"If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
A series of off-topic posts by Penn44, inquiring into another poster's views about the public and private Hitler, were removed together with the poster's responses - DT.
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
Was this topic originally posted in the H+WC or was it moved?
I have not seen ericpa06(the topic poster) come back, so I can't be sure.
Chris
I have not seen ericpa06(the topic poster) come back, so I can't be sure.
Chris
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
Chris -- You asked:
I don't know if it was originally posted in the H&WC section. Usually if a moderator moves a post he will note it in the topic post. ericpa06 hasn't visited the forum in nearly a year; according to his viewing profile his last visit was July 20, 2012.Was this topic originally posted in the H+WC or was it moved?
I have not seen ericpa06(the topic poster) come back, so I can't be sure.
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
This whole thread was moved here from one of the biographical sections.
/Marcus
/Marcus
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
Thanks Marcus. When I first replied to Darth Vader's Necro , I think it was there.
Chris
Chris
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
First of all,Safety First, let's clear up the quote by Gertrude Stein. The passage you cited was a cut and paste job from an interview--I'm not saying you did it, but it was done selectively to make it seem like all those comments about Germans were positive towards Hitler. What she said was the following:
In other words, sarcasm.
As for the rest, Safety First, you have created a straw man. Who has said " EVERY SINGLE Jew was persecuted?" Can you find a historian who makes that claim? Has anybody here made that claim? Even during the 1930's, there were all kinds of exceptions, like for certain categories of veterans. It is not merely categories, but dates that matter. The Third Reich's Jewish policy, and Hitler's views on Jews, were not events, they were processes. Making statements like "not all the Jews in Germany were persecuted" and then tossing out various specific examples is pretty meaningless, because what applied in one year may not apply in another. You might as well say, based on the Laws in 1934 that Jews in Germany were German citizens, so therefore, not all Jews were persecuted by the Nazis. Might be true in 1934, much less true in 1944. Without specifying dates and times, these sorts of arguments are fairly meaningless.
What relations Hitler had with Jews in Vienna in 1910, or with a particular soldier, or with his childhood family doctor, is, if unconnected to something larger, simply a historical footnote. Interesting tidbit, perhaps, little thing to throw out in conversation, but it doesn't ultimately tell us much about policy or practice, which means it doesn't really tell us much about history.
Discussing Jewish policy itself without reference to dates also ignores the fact that Nazi policy was often dependent not just on what the Nazis wanted to do, but what they could actually get away with. It's not like the Nazis suddenly stopped wanting to kill the mentally ill simply because the Church protested; they just couldn't do so as blatantly anymore. Nazi policy regarding the Jews was actually fairly gradual, taking spending years isolating Jews from mainstream German society (which they realized they had to do after the failure of the angi-Jewish boycott effort in 1933). Certain categories needed to be left alone--like certain converts, or the mischlinge, not because Hitler didn't consider them to be racially problematic, but because attacking them would have created too many problems at the time. In fact, if you look at Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, you'll see that there was discussion of sterilizing the mischlinge when the war was over, bu that nothing was done during the war because of the obvious problems that would create.
It's also important to note that according to German law, "mischinge" were not "Jews." If you had two Jewish grandparents, even if according to Jewish law you were a Jew, you weren't necessarily a Jew according to the Nuremberg Law, so making reference to "mischlinge" if your point is to show that not every single Jew was persecuted (which, again, is a straw man, since nobody says that) is inaccurate if not disingenuous. As for "Aryanization, there's also a great moment in Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, where, during the Battle of Stalingrad, Hitler is examining photos of mischlinge soldiers seeking Aryanization, checking their faces to see if they are sufficiently aryan in appearance. This is more than just "using and abusing;" it's obsessive.
As for Ernst Hess, he was certainly persecuted--we was removed from the bench,and during the war was made a forced laborer--he just wasn't murdered (his sister was). As for Eduouard Bloch, he was also persecuted--forced to close his medical practice. One wonders what might have happened to the good Dr. Bloch had he not been able to leave Austria in 1940. In fact, it seems that there were limits to Hitler's protection--when Dr. Bloch asked to be able to take his life-savings with him to America, he was refused.
So yes, Hitler had respect for Dr. Bloch, but Bloch was still forced to close his practice and leave his home with very little money. If that's the way Hitler extended gratitude to somebody whose "nobility" (he referred to Bloch as an "edeljude") he respected, to whom he owed a personal debt, one can imagine his views--and treatment--of the rest of the Jews who came under his authority.
source: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/03/s ... views.htmlShe wears a woolen skirt of medium length, a silk overjacket of mixed tone and what would be termed sensible shoes. When she laughs, as she often does at the mental confusion produced in her auditor by many of her remarks, her face and body become mobile, and there is something impish in her expression.
"I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize," she says, "because he is removing all elements of contest and struggle from Germany. By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left elements, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity. That means peace."
In other words, sarcasm.
As for the rest, Safety First, you have created a straw man. Who has said " EVERY SINGLE Jew was persecuted?" Can you find a historian who makes that claim? Has anybody here made that claim? Even during the 1930's, there were all kinds of exceptions, like for certain categories of veterans. It is not merely categories, but dates that matter. The Third Reich's Jewish policy, and Hitler's views on Jews, were not events, they were processes. Making statements like "not all the Jews in Germany were persecuted" and then tossing out various specific examples is pretty meaningless, because what applied in one year may not apply in another. You might as well say, based on the Laws in 1934 that Jews in Germany were German citizens, so therefore, not all Jews were persecuted by the Nazis. Might be true in 1934, much less true in 1944. Without specifying dates and times, these sorts of arguments are fairly meaningless.
What relations Hitler had with Jews in Vienna in 1910, or with a particular soldier, or with his childhood family doctor, is, if unconnected to something larger, simply a historical footnote. Interesting tidbit, perhaps, little thing to throw out in conversation, but it doesn't ultimately tell us much about policy or practice, which means it doesn't really tell us much about history.
Discussing Jewish policy itself without reference to dates also ignores the fact that Nazi policy was often dependent not just on what the Nazis wanted to do, but what they could actually get away with. It's not like the Nazis suddenly stopped wanting to kill the mentally ill simply because the Church protested; they just couldn't do so as blatantly anymore. Nazi policy regarding the Jews was actually fairly gradual, taking spending years isolating Jews from mainstream German society (which they realized they had to do after the failure of the angi-Jewish boycott effort in 1933). Certain categories needed to be left alone--like certain converts, or the mischlinge, not because Hitler didn't consider them to be racially problematic, but because attacking them would have created too many problems at the time. In fact, if you look at Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, you'll see that there was discussion of sterilizing the mischlinge when the war was over, bu that nothing was done during the war because of the obvious problems that would create.
It's also important to note that according to German law, "mischinge" were not "Jews." If you had two Jewish grandparents, even if according to Jewish law you were a Jew, you weren't necessarily a Jew according to the Nuremberg Law, so making reference to "mischlinge" if your point is to show that not every single Jew was persecuted (which, again, is a straw man, since nobody says that) is inaccurate if not disingenuous. As for "Aryanization, there's also a great moment in Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, where, during the Battle of Stalingrad, Hitler is examining photos of mischlinge soldiers seeking Aryanization, checking their faces to see if they are sufficiently aryan in appearance. This is more than just "using and abusing;" it's obsessive.
As for Ernst Hess, he was certainly persecuted--we was removed from the bench,and during the war was made a forced laborer--he just wasn't murdered (his sister was). As for Eduouard Bloch, he was also persecuted--forced to close his medical practice. One wonders what might have happened to the good Dr. Bloch had he not been able to leave Austria in 1940. In fact, it seems that there were limits to Hitler's protection--when Dr. Bloch asked to be able to take his life-savings with him to America, he was refused.
So yes, Hitler had respect for Dr. Bloch, but Bloch was still forced to close his practice and leave his home with very little money. If that's the way Hitler extended gratitude to somebody whose "nobility" (he referred to Bloch as an "edeljude") he respected, to whom he owed a personal debt, one can imagine his views--and treatment--of the rest of the Jews who came under his authority.
- Safety First
- Banned
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 01 Jul 2013, 16:48
- Location: Poland
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
I admitted that I got it from Wikipedia but it does show that even someone of Jewish ethnicity was still making a neutral if not slightly pro-Hitler remark. Is this wrong? He was even Times Man of the Year in 1938 as well, before the war, despite his anti-Semitic laws (Nuremberg Laws) he was seen as a "Demigod" and a "Messiah" who just came from nowhere, he was after all just a Corporal at one point in his life to then be leader of the German nation which he said that he would be many years ago and people did not believe him.uberjude wrote:First of all,Safety First, let's clear up the quote by Gertrude Stein. The passage you cited was a cut and paste job from an interview--I'm not saying you did it, but it was done selectively to make it seem like all those comments about Germans were positive towards Hitler. What she said was the following:
source: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/03/s ... views.htmlShe wears a woolen skirt of medium length, a silk overjacket of mixed tone and what would be termed sensible shoes. When she laughs, as she often does at the mental confusion produced in her auditor by many of her remarks, her face and body become mobile, and there is something impish in her expression.
"I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize," she says, "because he is removing all elements of contest and struggle from Germany. By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left elements, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity. That means peace."
I wouldn't really call it "sarcasm" there is many people who were/are not of Aryan origin that have made remarks about Hitler in the positive light:.In other words, sarcasm.
Louis Farrakhan said:
So I said to the members of the press, 'Why won't you go and look into what we are saying about the threats on Reverend Jackson's life?' Here the Jews don't like Farrakhan and so they call me 'Hitler'. Well that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn't great for me as a Black man but he was a great German and he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat by the united force of all of Europe and America after the First World War. Yet Hitler took Germany from the ashes and rose her up and made her the greatest fighting machine of the twentieth century, brothers and sisters, and even though Europe and America had deciphered the code that Hitler was using to speak to his chiefs of staff, they still had trouble defeating Hitler even after knowing his plans in advance. Now I'm not proud of Hitler's evil toward Jewish people, but that's a matter of record. He rose Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there is a similarity in that we are rising our people up from nothing, but don't compare me with your wicked killers.
Most historians say Jews meaning all of them as a group were targeted, there is plenty historians who state this simply use Google Books and search for yourself. I fail to see how giving examples is meaningless when it's clearly the truth. Can you show me evidence it was the year that mattered? The Laws were in 1935 not 1934.As for the rest, Safety First, you have created a straw man. Who has said " EVERY SINGLE Jew was persecuted?" Can you find a historian who makes that claim? Has anybody here made that claim? Even during the 1930's, there were all kinds of exceptions, like for certain categories of veterans. It is not merely categories, but dates that matter. The Third Reich's Jewish policy, and Hitler's views on Jews, were not events, they were processes. Making statements like "not all the Jews in Germany were persecuted" and then tossing out various specific examples is pretty meaningless, because what applied in one year may not apply in another. You might as well say, based on the Laws in 1934 that Jews in Germany were German citizens, so therefore, not all Jews were persecuted by the Nazis. Might be true in 1934, much less true in 1944. Without specifying dates and times, these sorts of arguments are fairly meaningless.
There is many rumours surrounding the legend of why Hitler hated Jews so much, not one historian can put a single point towards which as there is several 'suggestions' but none are clear.What relations Hitler had with Jews in Vienna in 1910, or with a particular soldier, or with his childhood family doctor, is, if unconnected to something larger, simply a historical footnote. Interesting tidbit, perhaps, little thing to throw out in conversation, but it doesn't ultimately tell us much about policy or practice, which means it doesn't really tell us much about history.
Not true. Some Michlinge were "Jewish Mischlinge" examples and the Nuremberg Laws that deemed anyone with one Jewish grandparent was a 'Jew' but there were different degrees of it, Mischlinge meant someone of part Aryan ancestry, so he or she could be part German and part Jewish or part German and part black.It's also important to note that according to German law, "mischinge" were not "Jews." If you had two Jewish grandparents, even if according to Jewish law you were a Jew, you weren't necessarily a Jew according to the Nuremberg Law, so making reference to "mischlinge" if your point is to show that not every single Jew was persecuted (which, again, is a straw man, since nobody says that) is inaccurate if not disingenuous. As for "Aryanization, there's also a great moment in Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, where, during the Battle of Stalingrad, Hitler is examining photos of mischlinge soldiers seeking Aryanization, checking their faces to see if they are sufficiently aryan in appearance. This is more than just "using and abusing;" it's obsessive.
There was no such thing as "Aryan in appearance", there were no certain way to look... if you are referring to the Nordic blonde hair and blue eyed look it is not true, there also used people with dark hair and dark eyes in their posters for propaganda as well. Hitler himself was not exactly blonde hair and blue eyed was he - he was brown hair and blue eyed and he still was 'Aryan'.
You calling it obsessive is just an opinion...
Ernst Hess was not murdered, and yes his sister was murdered and his mother survived but this was not done by Hitler's approval it was by Eichmann who ordered it.As for Ernst Hess, he was certainly persecuted--we was removed from the bench,and during the war was made a forced laborer--he just wasn't murdered (his sister was). As for Eduouard Bloch, he was also persecuted--forced to close his medical practice. One wonders what might have happened to the good Dr. Bloch had he not been able to leave Austria in 1940. In fact, it seems that there were limits to Hitler's protection--when Dr. Bloch asked to be able to take his life-savings with him to America, he was refused.
So yes, Hitler had respect for Dr. Bloch, but Bloch was still forced to close his practice and leave his home with very little money. If that's the way Hitler extended gratitude to somebody whose "nobility" (he referred to Bloch as an "edeljude") he respected, to whom he owed a personal debt, one can imagine his views--and treatment--of the rest of the Jews who came under his authority.
Yes, Eduard Bloch like all Jews of Austria were not allowed businesses, etc etc... but he was given protection personally by Hitler.
All the best
William
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
The opinions of individuals about Hitler tell us nothing about Hitler himself, only those people's opinions. What Gertrude Stein, or Louis Farrakhan had to say about Hitler is meaningless to this discussion. the interviewer certainly saw Stein's remarks as critical of Hitler. As for Farrakhan, he's an antisemite, who was speaking decades later. Did anybody say that only "Aryans" said nice things about Hitler? I don't know what point you're making at the beginning.
As for the rest, read what you wrote--"
"Most historians say Jews meaning all of them as a group were targeted"
two points
1. Historians agree that Jews as a group were targeted; I know of none who would say that there weren't individual exceptions.
2. You may not be aware of the board's standards for evidence. If you make an assertion, it's up to you to demonstrate the assertion to be true. So if you are going to argue that there are historians who say that every single Jew without exception was targeted, then it's your responsibility to support your statement, not my responsibility to look for a statement that I don't believe exists.
I know the Nuremberg Laws were 1935, that's why I specified 1934. That would be an example of where a specific year matters, since in 1935, the status of the Jews changed completely. In 1934, Jews were citizens, in 1935, they ceased to be. And of course, more laws were added as time went on. You might as well argue that there was no effort to exterminate the Jews by looking at 1938. That's why dates and specifics matter.
That's also why talking about Hitler in 1910 doesn't offer any evidence about Nazi policy. It may help us understand why Hitler felt the way he felt, but Hitler's business relations in Vienna don't define Nazi policy towards Vienna's Jews in 1938.
"Mischlinge" were not Jews, and having one or two Jewish grandparents did not define you as a Jew, usually, but as a mischlinge. Here is the relevant passage from the November 14, 1935 addendum to the Nurember law
(1) The regulations in § I are also valid for Reich subjects of mixed Jewish blood [Mischlinge].
(2) An individual of mixed Jewish blood is one who is descended from one or two grandparents who were fully Jewish by race, insofar as he or she does not count as a Jew according to § 5, Paragraph 2. One grandparent shall be considered as full-blooded if he or she belonged to the Jewish religious community
So it depended to a great extent on blood and personal identification, but "mischlinge" and "Jew" were two separate categories, even if they had the same amount of Jewish ancestry in some cases.
As for "aryan in appearance," don't blame me, blame Hitler. I wasn't the one sitting there examining nostrils, it was Hitler. Check page 197-198 of Riggs book. And the Nazis believed there were a variety of Aryan types, not just blonde haired and blue eyed. The Nazis spent an awful lot of time on the subject, and had all kinds of ways to quantify "Aryan" appearance. Again, don't blame me, blame the Nazis. It's pretty absurd to argue that the Nazis didn't believe they could tell a Jew from an Aryan.
I think it is more than my opinion that Hitler was obsessed with Jews. How would you categorize Hitler's feelings regarding Jews if not obsessive?
As for Bloch and Hess, you may need to be more careful in your language. You made a reference to persecution--Hess and Bloch were certainly persecuted, even if they weren't murdered. I think most people would agree that being forced to quit your job or shut your business because you're a Jew counts as persecution. If you meant something else, that's fine, but "persecution" is the word you used.
As for the rest, read what you wrote--"
"Most historians say Jews meaning all of them as a group were targeted"
two points
1. Historians agree that Jews as a group were targeted; I know of none who would say that there weren't individual exceptions.
2. You may not be aware of the board's standards for evidence. If you make an assertion, it's up to you to demonstrate the assertion to be true. So if you are going to argue that there are historians who say that every single Jew without exception was targeted, then it's your responsibility to support your statement, not my responsibility to look for a statement that I don't believe exists.
I know the Nuremberg Laws were 1935, that's why I specified 1934. That would be an example of where a specific year matters, since in 1935, the status of the Jews changed completely. In 1934, Jews were citizens, in 1935, they ceased to be. And of course, more laws were added as time went on. You might as well argue that there was no effort to exterminate the Jews by looking at 1938. That's why dates and specifics matter.
That's also why talking about Hitler in 1910 doesn't offer any evidence about Nazi policy. It may help us understand why Hitler felt the way he felt, but Hitler's business relations in Vienna don't define Nazi policy towards Vienna's Jews in 1938.
"Mischlinge" were not Jews, and having one or two Jewish grandparents did not define you as a Jew, usually, but as a mischlinge. Here is the relevant passage from the November 14, 1935 addendum to the Nurember law
(1) The regulations in § I are also valid for Reich subjects of mixed Jewish blood [Mischlinge].
(2) An individual of mixed Jewish blood is one who is descended from one or two grandparents who were fully Jewish by race, insofar as he or she does not count as a Jew according to § 5, Paragraph 2. One grandparent shall be considered as full-blooded if he or she belonged to the Jewish religious community
So it depended to a great extent on blood and personal identification, but "mischlinge" and "Jew" were two separate categories, even if they had the same amount of Jewish ancestry in some cases.
As for "aryan in appearance," don't blame me, blame Hitler. I wasn't the one sitting there examining nostrils, it was Hitler. Check page 197-198 of Riggs book. And the Nazis believed there were a variety of Aryan types, not just blonde haired and blue eyed. The Nazis spent an awful lot of time on the subject, and had all kinds of ways to quantify "Aryan" appearance. Again, don't blame me, blame the Nazis. It's pretty absurd to argue that the Nazis didn't believe they could tell a Jew from an Aryan.
I think it is more than my opinion that Hitler was obsessed with Jews. How would you categorize Hitler's feelings regarding Jews if not obsessive?
As for Bloch and Hess, you may need to be more careful in your language. You made a reference to persecution--Hess and Bloch were certainly persecuted, even if they weren't murdered. I think most people would agree that being forced to quit your job or shut your business because you're a Jew counts as persecution. If you meant something else, that's fine, but "persecution" is the word you used.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
Safety First -- You remarked, and then asked:
The Program of the NSDAP (1920/1941)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=69141
(2) The situation worsened within two months after Hitler came to power on January 30, 1933:
An American Diplomat in Germany 1929-1939
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=14954
American Consul in Berlin 1930-1934
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=15121
Nazi Attacks on US Citizens Mar 1933
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=15133
Nazi Anti-Semitism 1933: Why Were They Sadistic?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=19011
(3) It didn't get better after that:
Nazi Anti-Semitic Legislation in Germany
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61972
Nazi persecution of the Jews
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=16116
(4) As for quotes from divers individuals seeming to praise Hitler in the 1930s, it would be interesting to see what those same people thought in 1946. See these comments from some of the former Nazi leaders:
Nazi leaders and holocaust denial
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33295
(1) Jews in Germany were targeted by the Nazis from the time the NSDAP was founded in 1920. See:Most historians say Jews meaning all of them as a group were targeted, there is plenty historians who state this simply use Google Books and search for yourself. I fail to see how giving examples is meaningless when it's clearly the truth. Can you show me evidence it was the year that mattered? The Laws were in 1935 not 1934.
The Program of the NSDAP (1920/1941)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=69141
(2) The situation worsened within two months after Hitler came to power on January 30, 1933:
An American Diplomat in Germany 1929-1939
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=14954
American Consul in Berlin 1930-1934
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=15121
Nazi Attacks on US Citizens Mar 1933
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=15133
Nazi Anti-Semitism 1933: Why Were They Sadistic?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=19011
(3) It didn't get better after that:
Nazi Anti-Semitic Legislation in Germany
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61972
Nazi persecution of the Jews
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=16116
(4) As for quotes from divers individuals seeming to praise Hitler in the 1930s, it would be interesting to see what those same people thought in 1946. See these comments from some of the former Nazi leaders:
Nazi leaders and holocaust denial
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33295
- Safety First
- Banned
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 01 Jul 2013, 16:48
- Location: Poland
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
The vast majority of the world have an opinion of Hitler because of the controlled media and what they want to actually tell you about him, of course most people just think "he was a man who wanted everyone to be blonde hair and blue eyed and kill all Jews!". David Cole, a Jew himself, investigated Auschwitz as well so you're correct it is not just all "Aryans" that have did stuff regarding Hitler.uberjude wrote:The opinions of individuals about Hitler tell us nothing about Hitler himself, only those people's opinions. What Gertrude Stein, or Louis Farrakhan had to say about Hitler is meaningless to this discussion. the interviewer certainly saw Stein's remarks as critical of Hitler. As for Farrakhan, he's an antisemite, who was speaking decades later. Did anybody say that only "Aryans" said nice things about Hitler? I don't know what point you're making at the beginning.
I never said Jews weren't targeted as a group but if you look for example in The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies by Peter Hayes, John K. Roth says "Eventually Nazi policy called for the annihilation of all Jews without exception" http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KH2z ... ns&f=false - this is just one from a quick Google Book search, there is quite a few books that spout out BS, I'm sure there is more books that state the same!As for the rest, read what you wrote--"
"Most historians say Jews meaning all of them as a group were targeted"
two points
1. Historians agree that Jews as a group were targeted; I know of none who would say that there weren't individual exceptions.
2. You may not be aware of the board's standards for evidence. If you make an assertion, it's up to you to demonstrate the assertion to be true. So if you are going to argue that there are historians who say that every single Jew without exception was targeted, then it's your responsibility to support your statement, not my responsibility to look for a statement that I don't believe exists.
There was no direct policy to exterminate Jews full stop, they spoke of expulsion, forced emigration from Europe, the falsified and incorrect translated "speeches" and so on are not evidence. Of course you will now label me a "Holocaust Denier" but I'm not, just speaking my mind.I know the Nuremberg Laws were 1935, that's why I specified 1934. That would be an example of where a specific year matters, since in 1935, the status of the Jews changed completely. In 1934, Jews were citizens, in 1935, they ceased to be. And of course, more laws were added as time went on. You might as well argue that there was no effort to exterminate the Jews by looking at 1938. That's why dates and specifics matter.
He was the leader, of course his origins and reasoning regardless of the time mean something, for example in Explaining Hitler, the first place there research into is his younger years and genealogy.That's also why talking about Hitler in 1910 doesn't offer any evidence about Nazi policy. It may help us understand why Hitler felt the way he felt, but Hitler's business relations in Vienna don't define Nazi policy towards Vienna's Jews in 1938.
It translates to "mongrel" "mixed breed", they were not defined as full Jews but of part non-Aryan ancestry."Mischlinge" were not Jews, and having one or two Jewish grandparents did not define you as a Jew, usually, but as a mischlinge. Here is the relevant passage from the November 14, 1935 addendum to the Nurember law
(1) The regulations in § I are also valid for Reich subjects of mixed Jewish blood [Mischlinge].
(2) An individual of mixed Jewish blood is one who is descended from one or two grandparents who were fully Jewish by race, insofar as he or she does not count as a Jew according to § 5, Paragraph 2. One grandparent shall be considered as full-blooded if he or she belonged to the Jewish religious community
Clutching at straws, there were of course two separate categories but there were even separate categories within the Mischlinge section, 1st and 2nd degree.So it depended to a great extent on blood and personal identification, but "mischlinge" and "Jew" were two separate categories, even if they had the same amount of Jewish ancestry in some cases.
Not really Hitler, more Himmler than anyone - he was the one who pushed the 'Nordic' to equal 'Aryan'. I do not have that book can you c&p the exact words in the book because "Hitler examining nostrils" shows nothing but this thread. There were variations of sub-races that are undeniable it was not just the Nazis who did this but other anthropologists and so on. They tried through propaganda to show the differences between Jews and Aryans, they couldn't have been too good at it considering a person of part Jewish ancestry, Werner Goldberg, was named "The Ideal German Soldier".As for "aryan in appearance," don't blame me, blame Hitler. I wasn't the one sitting there examining nostrils, it was Hitler. Check page 197-198 of Riggs book. And the Nazis believed there were a variety of Aryan types, not just blonde haired and blue eyed. The Nazis spent an awful lot of time on the subject, and had all kinds of ways to quantify "Aryan" appearance. Again, don't blame me, blame the Nazis. It's pretty absurd to argue that the Nazis didn't believe they could tell a Jew from an Aryan.
Because he didn't just evolve himself around this his hatred was towards other things such as Bolshevism/Communism, Treaty of Versailles and so on... what Hitler was more obsessed with was architecture, even during the late years of the war he would sit for hours at maps of a 'Germania' and so forth.I think it is more than my opinion that Hitler was obsessed with Jews. How would you categorize Hitler's feelings regarding Jews if not obsessive?
Seems to me that here you can't seem to voice an opinion that doesn't go with the mainstream-way of thinking, I haven't said anything that is "bad language". It is a fact that Bloch was given extra protection and was an exception and its also a fact Hess was not murdered and there was a letter directly from Hitler himself ordering protection on him, it was Eichmann who over went this.As for Bloch and Hess, you may need to be more careful in your language. You made a reference to persecution--Hess and Bloch were certainly persecuted, even if they weren't murdered. I think most people would agree that being forced to quit your job or shut your business because you're a Jew counts as persecution. If you meant something else, that's fine, but "persecution" is the word you used.
All the best
William
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
Do you remember that on 25 February 1943 Hitler stated publicly that the war would result in the extermination of the Jews [Ausrottung des Judentums] of Europe?There was no direct policy to exterminate Jews full stop, they spoke of expulsion, forced emigration from Europe, the falsified and incorrect translated "speeches" and so on are not evidence. Of course you will now label me a "Holocaust Denier" but I'm not, just speaking my mind.]
What about The Wannsee Conference?
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
That was Himmler. However, IIRC , Hitler said something to the same effect back in the 1930's. I forget the context. May have been in relation to the World Jewish Congress's Declaration of War and economic boycott against Nazi Germany in "1933"?kiseli wrote:[
Do you remember that on 25 February 1943 Hitler stated publicly that the war would result in the extermination of the Jews [Ausrottung des Judentums] of Europe?
My memory is fuzzy about all this Hitler Holo stuff , as I don't read much about it now, or hang out in the H+WC.
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
so, instead of 10 marks , he has right on 16....Hitler must be very grateful to him, and knowing that Germany was democracy in Hitler's time, I understand that Adolf did everything in his power to help him ...................
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
kiseli -- You wrote:
(2) For interested readers -- At the then-official exchange rate of RM 4.3 = $1, Eduard Bloch got to start his new life outside the New Germany with RM 16 = $3.72. For the exchange rate sources, see http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 20#p570720.
(1) Please source your quote.so, instead of 10 marks , he has right on 16....Hitler must be very grateful to him, and knowing that Germany was democracy in Hitler's time, I understand that Adolf did everything in his power to help him ...................
(2) For interested readers -- At the then-official exchange rate of RM 4.3 = $1, Eduard Bloch got to start his new life outside the New Germany with RM 16 = $3.72. For the exchange rate sources, see http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 20#p570720.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: "If all Jews were like him..."- Hitler really said that?
Safety First -- You wrote:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53962
andThe vast majority of the world have an opinion of Hitler because of the controlled media and what they want to actually tell you about him, of course most people just think "he was a man who wanted everyone to be blonde hair and blue eyed and kill all Jews!".
andThere was no direct policy to exterminate Jews full stop, they spoke of expulsion, forced emigration from Europe, the falsified and incorrect translated "speeches" and so on are not evidence. Of course you will now label me a "Holocaust Denier" but I'm not, just speaking my mind.
We're not interested in opinions here whether they "go with the mainstream-way of thinking" or not. We run the forum as an information exchange, not a bulletin board. Please review our rules, which have been posted since 2004 for all to see:Seems to me that here you can't seem to voice an opinion that doesn't go with the mainstream-way of thinking, I haven't said anything that is "bad language".
H&WC section Rules3. Opinions
Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources do not promote the purposes of the forum. Consequently, such posts are subject to deletion after a warning to the poster.
The same reasoning applies to opinion threads.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53962