years. He was also a Clinton political appointee at USAID. In the early 1980s, he was editor of AIPACs weekly newsletter Near East Report. From 1998-2009, he was director of policy at Israel Policy Forum. You can follow his work at mjayrosenberg.com.

{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. peterfeld says:

    That kid gives me hope for the future.

    • Krauss says:

      Time to be a debbie downer.

      The stats show overwhelmingly and the Jewish kids disconnected to Israel are also typically disconnected to Judaism. He may have been an outlier there. Many, if not most, are also children of intermarried families.

      Jews who have a relatively high engagement with Judaism are strongly Zionist. The Jewish Federations of North America have made a number of conclusive studies on this and they’ve been backed up by other organizations doing dispassionate work.

      Furthermore, while I like his attitude and acceptance as an American first and foremost, he must understand that things are done in his name passively and the American Jewish Establishment is doing things that he, with other young Jews, could organize to prevent. I understand he feels no connection to Israel but American Jews have a lot more sway over the Israeli government than is usually assumed. It’s American Jews who give protection to Israeli apartheid inside the U.S. discourse, and make significant organizational and donor support for candidates to be uncritical of Israeli apartheid. This could change if there was a strong grassroots efforts by Jews like him – and he’s probably the same age as me – instead of just washing his hands off it.

      That’s my attitude at least, you must engage in this even if you’re not a Zionist at heart because that’s where the majority Jewish concensus is and just turning a blind eye to it won’t affect change.

  2. radii says:

    this generational shift among young U.S. jews is what will save America from the zionists – they see through the propaganda and manipulations and certainly see clearly the deleterious effects upon U.S. foreign policy and jews everywhere … blowback is a bitch and the zionists in israel seem not to care

    a fundamental shift is occurring – power is going to flow from israel to U.S. jews and they will be in the driver’s seat regarding U.S.-israel relations and nearly all U.S. jews know that America has been very very good for jews and since WWII ended the following decades saw the most freedom, least persecution, most economic and political advancement and greatest mobility (except the muslim nations) for jews globally … and zionism is putting all those gains at risk for the regional superpower goals of core group of zionist-nationalists

    the settlers and hardcore fundamentalist types may have bred themselves into real power within israel, but they are pretty much despised by everyone else, including most American jews

  3. I think there is a valid counterargument — namely, that we can have a greater effect by focusing on issues where we can make more of a difference. Israel claims legitimacy by speaking and acting in the name of Jews, so Jews are in a position to weaken and undermine that claim by publicly declaring: “Not in my name!” If terrible things are being done in our name, isn’t it especially incumbent on us to protest? Of course, that includes terrible things being done in our name as Americans too. On other issues — the caste system in India, say — we are not in a position to have that sort of impact, either as Jews or as Americans.

    • American says:

      ‘If terrible things are being done in our name, isn’t it especially incumbent on us to protest”’….Stephen

      Well, yes and no.
      Since is being done in the name of Jews maybe yes.
      But then again if he’s just religious and doesnt have any kind of strong ethnic-people type identity you cant say because you are Jewish (religiously) you need to do something about this.
      There are Jews like that, the Jews I know are, they are religious and thats the extent of their Jewishness— they’ve never been to Israel, dont care about Israel, dont talk about Israel, if Israel comes up they act very ‘exasperated’ or dismissive of it, like they have no use for the whole Jewish State thing.

  4. just says:

    Wow.

    My goodness, one can only hope that all 20 yr olds become as evolved.

    “As for your point that America is responsible for Palestinian suffering by sending aid to Israel, I agree. But how does that make the situation unique? As a taxpayer, actually a future US taxpayer, I will be contributing to all kinds of terrible things everywhere. But my being Jewish has nothing to do with it. It’s not like I would ever take a Birthright trip! I don’t consider Israel to be my birthright.””

    It’s a bit more than aid, but it’s nevertheless refreshing to see this new way of thinking wrt Israel. I think it’s up to us older folks to make the justice happen……… if we lead they will follow.

    “I have the right to choose the issues I care about and work to solve, don’t I? Or does my being Jewish mean I have my choice made for me? Show me where I’m wrong?”

    He’s right.

    • Les says:

      How liberating it must be to accept that being Jewish is not a burden.

      • bilal a says:

        This is opportunistic and quite cynical , ‘I’m not responsible for what the organized pan zionist-jewish community does, but I’ll take all the networking benefits. Thanks.’

        seems a rehearsed frat boy rebuttal.

        • tokyobk says:

          bilial, which networking benefits would those be and why do you assume he is taking advantage of them?

          He goes to a Catholic founded university and, frankly, he is riding the bus between cities which is a perfectly normal thing to do but not exactly a privileged class marker.

    • seafoid says:

      “One can only hope that all 20 yr olds become as evolved.”

      Most of them won’t, I bet. The guy is an intellectual. He probably couldn’t care less about Miley Cyrus or tribal loyalties or American exceptionalism or Jewish genius . Every society has these kinds of people in small numbers.

      “One way of looking at the history of the human group is that it has been a continuing struggle against the veneration of “crap.”―Neil Postman

      And Zionism is Jewish crap par excellence

  5. I endorse the argumnets offered by this young kid. I hope he raises same objection to those office seekers ( mayoral,council, legislative and presidential ) when they come out portraying themselves as Israeli supporters or want bail out Isreal when the city he lives in needs bail out .

  6. i agree w/the kid and i’ve made the same argument in these comment threads. israel is an american problem, not an exclusively jewish problem, nor should it fall to american jews to fix this problem. we, americans, made it happen, we allowed it to happen, we supported it every step of the way and as a result we should all fix it. anyone sitting around blaming american jews and expecting them to fix it is a fool.

  7. eljay says:

    You think Jews are, by definition, connected to Israel and have to care about it. But that isn’t who I am. I’m an American kid whose religion is Jewish. Period. I have no obligation to Israel or to Palestinians because I feel no connection to either. I feel that as a privileged American I do have an obligation to Americans who aren’t privileged. I’m not saying I don’t care about people in other countries. I do.
    . . .

    America is our country because we live here. Period. It’s home.

    Beautiful!

  8. For Jews whose Yom Kippur doesn’t involve reading Jewish texts or only select texts, but not those in the prayer book, the above makes sense. Certainly one can repent and fast in order to get closer to the creator and not care about Jews in Israel more than one cares about anyone else anywhere else on the globe. (There is a concept regarding poverty that explicitly states: The poor of your city have priority over the poor of other cities. So in that regard the kid is right and MJ’s lack of an answer is right too.)

    But if one reads the prayer book and takes the words seriously, then the kid’s apathy towards the fate of the Jews of Israel is wrong. Concern for peace for Israel, concern for fellow Jews, pervade the daily prayers of Jews and certainly are very present in the prayers of Yom Kippur as well. The final line of the Yom Kippur prayer is “Next Year in Jerusalem”. Of course we can do the limbo and interpret the words as meaningless and Jerusalem as an idea rather than a place in the here and now, or in the here and soon (next year), but that does not change the facts. The Jewish religion is filled with constant impulses (commands and prayers) to concern oneself with the fate of one’s fellow Jews. (Of course I am familiar with the prayer book used for thousands of years rather than the Reform prayer book of much shorter duration. Maybe the Reform skip the line “Next year in Jerusalem” or translate it into meaninglessness. Maybe the Reform have deracinated the Yom Kippur prayers. I doubt that the text of the Reform prayer book is as deracinated as this kid makes it out to be.) I think the kid really doesn’t read the prayers of Yom Kippur, as written in the prayer book, with any degree of seriousness other than aloofness and apathy. I am proud that he is devoted to helping the poor of his city. That is great. And Isaiah and many of those other ancient Israelite holy men always said that morality is more important than ritual and to a degree, far away Jews are more a ritualistic “burden” “responsibility” “connection” rather than a moral one. But to pretend that Judaism says nothing about concern for other Jews who live far away, is to pretend that Judaism was invented 200 years ago in post Mendelssohn Germany. There is plenty in Judaism that can help the world or the individual even if it is denuded of its “national” (concern for fellow coreligionist) content. But I would argue that this is a form of post Judaism and not Judaism itself. Apathy towards the Jews of Israel is not a Jewish concept.

    Marc Ellis has the self regard or self confidence to label his rejection of Zionism and the Zionism of the mainstream (older) Judaisms, as Jews of Conscience. But now we have a new category: Jews of Apathy. Phil Weiss promotes it by his: hopefully soon the Jews in America will treat the Jews of Israel as they deserve to be treated: as foreign yokels and now we have MJ Rosenburg selling the same “Jews of Apathy” as the new paradigm that will save Judaism from Zionism.

    • Byzantium says:

      Hi Yonah

      I actually have to disagree with you a bit. The modern prayer books used in the Reform movement were developed after the movement’s (institutional) turn to Zionism and thus are more likely to be pro-Zionist (i.e. viewing Jerusalem literally and so on). The Reform liturgy you are thinking of probably dates from the 1800s.

      As far as the traditional Orthodox liturgy goes, this is actually inherently anti-Zionist. As you know, the text dates from long before the creation of the State of Israel and in no way refers to it or anything like it. References to Israel usually mean “k’lal yisrael” or the Jewish people rather than a country, and while the references to Jerusalem indeed indicate the actual city, its re-occupation by Jews according to Orthodox tradition could only be done as part of a larger messianic redemption. Thus “next year in Jerusalem” expresses a wish for the coming of the messiah and the refounding of the ancient kingdom of David, not the creation of a military state by a group of atheist Europeans.

      It is exactly this conflation of Judaism and Zionism that is the problem. By all means be a Zionist if you must, but keep religion out of it.

  9. RoHa says:

    “I live here and I’d like to help out people who live here. 46 million Americans live in poverty and the situation keeps getting worse and worse. In fact, this country keeps getting worse. Why should I worry about Israel?”

    “You think Jews are, by definition, connected to Israel and have to care about it. But that isn’t who I am. I’m an American kid whose religion is Jewish. Period. ”

    “America is our country because we live here. Period. It’s home. ”

    Horrors! An American caring about America! This kid is in need of some serious brainwashing.

  10. Elliot says:

    After telling him about my odyssey from AIPAC to critic of both AIPAC and Israel, he said this (paraphrase, obviously):

    “I don’t get it. I’m Jewish but Israel is not important to me.

    So, MJ Rosenberg told his story from AIPAC staffer to AIPAC critic and this bright, young man got defensive. Why? MJ didn’t start by telling him he expected others to have the same commitment that comes from his own personal history.

    OTOH, I disagree with Stephen’s conclusion that, just because, as a Jew, one has a bigger voice on Israel than elsewhere, that one should necessarily use that voice. Since there are only so many hours in the day and there are so many pressing issues (as the young man noted), that cannot be the only criterion.

    You may not realize it, but your premise is Zionist. You think Jews are, by definition, connected to Israel and have to care about it

    For a Jew to care about Israel is to be Zionist?! This is bizarre.
    Caring about other Jews is written into Jewish religious and cultural practice. (e.g. historical religious obligations of pilgrimage, half shekel donation etc. current standard Jewish practice of recognizing and praying for the Land of Israel throughout liturgy, many other details of religious practice + many commandments related to being responsible for the actions of other Jews)

    Specifically, Jews outside the Land of Israel (to use the Jewish term) cared about Jews in the Land of Israel since the birth of Judaism, long, long before Zionism came on the scene. Does Zionism negate all of Jewish history? That, in itself, is a Zionist argument!

    Taking this a step further, for those who agree that a Jew need not care about Israel, how about a Jew who is involved in Jewish organizations and Jewish politics, such as a Jewish community leader or a rabbi? Being Jewish in America is so wrapped up with being pro-Israel that, unless you actively oppose it, you will be taken as a supporter. And if you allow that perception to go unchallenged, then you actually are a supporter.

    • yrn says:

      That’s it so
      All of you Jews who care about Israel are Zionist.
      And if you don’t care about Israel, you don’t care about the Jews in Israel, but as
      “Caring about other Jews is written into Jewish religious and cultural practice. ”
      it makes you a bad Jew.

  11. Clif Brown says:

    “I am an American who happens to be Jewish, why should I care about Israel?” A breathtakingly simplistic view!

    Let’s drop Judaism entirely and put it this way…

    I am an American, why should I care about Israel?

    Well, the body of politicians who claim to represent Americans from the President on down cannot stop falling all over itself giving money to Israel, protecting Israel from any sanctions by the UN, conducting a charade diplomacy that covers for continued settlements that violate one of a body of international laws that the US claims to stand for in the world.

    In short, the promotion and protection of Israel is American political bedrock, the special (truly, as in bizarre) relationship, unless Americans express themselves to the contrary. We who know what is going on from having been there or who have investigated the situation deeply, MUST speak out precisely because we are Americans!

    Now let’s bring Judaism back into it.

    Near where I live are many many synagogues, where I see “We Stand With Israel” Note this statement is not conditional, and it is “We”, not “Some of Us”.

    While it is true that Jews are all over the map regarding religion, it is a fair statement to say Jews support Israel in that same way that one could say, if most every church openly displayed a sign, “We Stand with Italy” that Christians support Italy.

    In that case, it would be particularly important for Christians of any and all denominations who aren’t Italophiles to speak out.

    Netanyuhu and company have hijacked a religion, as terrorists might hijack an airliner. But Jews, unlike plane passengers, are free to, and must, speak out to put the lie to what Netanyahu continually spouts.

    The young bus rider is doubly culpable because he is idly putting aside both the responsibility of being a Jew, and that of being an American to be silent on Israel. How can he claim both attributes when he nullifies them regarding a project that is specifically Jewish and American?

  12. Shmuel says:

    You, MJ, are a Zionist. You think I have an obligation to try to stop the occupation because of my religion. To me, that is no different than telling me I have to support Netanyahu because of my religion. I see no difference.

    In principle, I agree with this. I think it is wrong to expect individual Jews take an interest in injustice in Palestine simply because they are Jews.

    On the other hand, is it possible to participate in Jewish life in the US (or anywhere else, for that matter) today, without coming across the issue in one form or another at every turn? And if you come across active support, how can you be indifferent (turning a blind eye is not an option in Jewish tradition)?

    The “kid” had just been to a synagogue service on the holiest (and best-attended) day of the year. Was Israel not mentioned at all? Did he just ignore that bit? Did he push the Israel appeal card to one side? Walk out during the sermon? Take a nap during the Prayer for the Welfare of the State of Israel? Not notice the Israeli flag near the Ark?

    OK, no one else can expect him to take in an interest in I/P just because he’s Jewish, but what should he expect from himself?

  13. pabelmont says:

    I am not religious, not a religious Jew. So I don’t really know what it means to be a religious Jew — how many flavors there are of Jewish religiosity. My sense is that if you go into almost any synagogue in America, you will be bombarded with pro-Israel (pro-AIPAC) messages. Perhaps I’m wrong. But I remember going to a synagogue for what might hacve been a purely religious matter, the bar mitzva of the son of an orthodox Jewish mother who was profoundly pro-Palestinian — and she and I (and my Palestinian wife) and presumably her son had to suffer through a measure of pro-Israel speech in the course of that bar mitzva ceremony.

    Thus, in participating in synagogue activities at all, one may well (at least passively) participate in the propaganda and political activities of AIPAC-Israel, That is to say, one may be, in a sense, passively (or more than passively) involved, and (somehow) responsible.

    I always thought the reason for people who called themselves Jews to be pro human rights and anti-occupation, anti-settlements, was to attemopt to re-establish the “good name” of the “Jewish people” (even though I stoutly deny there is any such thing as “the Jewish People”. (Go figure.)

    This kid seems to be saying, and it makes a lot of sense, “I am not my brother’s keeper.”

  14. Kathleen says:

    The thing I have found over at least three decades of being aware of the critical situation between Palestinians and Israeli’s is that the majority of cultural Jews I know (few are really religious) have an automatic knee jerk reaction when it comes to Israel. Almost go blind at the mention of the conflict. Many know little to nothing about what has and continues to go on and yet will often say “both sides are equally wrong.” Many of these same individuals had strong reactions to apartheid in S Africa, civil rights issues in the U.S. etc but when it comes to Israel their minds get terribly foggy and they have a knee jerk reaction. They do not want information, or facts.
    “Why is Israel any more my problem than” women’s rights in India. Uh that would be because your government gives this small country a disproportionate amount of U.S. foreign aid, the support of Israel no matter what they do makes our country less safe, and it is one of the three top reasons as to why people in that region of the world hate the U.S. That is why
    Wonder if this young man cares about how much money the U.S. gives Israel?

Aside | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Jewish College Kid On Bus On Why Israel Is Irrelevant To Most Young Jews

Jewish College Kid On Bus On Why Israel Is Irrelevant To Most Young Jews.

- – -

Recast that conversation.

I personally hate this practice because I think the German people have been the victims of a generations-long injustice, but just for the sake of making a point, Rosenberg should substitute another value for the “Jewish college kid” —

Make the same dialog come out of the mouth of a German kid. Say in 1958 or 1965. THEN what other insights would come to mind? Would it occur to you to think that the GERMAN kid is trying to distance himself from the (alleged) crimes of Germany that he is perforce associated with?

Would he be trying to slip out from under the burden of guilt?

That’s what I think the Jewish kid on the bus is all about.

And the Georgetown thing — Robert Lieber worked a guilt trip on the Jesuits to force a Jewish studies center onto the campus. Jews were afraid that Arabs and Palestinians were getting to much interest and scholarly attention, so in true spoiled-rotten fashion, Lieber got a group together, they whined and wheedled and flashed some money, and now zionists can operate out of a Jesuit, Roman Catholic enclave.

How many Centers for Roman Catholic Intellectual History are hosted at Hebrew University?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Zionist Delusion about Jewish Brilliance — belied by the facts

 

An Israeli settler says Obama demands Palestine deal for Iran

on September 18, 2013

He shook his head confidently. The Jewish people need a state. We have demonstrated that, with out incredible achievements. This is the Jewish state. We have one sliver of land. There are 350 million Arabs around us and we are just 7 million.

His view is what you always get to in Israel: This is Jewish land. All the liberal talk is just a charade, a Mizrahi friend has said to me; to be Israeli is to be rightwing.

The settler spoke of Jewish predestination.

“Jewish predestination.”  Is this racist?  Recall in one of the ‘Jewish Intellectual History’ programs — it is an article of faith in Judaism that ONLY persons BORN JEWISH — i.e. biological Jews — can be ‘prophets’ .  In other words, profound spiritual insights are biologically transmitted.  That’s what that means.  Only Jews can have this biological connection to Yahweh, and Yahweh is imposed on ALL people throughout the world, BY JEWS, who see non-Jews as god’s instruments to actuate Jewish choseness — see Abba Eban in “Heritage, Civilization and the Jews” on this point:  this is how Jews define the universality of their god.

 

Look at all the Nobel Prizes, he said. Mitt Romney was absolutely right when he spoke of Jews’ cultural and economic superiority. This is the most inventive, vital society anywhere. If you have an idea, you can find someone who can execute it. We are the most creative country in the world. We’re the only people to revive an ancient language. Really, it’s incredible.

“Incredible” is the operative word.In a 2007 AIPAC conference, http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Zion (Israel and Zionism, Mar 12, 2007, “The Changing Face of Israel:  Today’s Zionist Leaders.” 

Mr. Horvitz moderated the panel which focused on Israeli domestic and foreign policies, political debate among Israeli leaders, recent reaction to conflict with Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, and the future of Israeli society.

Among the points raised were that:

1. Israel was struggling economically in the 1980s

2. The migration of Russians to Israel (many of them were/are not Jewish) was and is a tremendous boost to Israel’s economy; it is the basis of Israel’s present technological success.  The value of the education that those Russian immigrants brought to Israel is between $4 and $5 billion.  Russian taxpayers funded the boon that Israel is enjoying.

3. The conferees also observed that Israel’s education system, from bottom to top, is NOT preparing students to perpetuate the advances that Russian immigrants brought to Israel. Furthermore, many Russians in Israel disdain assimilation to Israeli culture; they do not learn Hebrew.

 

Obama had tried to acknowledge the Israeli predestination in his way, in his Jerusalem speech last March.

while Jews achieved extraordinary success in many parts of the world, the dream of true freedom finally found its full expression in the Zionist idea — to be a free people in your homeland.

 

re Jewish Nobel prizes — the great majority of Jewish Nobel laureates have European names, and the vast majority of them were educated in Russian, German, and American universities.  Furthermore, Jews point to Nobel prizes as a standard because they know how to influence the prize grantors.  i.e. the comment by the Moderator at the Penn State Symposium — “I had lunch with the head of Nobel Prize Committee —”  How many Black leaders, or Hispanic leaders, have lunch with the head of the Nobel Prize committee?  This is typical Jewish networking; most other ethnic groups don’t operate this way. Think about how we treated Dan ….

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

United States as Safe Haven for Israelis and Jews

‘J Street’ is quick to pounce on NYT piece shrugging off end of Jewish state

on September 17, 2013 
The most remarkable theme running through the comments is that Jews will flee Israel’ that Jews feel safer in the US; that the US will not devolve into antisemitism:  “The US is not like Germany.”
see below.
 
This is the danger of treating ‘Jewish victimhood’ as an “uncaused cause” — the analysis does not include all of the factors that should be considered.
 
Phil Weiss repeatedly has said that “Jews are the new elite in the US;”  he revels in having displaced WASPs, whom he was raised to hate.
In his  revelry that Jews are now in charge, Weiss fails to notice that the US is in a morass like no other time:  it is floundering financially, employment-wise, culturally, spiritually; community-wise, and in its international moral standing.  US government is totally corrupted by zionists and zionism.  The institutions that had provided community coherence — church, school, local business — have all been subverted by zionists.
 
I argue that this is the same pattern that dominated Weimar Germany — especially, but corrosive Jewish influence began to be felt in Germany in the years immediately after the Franco-Prussian war — see “Jews in Germany,” in Eclectic magazine, 1881. 
 
Germans did not turn against Jews because “Hitler was evil;” — Hitler actually quelled the violence against Jews that welled up from among the populace: it was not a top-down phenomenon. 
 
In the US, Hollywood has become the national religion and, as “An Empire of Their Own” describes,  the Jewish studio directors  defined the “American dream” /American religion in terms of Eastern European Jewish ethos — and thuggery.  That popular culture completely dominates the United States — just as Benj. Netanyahu suggested beaming Hollywood programming into Iran to “subvert” their young people.
 
The United States has no myths of its own, no national epic, as Iran has Shahnameh.  The US is like Britain:  shackled to the Bible and thinking, erroneously, that that is the foundation of American culture.
 
America WILL turn against Jews — it seems inevitable to me.  Jews have dislocated an enormous portion of American culture and subverted American values and moral thinking about themselves.  The sedulous ape is waking up, and discovering that he has been made the fool, abused, exploited; made to give his blood and treasure for Israel.  Does Phil truly believe that Jews will get away with that?  That is the danger of having gotten away with oppression of GERMANs, against which GERMANS rebelled in 1933 — in a controlled way.
 
I’m not certain the US can accomplish what Hitler did: a legitimized extrication of malignant influences on German culture.  Recall that Hitler said it is better to go to the pain of eradicating the harmful influence sooner, when the subversion has not yet penetrated deeply into two and three generations.  When that happens, when the subversion has gone on for so many years that there is no cultural memory of a life OTHER than a zionized way of being, then, Hitler wrote, it may be impossible to pull the culture back.
 
Phil simply does not recognize the danger potentially confronting Jews. 
 
He, and several of the commenters — and Marc Ellis — also fail utterly to consider the response of Americans to the notion that Israeli Jews would flee to the United States if they fubar Israel so badly that it is hellish.  Does Phil think the wishes of the American people are not worth worrying about; that the US is theirs for the taking:  having despoiled the lands of another, they will flee to another safe haven, in the same way that Brandeis told Jews to get out of Germany after they had screwed up Weimar.
 
A few of the comments that showed the “Jews are comfortable in the US;” “Israelis will flee to US,”  “there will be no antisemitism in US” themes:
 
 

Ian Lustick’s landmark argument for alternatives to the two-state solution in the Times Sunday, which expressed indifference about the demise of the “Zionist project,” elicited a sharp response from Zionists in the Times letters page today. One is from the liberal Zionist lobbying group J Street, which is alarmed that the Times would give any credit to a one-state outcome.

Writes Alan Elsner, the group’s vice president:

The point of the two-state solution is to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and to fulfill the Palestinian right to self-determination…

The main problem with Professor Lustick’s analysis is that it is a recipe for permanent conflict. Both Israelis and Palestinians want to fulfill their national aspirations in their own country. Neither will be satisfied with less.

consider this comment:

“Nevada Ned says:
September 17, 2013 at 11:49 am

About 1% of US Jews have moved to Israel permanently. What’s stopping the other 99%? They don’t want to ! Clearly, some of the other 99% are sympathetic to the Israeli cause, but they won’t move to Israel. Because they’re better off here in the US.

Today’s conditions in the US are as different as they could possibly be with the European society in which Zionism emerged. US Jews are succeeding in US society, largely unaffected by a rapidly decreasing anti-Semitism, and intermarrying Gentiles. Not surprisingly, the younger generation is increasingly indifferent to Israel.

Put it another way: if US Jews were forced to move to Israel, whether they wanted to or not, would they (1) rejoice? (2) oppose it tooth and nail?
The answer is (2). “

Nevada Ned is not paying attention: Jews in Germany — and in other places in Europe as well as USA in inter-war period — were hated NOT “just because they were Jews” but because many people in those places were on the scene and observed that Jews were major beneficiaries of WWI: they were prominent among the profiteers; they were actors on both — really, three or even four– sides of the conflict — Germany, Britain, Ottoman Empire/Palestine, and USA; they were the sole winners of the war, while every other nation involved lost more or less grievously.

Today, more and more people on three continents — USA, Europe including Russia, and Asia — recognize that Israel is STILL the cause of their grief and dispossession and failure to achieve national sovereignty.

People are not as dumb as stiff-necked zionists choose to believe. Eventually, the pot will come to a boil and the US will no longer be quite so willing to be dominated by those “Jewish elites” that Phil Weiss is so proud to have in charge.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

To Jay — re Breitman and Lichtman Sept 16 2013 DRAFT DRAFT

Two points that I think the quoted passage demonstrates are

1. how emotional language is used with, seemingly, the deliberate attempt to impair the ability to critically analyze the situation; and

2. the chronological failure of the argument. 

A third point that I think is important is to be able to discuss Hitler and Nazism dispassionately, objectively, rationally:  R. H. S. Stolfi makes this argument in “Hitler:  Beyond Evil and Tyranny.”  (an excerpt from this review is quoted below http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2090&zenid=fsuii65tef0lno68hr968bpm76 ).   Stolfi, professor at U S Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, says that it is grossly inadequate to  say that “Hitler was evil” and end the conversation; Hitler must be studied in the same way as Caesar and Napoleon are studied — for their accomplishments and their flaws, and in their context.  I would add that to do anything less is to learn or teach a distorted history, which can only result in a flawed analysis producing a flawed prescription with, possibly — demonstrably — tragic outcomes.

 

wrt #1:  I showed only a piece of the “emotional” language, but what I had in mind was the opening sentence of Breitman & Lichtman’s book, which is the sentence that came immediately before the quoted passage.

 

Here is that sentence:

 

“During World War II, the Nazis and their collaborators shot, gassed, starved, and worked to death some six million Jewish men, women, and children in order to destroy the biological substance of the Jews

 

“in order to destroy the biological substance of the Jews.”

 

The authors chose to introduce their book, their thesis, their argument, with that language and image.

 

Which is absurd, and demonstrably false.

 

It seems as if they wanted to ‘set’ the reader’s emotional receptors at the highest possible level: it is extremely difficult to counter such a hyper-emotional charge through the use of mere reason. The areas of the brain that are involved have a hard time speaking to each other in such a state of excitement.

 

 

 

But the statement, to “destroy the biological substance of the Jews.”

The image it summons is of Dr. Strangelove raving as he rides off straddling a torpedo.

 

What were the authors thinking — that their readers are stupid? What were they trying to accomplish?  Why did they write this book, and compose as its opening sentence that unhinged statement?

 

How can a rational person square that statement by Breitman and Lichtman with THIS information from Francis Nicosia’s “Zionism and Antisemitism in Nazi Germany” –

 

“[For many years, from before the turn of the century,] Jews had settled in Ottoman Palestine legally and illegally.  Moreover, immigration remained a source of friction between the Zionist movement and British authorities in Palestine during the entire Mandate period following the First World War. *  The Zionists insisted on the right of the Jewish people to unlimited immigration into Palestine, while the British imposed restrictions on Jewish immigration as they sought to be responsive simultaneously to both Arab opinion and to their commitment to the Jewish National Home.  Since the outbreak of the Arab revolt in Palestine in 1936, British authorities had imposed stricter limits on Jewish immigration into Palestine. *  This posed a problem for the SD as it sought to step up the movement of Jews from Central Europe to Palestine in 1938 and 1939.  In 1937, a group of . . .Haganeh officials in Palestine created the Mossad al aliyah Bet (Committee for Illegal Immigration); later that year, the Mossad set up a headquarters in Paris . . .to illegally move Jews from Europe into Palestine.  They were able to operate autonomously in Central Europe but they had little choice but to operate in conjunction with Nazi authorities in the Greater German Reich. 

“Mossad agents were assigned to Berlin and Vienna in 1938 with instructions to establish a working relationship with the SC and the Gestapo in order to facilitate the clandestine movement of Jews from Central Europe to Palestine. . . .Their tasks included …selecting Jews willing to leave via the illegal route, and generally cooperating with Nazi authorities without whom there could be no movement of Jews, legal or illegal, to Palestine. A former Mossad agent wrote:

          In pre-war Germany, these operations were neither illegal nor secret.  The Gestapo office directly across the street from ours knew exactly where we were and what we were doing.  The         illegality began only at the shores of Palestine with the British blockade.”  p. 272

 

Thus, it is irrational to conclude that Nazis sought to “destroy the biological substance of the Jews” when they were cooperating with zionist agents who were carrying out Louis Brandeis’s diktat to remove German Jews from Germany, thence to illegal passage into the “safe haven” for Jews, Palestine, or to extraordinarily privileged passage to the U.S.A.

 

*This is highly significant.  Leonard Stein, Weizmann’s biographer, writes of that man’s extraordinary efforts to corner Balfour into giving Palestine to Jews — in exchange for Weizmann’s assistance in maintaining the Allied blockade on Germany that cost the lives of 800,000 German civilians.

Weizmann’s technique to gain Balfour’s favor was guilt:  he identified Balfour as an anti-semite and played upon that ‘guilt and shame.’  see “The Commentary Reader,” Norman Podhoretz, ed., 1966; pp. 274- )

 

However, by the war’s end (the Great War), the British, and Balfour, were eager to sever their relationship with zionists.  Christopher O’Sullivan opens his book, “FDR and the End of Empire,” ( see  http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FDRand )  with this quotation: 

 

Lord Balfour had hardly been aware of the existence of the Arabs, but he suddenly became acutely conscious of their existence when he went to Damascus in 1922 and they stoned him in the streets!

-Sir Maurice Peterson, speaking to a State Department Delegation, Apr 1944[1]

 

** This point is important in the context of, i.e. Lynne Olson’s theses in “Those Angry Days,” the efforts that were made to induce the American people to wage war on Germany to “save Britain.”   It is plausible that zionists were pressuring Britain to wage war on Germany, and also pressuring FDR to wage war on Germany.  Thus, they would have been pressuring Churchill to pressure FDR to wage war on Germany.  The British decision to ally with Poland may well have been the result of zionist pressure on the British.


[1] Research

 

 

 

 

 

As to the chronology connundrum –

 

Yes, there was a war, in which Jews were shot, starved, forced into labor camps; the gassed part is arguable.

There was a war.

That is what happens in wars.

 

WHEN did this “shooting, starving, labor camping” happen?

 

By the author’s own statements, from 1933 until late 1938, Nazis quelled physical violence against Jews.  True, they “discriminated” against Jews, but that is not the same as “shooting, starving” etc.

 

Yet by Feb. 14, 1933, Louis Brandeis had decreed that “All Jews must leave Germany,” and as the newspapers give evidence, on March 24, 1933, “Judea Declared War on Germany.”

 

Did Brandeis and the zionists responsible for prosecuting the economic war on Germany have some special gift of prophecy that eleven years*** down the road it would be discovered that Auschwitz was more than a labor camp? 

 

Check these dates: 

 

***According to a paper by Rafael Medoff for the Wyman Institute, on June 11, 1944 (11 years after the 1933 Jewish declaration of war on Germany), the Jewish Agency Executive in Palestine, headed by David Ben Gurion, considered whether they should ask the Allies to bomb Auschwitz.  On that date in 1944, the JAE “believed that Auschwitz was a labor camp” and it was the consensus agreement of JAE that they “must not be responsible for the bombing death of a single Jewish person.”  http://wymaninstitute.org/special-reports/WymanAuschwitzReport2012.pdf

That is another highly significant statement:  “not a single Jew” must suffer being bombed to death in 1944.

 

On May 11, 1940, Churchill

**** re the “gassing” charge in Breitman & Lichtman’s statement:  John Kerry echoed the claim, adding Assad to the “two other dictators who used chemical weapons — Hitler and Saddam.” 

We know that Saddam used chemical weapons:  American companies sold 650,000 tons of chemical precursors to Saddam between 1980 and 1988; and an estimated 50,000 Iranians still live with the debilitating effects of having been attacked with chemical weapons by Saddam’s forces, who relied on US intelligence to target and drop their deadly chemicals.

 

But the case against Hitler is not so clear-cut.

 

For one thing, no less a source than Sidney Hook, in a round table discussion moderated by Norman Podhoretz, declared that:

 

“On the eve of the Second World War it was widely predicted that a world war would lead to the end of all civilization because of the use of poison gas.  . . .Despite these predictions, two things happened.  Those who felt that the values of the West were worth preserving against the onslaught of fascism took the risk of war, despite the fact that they weren’t sure that gas warfare wouldn’t bring an end to mankind.  And secondly, to the surprise of many, gas warfare was not used.  Hitler was a madman; yet this madman realized that if he used gas he would provoke reprisals which would mean the end of the national existence of Germany.”  [The Commentary Reader, p. 160]

 

This statement requires extensive unpacking.

1. Lynne Olson does not raise the “gas will destroy civilization” argument

2. As R H S Stolfi pointed out, the fact that Hitler was gassed and saw so many of his fellow soldiers die of gas bombing in the Great War, rather militates against the expectation that Hitler would use gas himself. 

3. Rather like the Iranians — fellow ‘Aryans,’ who, when they were gassed by American-supplied and assisted Saddam, DID NOT retaliate with chemical weapons.

4. But Hook’s argument rings hollow, even as it indicts the Allies: No, Hitler did NOT use chemical weapons, but his country was still destroyed — by Allies who formed the intention to used chemical weapons — firebombing — against German civilians, early in 1940.  Another participant in the Podhoretz round table discussion, historian H. Stuart Hughes, son of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes,

Kerry wants listeners to believe that the “chemical weapon” that Hitler used was Zykon-B, and that he used it to gas Jews in places such as Auschwitz.  However, a number of factors suggest that the notion that Jews were gassed to death was contrived by propagandists.  Ewan Montagu, who is Jewish, was head of a British office for dirty tricks; he engineered “Operation Mincemeat,” by which the Germans were intended to be deceived as to the location of the Allied landing on Sicily.  Ewan’s younger brother, ____, was a Communist sympathizer and gadabout.  His travels took him to the United States, where he spent some time with Alfred Hitchcock and Charlie Chaplin.  He taught Chaplin to curse in Russian. 

Shortly after Montagu’s trip to California, late in 1939 Chaplin released “The Great Dictator.”  Most people recall an ethereal scene in “Dictator” when the Hitler-character artfully toggles a large ball; it is a beautifully choreographed scene. 

But another intriguing scene in “Dictator” has one of the young Jewish characters say to his companions, “Yes, they’re gassing us.  Pffft Pffft.” 

This is in 1939.

Remember:  Medoff said that on June 11, 1944, the JAE believed that Auschwitz was just a labor camp.  Not a place where Jews were being gassed.

Once again, knowledge of things that did not occur until many years later are set in an earlier time frame; Jews charged that they were victims nearly five years before even their own leadership claimed to have  knowledge of the alleged evil act.

 

Additional studies have been made of the architecture and the remains at the prison camps where gas chambers have been said to have been used, and no conclusive proof of the use of Zykon B to KILL human beings has been produced.  It is as certain that Hitler gassed Jews as it is that Assad gassed his own people.

 

But yet another element must be factored into the equation.

By June 11, 1944, when the JAE declared that is would NOT be responsible for the “bombing death of a single Jew,” Allied forces had already dropped millions of tons of firebombs on German civilians. 

A brief chronology of the Allied firebombing campaign against the German people

 

 

 

Germans offered peace, to Churchill, but Churchill insisted on war.

Jews declared an economic war on Germany.

Hitler warned Jews and “international financiers” that <b>IF</b> they pursued a “FINANCIAL” war against Germany, then Germany would retaliate — with all options on the table — kinda like “if Assad does not step down, US will shoot cruise missiles at Syrian citizens & infrastructure”  A threat to warn of a contingency.

 

+ + +

 

“. . .the man at the center of so much study and evil circumstance remains elusive. For some he was evil personified, a diabolical tyrant driven by a lust for power; for others he was a banal demagogue, an opportunist with talent for propaganda and speech-making but little more than an empty vessel embodying the disappointments of a defeated Germany. Though we know many facts about Hitler, no coherent picture of his character or personality emerges. Instead, we are left with a cardboard cutout of an evil dictator whom in the end no one can really explain.

“In this new biography of Hitler, historian R.H.S. Stolfi reinterprets the known facts about the Nazi fuehrer to construct a convincing, realistic portrait of the man. In place of the hollow shell whom others have made into an icon of evil, Stolfi sees a complex, nuanced personality. He tells the story of Hitler, starting with the dreamy youth who showed talent for architectural design but who struggled academically and floundered without direction. The Hitler of later youth is then depicted as a patriot who risked his life on the front lines during World War I, was wounded by shrapnel and war gas, and was impressively decorated for valor. In Stolfi’s interpretation, Hitler came out of the war a respected veteran driven by dark fury over the deaths of two million fellow soldiers and convinced he had a calling to save the Germans from historical oblivion.

The author sees Hitler as a

[A] young man who would consciously transform himself into a self-proclaimed messiah, a savior who would be called by providence to make new Germans capable of defending themselves against a French-imposed punitive peace. On another level, Stolfi reinterprets

 

[B] Hitler as the creator of a quasi-mystical political movement based on his revelation that the Germans were under attack by a Jewish-inspired Marxian Socialism of global dimensions. As such Hitler would set Germany on a course intended to achieve historical permanence for the state and personal immortality for its providentially inspired leader. Finally, Stolfi

 

[C] ranks Hitler’s successes from 1919 through 1941 as achievements so astonishing that he must be characterized, along with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon, as one of Hegel’s impossibly rare world historical personalities.

Without in any way glorifying its subject, this unique revision of Hitler biography brings us closer to understanding a pivotal personality in the history of mankind.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

re Omar Barghouti, on German Culpability for Palestinian Distress

  1. VIDEO re BDS — Omar Barghouti and German Jewish prof. Micha Brunlik, in Germany, arguing merits of BDS.  (speaking of video —)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=618sECmymLY
    A number of very important points were driven home, and Barghouti held his ground, or, should say, repeated the arguments he has vetted. 
    For the most part,   Barghouti does a good job — certainly more than I do; I’m fearful of putting my name & face in the public spotlight for fear of the zionist establishment coming down on me like a ton of bricks.
     
    BUT –
    It must be said, Barghouti’s history is wildly distorted, which gives him leave to heap opprobrium on Germany, thereby give ‘aid and comfort to zionists.”
    Specifically, at 1:09 in the video, Barghouti says:
    “The boycott against Germany [1933-1941] hurt many innocent Germans but it was worth it bcause it stopped the genocide.”
    This is not only factually incorrect, it is ludicrous.
    The facts as they are opens a can of worms that, in my opinion, should be fed to zionists at every opportunity.
    The Jewish boycott of Germany, which the Jewish boycotters called “Hitlerite Germany,” was called for, by Louis Brandeis, between Jan. 30, 1933, when Hitler was appointed chancellor, and Feb. 14, 1933.  In that two-week timespan, Brandeis declared to Rabbi Stephen Wise, “All Jews must leave Germany.”
    Hitler’s appointment as chancellor was not ratified until Mar. 5, 1933; Brandeis jumped the gun with his pre-Feb. 14 diktat. Why did Brandeis declare that All Jews Must Leave Germany?
    That’s an important point, but not the largest point.
    The claim is oft made that, beginning the moment Hitler became chancellor, “Jews were persecuted.”  What does “persecution” mean; does “persecution” amount to “genocide,” as Barghouti asserted, and IF genocide occurred, in what time frame did it occur, and what was its relation to the Jewish boycott of Germany?
    1. According to Breitman & Lichtman in “FDR and the Jews,”
    “Upon gaining power in 1933, Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis targeted for persecution alleged blood enemies of the German race.   Yet before the war Nazi oppression of German Jews followed a jagged trajectory.  SOME NAZI ACTIVISTS PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED JEWS IN THE EARLY exuberant DAYS of Hitler’s semilegal revolution.  Once secure in their authority, NAZI OFFICIALS CURBED PERSONAL VIOLENCE, but ENACTED A SERIES OF DISCRIMINITORY LAWS and decrees, what contemporary observers called Hitler’s “cold pogrom” against Jews.  ONLY IN LATE 1938 did central authorities instigate the violence known as Kristallnacht – . . .  FOR THE FIRST TIME, [i.e. not until 1938]  the Gestapo imprisoned tens of thousands of German Jews in concentration camps that also held other alleged enemies of Hitler’s new Reich.”
    That is, after “Judea Declare[d] War on Germany” on March 24, 1933, by means of economic boycott intended to destroy Germany economically, not only did the “Hitlerites” NOT retaliate against Jews with physical violence, they actually worked to “curb” anti-Jewish violence that, as Goering argued repeatedly and on the record, well up from the populace — it was NOT imposed from above.  The US Holocaust Museum implicitly validates Goering’s claim, when USHMM says that Kristallnacht was an action against Jews that was authorized by Nazi leadership. (That claim is specious, but the argument is for another day.)
    So for five years, Jews prosecuted an economic boycott against the German people, which Barghouti says “harmed many innocent Germans,” and for not merely imagined offenses by “Hitlerites” against Jews, but, as Breitman & Lichtman say, for “curbing”  violence against Jews, clearly not a “genocidal” agenda.
    What did the Jews who imposed boycott hope to accomplish, and what did they, indeed, accomplish?
    First of all, it should be recognized that by the end of 1932, the zionist project in Palestine was going broke; it was in danger of collapse without an infusion of cash that only wealthy Jews — GERMAN Jews — could provide.  German Jews were not willing to migrate to Palestine:  it was undeveloped, wild, risky, and not nearly as comfortable as their homes in Berlin, Frankfurt, and Hamburg. 
    The Judean Declaration of War against  Germany published in London newspapers on March 24, 1933 had two major purposes:
    1. To provoke Germany into harsh actions towards German Jews in order to frighten them to flee to Palestine (with the overflow migrating to US);
    AND, as this little nugget buried in Judean Declaration of War states:
    “Another petition was handed in at the British Consulate-General   requesting that Palestine should receive refugees from Germany
      without restriction. “
     
    aha.
    After all of Chaim Weizmann’s mendacious efforts at getting Great Britain, and that sap Balfour, to hand over Palestine to Jews; and after all the efforts of Brandeis and the 120-member strong zionist ‘team’ at Versailles to undercut Woodrow Wilson; betray Wilson’s promise to the Arabs; and toss Germany under the bus [yes, Jews DID stab Germany in the back], now Great Britain was having second thoughts about riling those millions of Arabs who controlled all that oil.  Britain imposed limits on the number of Jews who might migrate to Palestine.
    Did the NSDAP force Jews to leave Germany? No, they did not.  According to documents aggregated in 1933-1934 by Leonard Stein, titled “Persecution of the Jews in Germany,” Jews confronted job discrimination in Germany, but were not subjected to systematic, government-directed physical violence.  It was a time of exceedingly high unemployment in Germany (and elsewhere); Jews were dominant in Weimar, which had mismanaged the economy to the extent that many Germans starved to death in the post-war years, a follow-on to the 800,000 German civilians who starved to death during the Great War. (Chaim Weizman played a key role in supporting the British blockade on Germany that caused the famine/starvation that claimed so many German lives. Weizman’s ‘reward’ for his efforts was the Balfour Declaration.)
    What DID the Judean Declaration of War on Germany/ Economic Boycott accomplish? Did it have anything to do with “genocide of Jews,” as Barghouti claimed?
    Firstly, let’s lay to rest any connection between “genocide” and the 1933 – 1941 boycott.  As late as June 11, 1944, David Ben-Gurion, as head of the Jewish Agency Executive in Palestine, delivered the consensus of the JAE that “Auschwitz is just a labor camp.”  Eleven years after the Judean Declaration of War on Germany, the leaders of the zionist project had no evidence of genocide.
    On the other hand, by 1936, so much wealth had flowed into Palestine that it became the most prosperous locale on the globe, in the midst of a worldwide depression.
    By 1937, Erich Mendelsohn, “the Jewish architect,” began construction on major buildings of Hebrew University. (One of Sam Untermyer’s most vitriolic, anti-German speeches, in which he declared, “Jews are the aristocrats of Germany,” and “Germans are barbarians,” was delivered at a fund-raiser for the construction of Hebrew University.
    [continued]
    -
     
     
     
     

  2. Solon May 14, 2013 at 6:14 am – Reply

    rant re Judea Declares War on Germany, Mar 1933, continued:
    In addition to over-correcting the financial distress experienced by the zionist project in Palestine, the atrocity propaganda that accompanies the Judean Declaration of War on Germany in 1933 eventually persuaded FDR’s administration to open immigration to the US for Jews.  In a year when 300,000 European immigrants were admitted to USA, 200,000 of them were German Jews.
    There were plenty of other places where Jews could have gone.  Dominican Republic set aside half of the island for Jewish settlement, and even pledged generous financial support; it could have accommodated as many as half-a-million.  Five thousand Jews migrated to DR.
    What else, besides the financial stabilization of the zionist project in Palestine, did the Jewish boycott of Germany “accomplish?”
    -It enraged Polish leaders, with whom both the US and German leaders were attempting to nonviolently negotiate accommodation for the thousands of German national who were ‘trapped’ in Polish territory as a result of Versailles treaty territorial divisions.
    -It threw sand in the gears of FDR’s efforts to non-violently disarm Europe while guaranteeing Germany’s security.  FDR delivered a speech proposing terms to settle European and German financial and security claims. The next day, Hitler delivered a speech acquiescing to FDR’s proposals;  FDR boasted that he had achieved the greatest possible agreement.  Jews threw sand in the gears of the proposals, and the negotiations came to naught.  Germany eventually withdrew from disarmament talks.
    (If any of this sounds like AIPAC and zionist actions regarding US-Iran relations, it’s probably not mere coincidence.  This morning (May 13, 2013) Jay Solomon of Wall Street Journal was on C Span Washington Journal.  Match up his mendacious presentation with the passage about Chaim Weizman’s negotiating tactics (that I posted in an earlier comment), and you will see where today’s zionists get their tactics and ideological mindset.
    So, did the Jewish boycott of Germany “stop” the genocide?
    No, most likely it CAUSED a genocide, not of Jews, but of millions of Germans, Russians, Arabs, and thousands of Italians, French, British, and Americans.
    And Slavic Jews.
    Arthur Ruppin was educated in Germany as a lawyer.  In 1907 he began work in Palestine to establish the Jewish colonization of that land.
    According to Etan Bloom’s biography of Ruppin, he was deeply committed to the principles of eugenics.  He applied those principles to the selection of “human material” to create the “new Jew” who would populate the Jewish colony.  Slavic Jews were the least desireable of “human material.”  Both Ruppin and Vladimir Jabotinsky were repulsed by the “dirt and filth” of East European Jews, as he observed in the second aliyeh.  http://www.tau.ac.il/tarbut/tezot/bloom/EtanBloom-PhD-ArthurRuppin.pdf (Compare Ruppin’s observations w/ those of Hitler, when he encountered E. European Jews in Vienna.)
     
    Relatively few German Jews died in the war in Europe 1939-1945.  The largest cohort of Jews who died were Slavic Jews.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment