This is pretty new to me.Can you elaborate ?Erik wrote: This interest was shared, and “anticipated” by the Zionists, that “prophesized” a Shoa long before Hitler, unless I’m mistaken.
Jewish “Declarations of War†against Germany
You are right to ask.This is pretty new to me.Can you elaborate ?
I may be mistaken, as I said. I made some room for back-pedalling.
Maybe the word "Shoa" is wrong in this circumstance. "Holocaust" fits better into Jewish prophesies.
(Language problem sustained, that is.)
It leads into the problem of anti-semitism, and Mr Wendel is not likely to expect that subject to lead to "something pleasant".
The Web is drooling with the subject.
HISTORY is drooling with the subject, even. Hitler didn't invent antisemitism.
And Zionism is a reaction to the situation of the nation of Jews among nations. It still is.
And since it is a political movement, they probably didn't mince their word when they described the problems facing Jews, unless they headed their call.
So I could probably easily find some quotes with a Google search, for example.
But we must be careful to "elaborate", lest Mr Wendel calls it off topic, or closes the thread, even.
I agree the subject of anti-semitism is fraught with dangers.
And I don't call to discuss it.What I am just curious about is the statement you made that the "Zionists '' “prophesized” the Holocaust long before it happened.Where did you get it from ?
Or is it just your guess ? I give you credit for " back-pedalling".
Thanks.
And I don't call to discuss it.What I am just curious about is the statement you made that the "Zionists '' “prophesized” the Holocaust long before it happened.Where did you get it from ?
Or is it just your guess ? I give you credit for " back-pedalling".
Thanks.
Now you have brought me into a quandary – and that is your privilege, of course. This forum exists for quandaries.I agree the subject of anti-semitism is fraught with dangers.
And I don't call to discuss it.What I am just curious about is the statement you made that the "Zionists '' “prophesized” the Holocaust long before it happened.Where did you get it from ?
Or is it just your guess ? I give you credit for " back-pedalling".
Thanks.
I do not own any books on Zionism. I have never read any, specifically.
I have made the mistake of “postulating” a realm of Holocaust awareness from the founders of something like the nationalisms of minorities “in general”, and that is probably a mistake, like most “postulations”.
It is perhaps always a “wisdom after the event”? Like this?
http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ng0Time and again, the Jews of Europe were persecuted and massacred, sometimes on religious grounds, sometimes for economic reasons, sometimes on social pretexts, and sometimes for national and "racial" rationales. Jews were slaughtered by the Crusaders when the latter made their way across Europe to the Holy Land (11th-12th centuries), massacred during the Black Death for allegedly poisoning wells (14th century), burned at the stake in the Spanish Inquisition (15th century) and murdered by Chmelnicki's Cossacks in the Ukraine (17th century). Hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed by the armies of Danikin and Petlura in the Russian civil war which followed World War I. The most infamous atrocity of all, the Nazi Holocaust in which some six million Jews were systematically annihilated mainly on "racial" grounds, was perpetrated by Germans, in whose country the Jews had made their most serious attempt to achieve acceptance and social assimilation.
Over the centuries, Jews were expelled from almost every European country - Germany and France, Portugal and Spain, England and Wales - a cumulative experience which had a profound impact, especially in the 19th century when Jews had abandoned hope of fundamental change in their lives. Out of this milieu came Jewish leaders who turned to Zionism as a result of the virulent antisemitism in the societies surrounding them. Thus Moses Hess, shaken by the blood libel of Damascus (1844), became the father of Zionist socialism; Leon Pinsker, shocked by the progroms (1881-1882) which followed the assassination of Czar Alexander II, assumed leadership in the Hibbat Zion movement; and Theodor Herzl, who as a journalist in Paris experienced the venomous antisemitic campaign of the Dreyfus case (1896), organized Zionism into a political movement.
The Zionist movement aimed to solve the "Jewish problem," the problem of a perennial minority, a people subjected to repeated pogroms and persecution, a homeless community whose alienism was underscored by discrimination wherever Jews settled. Zionism aspired to deal with this situation by effecting a return to the historical homeland of the Jews - Land of Israel.
But Benjamin Disraeli documented a similar Jewish awareness 150 years ago:
(Benjamin Disraeli, ”Lord George Bentinck : a Political Biography”(1852). Kap XXIV, ”The Jewish Question”.)Quote:
“The attempt to extirpate them has been made under the most favourable auspices and on the largest scale; the most considerable means that man could command have been pertinaciously applied to this object for the longer period of recorded time.”
I’m quoting my own posting on an earlier thread:
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... 5972#35972
Had Theodor Herzl any reason to expect anything else than those "attempts" to continue?
Now prophesies is of course a “word”, and words can lead to language problems. You are perhaps expecting something biblical, or Nostradamus-like – a vision of a Beast with Chaplin moustache(Chaplin postulated) womited out of the jaws of Hell?
Here is a quote from an anti-Zionist Jew (there are such), fully aware of the risk of hate speech (“self-hate”):
(have mercy, Mr Wendel!):
http://www.mediamonitors.net/timwise1.htmlHaving never read the words of Theodore Herzl -- the founder of modern Zionism -- or other Zionist leaders, most will find this claim hard to believe. But before attacking me, perhaps they should ask who it was that said anti-Semitism, "is an understandable reaction to Jewish defects," or that, "each country can only absorb a limited number of Jews, if she doesn't want disorders in her stomach. Germany has already too many Jews."
While one might be inclined to attribute either or both statements to Adolph Hitler, as they are surely worthy of his venomous pen, they are actually comments made by Herzl and Chaim Weizmann, eventual president of Israel, and -- at the time he made the second statement -- head of the World Zionist Organization. So in the pantheon of self-hating Jews, it appears criticism, for Zionists, should perhaps begin at home.
……………………………
Consider Herzl: a man who believed Jews were to blame for anti-Semitism, and thus, only by fleeing for Palestine could we be safe. In The Jewish State, he wrote:
"Every nation in whose midst Jews live is, either covertly or openly, anti-Semitic...its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat. When we rise, there also rises our terrible power of the purse."
He went on to say, "The Jews are carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America." Were a non-Jew to suggest that Jews were to blame for anti-Semitism, our community would be rightly outraged. But the same words from the father of Zionism pass without comment.
Erik wrote:
It was certainly in the interest of Hitler to treat the Jews as a nation. This interest was shared, and “anticipated” by the Zionists, that “prophesized” a Shoa long before Hitler, unless I’m mistaken.
Herzl wanted to treat the Jews as/to a nation. Did he thereby anticipate the prophesies of Hitler?
I am not sure Eric what you would like to convey by your last post..
Frankly I am lost.So what ..?
You brought some subjective opinions of the different leaders (some of them being self -critisism of their own nation) and based on this you would like to make a conclusion that .....?
BTW.Very often the leaders and prominent people of the different nations express critisim of their own people -this is natural and indicative of the growth,the development of a nation.
The Russians for example often critisize themselves to the point of some sort of masochistic self-humiliation.When other people see this they often
mistake this excessive self-critisizing for the truth.
What are you trying to say ? That the Jews are in some way special and don't belong to the human family ?
That they are guilty themselves and deserved the persecutions they underwent ? Do I interpret this right ? Maybe I didn't .
BTW Just to point out on some inaccuracy in the first article.
Denikin ( the ''white army " general was actually the defender of the Jews not the other way around )
And I would disagree with the opinion that all the nations hate the Jews.
There were many people who were quite fond of them ( famous being Tolstoy, Mark Twen etc) There were variety of reasons why the Jews
were persecuted throughout the ages -religious,economical,cultural etc
There is nothing mistical about it.
Now I am in quandary -what is the summory of your last post ?
What is your appeal ?
Winston Churchill :
Frankly I am lost.So what ..?
You brought some subjective opinions of the different leaders (some of them being self -critisism of their own nation) and based on this you would like to make a conclusion that .....?
BTW.Very often the leaders and prominent people of the different nations express critisim of their own people -this is natural and indicative of the growth,the development of a nation.
The Russians for example often critisize themselves to the point of some sort of masochistic self-humiliation.When other people see this they often
mistake this excessive self-critisizing for the truth.
What are you trying to say ? That the Jews are in some way special and don't belong to the human family ?
That they are guilty themselves and deserved the persecutions they underwent ? Do I interpret this right ? Maybe I didn't .
BTW Just to point out on some inaccuracy in the first article.
Denikin ( the ''white army " general was actually the defender of the Jews not the other way around )
And I would disagree with the opinion that all the nations hate the Jews.
There were many people who were quite fond of them ( famous being Tolstoy, Mark Twen etc) There were variety of reasons why the Jews
were persecuted throughout the ages -religious,economical,cultural etc
There is nothing mistical about it.
Now I am in quandary -what is the summory of your last post ?
What is your appeal ?
Winston Churchill :
. Wherever General Denikin's authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them.So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews.
Did the philosopher's confused ramblings contribute anything to answering the questions that I put to him ?Erik wrote:Roberto left out this from the quote:Roberto wrote:Since when is a declaration of loyalty towards the British government, which Weizmann could issue only on behalf of his organization anyway, a declaration of war ?Erik wrote:
Weizmann "echoed" this declaration of war. When the war was on.
And what evidence is there that the overwhelming majority of Jews in Germany and continental Europe cared about what Weizmann had written or even knew of it ?
Which was correctly paraphrased by “witness”:And "prophets" enjoy "echoes".
It was certainly in the interest of Hitler to treat the Jews as a nation. This interest was shared, and “anticipated” by the Zionists, that “prophesized” a Shoa long before Hitler, unless I’m mistaken.If one wants to find a pretext he will.
Perhaps Hitler ought to have realized(and perhaps he did?) that the Jews of Europe hadn’t chosen Weizmann to speak for them. So he would have realized that Weizmann's “declaration of loyalty towards the British government” was just “empty words” at the time ( Hitler’s view expressed in his prophesy – that International finance Jewry was controlling British politics – was realized to be empty words even by him? Even Hitler could not be THAT stupid!)
Did the “overwhelming majority of “ Germans care for a new World War?And what evidence is there that the overwhelming majority of Jews in Germany and continental Europe cared about what Weizmann had written or even knew of it ?
Since they had chosen Hitler, they must have! Right?
Since the overwhelming majority of Jews of Germany and continental Europe hadn’t chosen Weizmann to be their spokesman, does this mean that he didn’t express what any Jew who knew anything about the situation of the German Jews would “care”?
If Hitler meant what he said, must that mean that he was “right”?
If his prophesies found “echo”, does this mean that he was “right”?
So in order to prove that Hitler wasn't "right", you must either pretend that he didn't mean what he said, and that his words found no "echo"?
Is it hate speech so pretend otherwise?
...........................
Oh, I almost forgot the appendix!! :
Ceterum censeo, that Hitler should have been shot – by another!!
Roberto wrote:
Still thinking, Roberto? Or are you advised by yourself?
I suppose your questions are the following:
But I suppose your question doesn’t concern “dating” of this kind, but can be divorced from the actual date of the declaration – i.e., “Since when is a declaration of loyalty…a declaration of war” in "general"?
Why did Chamberlain, the “prime” of the war declarers, wish or consent to this “togetherness” of publishing? What did he consider to be Weizmann’s “mandate” on such “loyalties”?
Did he publish such letters together with other – comparable - organisation leaders? Church, Labour, business corporations?
I wonder what clarifications could be found in Chamberlain’s letter?
“.. differences with the British government related to its mandate over Palestine…” could be settled, perhaps?
Had Weizmann such a mandate? If his organisation was of that power, then the paranoia of Hitler & Co was perhaps fuelled?
Or: who cared if they cared?
Hitler?
Would he had left them alone if they had “evidenced” such “carelessness”? Would he have cared for any “evidence” for and against such “care”? If he had been told about such evidence, would that had changed his policy towards the Jews?
There is a language problem here – as usual, I guess.
The problem concerns whether Hitler&Co had any “right” to treat Weizmann’s declaration of loyalty as a declaration of war.
Since there was not any international treatises “treating” such loyalty declarations from organisations to warring nations at the time(?), he didn’t have such a “right”?
But he did treat it as such, anyhow!
Did he have a clue to such a “right” from Chamberlain’s letter, concerning “.. differences with the British government related to its mandate over Palestine…”?
“War” rights?
-----------------
Ceterum censeo, that Hitler should have been shot – by another!!
Did the philosopher's confused ramblings contribute anything to answering the questions that I put to him ?
witness wrote:
I am not sure Eric what you would like to convey by your last post..
Don't think too much about it. He probably doesn't know himself.
Still thinking, Roberto? Or are you advised by yourself?
I suppose your questions are the following:
Answer:Since when is a declaration of loyalty towards the British government, which Weizmann could issue only on behalf of his organization anyway, a declaration of war ?
(Quote from your thread opener.)Weizmann’s letter to Neville Chamberlain of 29 August 1939… was published together with Chamberlain’s answer in the “Times” on 6 September 1939”.
But I suppose your question doesn’t concern “dating” of this kind, but can be divorced from the actual date of the declaration – i.e., “Since when is a declaration of loyalty…a declaration of war” in "general"?
Why did Chamberlain, the “prime” of the war declarers, wish or consent to this “togetherness” of publishing? What did he consider to be Weizmann’s “mandate” on such “loyalties”?
Did he publish such letters together with other – comparable - organisation leaders? Church, Labour, business corporations?
I wonder what clarifications could be found in Chamberlain’s letter?
“.. differences with the British government related to its mandate over Palestine…” could be settled, perhaps?
Had Weizmann such a mandate? If his organisation was of that power, then the paranoia of Hitler & Co was perhaps fuelled?
Who cared?And what evidence is there that the overwhelming majority of Jews in Germany and continental Europe cared about what Weizmann had written or even knew of it ?
Or: who cared if they cared?
Hitler?
Would he had left them alone if they had “evidenced” such “carelessness”? Would he have cared for any “evidence” for and against such “care”? If he had been told about such evidence, would that had changed his policy towards the Jews?
There is a language problem here – as usual, I guess.
The problem concerns whether Hitler&Co had any “right” to treat Weizmann’s declaration of loyalty as a declaration of war.
Since there was not any international treatises “treating” such loyalty declarations from organisations to warring nations at the time(?), he didn’t have such a “right”?
But he did treat it as such, anyhow!
Did he have a clue to such a “right” from Chamberlain’s letter, concerning “.. differences with the British government related to its mandate over Palestine…”?
“War” rights?
-----------------
Ceterum censeo, that Hitler should have been shot – by another!!
Tell me something very honesly, philosopher:Erik wrote:Roberto wrote:Did the philosopher's confused ramblings contribute anything to answering the questions that I put to him ?witness wrote:
I am not sure Eric what you would like to convey by your last post..
Don't think too much about it. He probably doesn't know himself.
Still thinking, Roberto? Or are you advised by yourself?
I suppose your questions are the following:
Answer:Since when is a declaration of loyalty towards the British government, which Weizmann could issue only on behalf of his organization anyway, a declaration of war ?(Quote from your thread opener.)Weizmann’s letter to Neville Chamberlain of 29 August 1939… was published together with Chamberlain’s answer in the “Times” on 6 September 1939”.
But I suppose your question doesn’t concern “dating” of this kind, but can be divorced from the actual date of the declaration – i.e., “Since when is a declaration of loyalty…a declaration of war” in "general"?
Why did Chamberlain, the “prime” of the war declarers, wish or consent to this “togetherness” of publishing? What did he consider to be Weizmann’s “mandate” on such “loyalties”?
Did he publish such letters together with other – comparable - organisation leaders? Church, Labour, business corporations?
I wonder what clarifications could be found in Chamberlain’s letter?
“.. differences with the British government related to its mandate over Palestine…” could be settled, perhaps?
Had Weizmann such a mandate? If his organisation was of that power, then the paranoia of Hitler & Co was perhaps fuelled?
Who cared?And what evidence is there that the overwhelming majority of Jews in Germany and continental Europe cared about what Weizmann had written or even knew of it ?
Or: who cared if they cared?
Hitler?
Would he had left them alone if they had “evidenced” such “carelessness”? Would he have cared for any “evidence” for and against such “care”? If he had been told about such evidence, would that had changed his policy towards the Jews?
There is a language problem here – as usual, I guess.
The problem concerns whether Hitler&Co had any “right” to treat Weizmann’s declaration of loyalty as a declaration of war.
Since there was not any international treatises “treating” such loyalty declarations from organisations to warring nations at the time(?), he didn’t have such a “right”?
But he did treat it as such, anyhow!
Did he have a clue to such a “right” from Chamberlain’s letter, concerning “.. differences with the British government related to its mandate over Palestine…”?
“War” rights?
-----------------
Ceterum censeo, that Hitler should have been shot – by another!!
Do you really expect me to waste my time reading and trying to understand the outpourings of your confused mind?
Roberto.I myself have been trying to unravell Eric's ambiguities but probably it is time to give up as you advised.
What it is after all ?Is he trying to say that Hitler started to think about
hunting down the Jews after this Weizmann "declaration of war "?
As if there was no Main Kampf with its rabid appeal to fight the "world Jewry", as if there were no any deliberate SA actions against the Jews prior to this Weizman declaration..
But maybe I misunderstand something..No offence Eric.I just try to understand your point.
What it is after all ?Is he trying to say that Hitler started to think about
hunting down the Jews after this Weizmann "declaration of war "?
As if there was no Main Kampf with its rabid appeal to fight the "world Jewry", as if there were no any deliberate SA actions against the Jews prior to this Weizman declaration..
But maybe I misunderstand something..No offence Eric.I just try to understand your point.
Two can't be that wrong.
Not even Roberto and "witness".
If the Prime minister of a imperial world power declaring war, considers a man like Weizmann worth such an honor, is it really suprising that Hitler&Co are misled(?) to the conclusion that his solidarity carries power?
Why should they know better than Chamberlain?
Hitler hadn't exactly a democratic view on "leadership", had he? He saw his own mandate emanating from the Germanic soul, or something like that.
A ( "the"?) Zionist leader was perhaps a "comparable quantity" in his eyes?
His words were carrying weight? At least to Hitler?
-----------------
Ceterum censeo, that Hitler should have been shot – by another!!
Not even Roberto and "witness".
If the Prime minister of a imperial world power declaring war, considers a man like Weizmann worth such an honor, is it really suprising that Hitler&Co are misled(?) to the conclusion that his solidarity carries power?
Why should they know better than Chamberlain?
Hitler hadn't exactly a democratic view on "leadership", had he? He saw his own mandate emanating from the Germanic soul, or something like that.
A ( "the"?) Zionist leader was perhaps a "comparable quantity" in his eyes?
His words were carrying weight? At least to Hitler?
-----------------
Ceterum censeo, that Hitler should have been shot – by another!!
My emphasis.Two can't be that wrong.
Not even Roberto and "witness".
Eric I take it that you got offended by our misunderstanding.While I find your posts interesting, really sometimes you express yourself in an extremly vague way.My impression of your posts is like of ongoing
dialectics with yourself..At the same time I suspect ( which is natural
you have to admitt ) that there is an agenda (hidden ?) in all your ruminations. Oh my- it seems I start aping your style
If I get you right (again if ) you are talking about the problem of perception Hitler might have had of this Weizmann declaration.
That he might have perceived this declaration as a real threat to Germany
from the " world Jewry ".
We can call Hitler every possible name but we can not deny that he was a
very astute and calculating person.
How he could possibly perceive this pathetic ( strong word I agree but it turned out to be the truth ) declaration as a real threat.
Didn't he realize that the Jews were not united ,were reluctant to fight (those Jews , mostly "book-eaters" were absolutely different from the modern tough Israelis ).They didn't have a state ,resources, armed forces.
They had nothing to threaten Hitler with.
Poor Hitler was so scared for the safety of the German people..
(I am being sarcastic but it is begging here )
Hitler could not have possibly perceived this declaration as an essential
threat.He was a smart guy and he took this declaration as the golden opportunity to sell it to the public and depict Germany as a victim
defending herself from cunning ''eternal destroyer " (Himmler's words)
I think it is pretty obvious.
- Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
The Jews were still the declared enemy of Germany, and enemy-aliens are typically put into concentration camps as security risks at the very least.witness wrote:How he could possibly perceive this pathetic ( strong word I agree but it turned out to be the truth ) declaration as a real threat. Didn't he realize that the Jews were not united, were reluctant to fight (those Jews , mostly "book-eaters" were absolutely different from the modern tough Israelis ).They didn't have a state, resources, armed forces. They had nothing to threaten Hitler with. Poor Hitler was so scared for the safety of the German people...
Scott as usuall you are digging your heels only not to admitt that the Jews were not persecuted because some Jewish leader issued some declaration.Scott Smith wrote:The Jews were still the declared enemy of Germany, and enemy-aliens are typically put into concentration camps as security risks at the very least.witness wrote:How he could possibly perceive this pathetic ( strong word I agree but it turned out to be the truth ) declaration as a real threat. Didn't he realize that the Jews were not united, were reluctant to fight (those Jews , mostly "book-eaters" were absolutely different from the modern tough Israelis ).They didn't have a state, resources, armed forces. They had nothing to threaten Hitler with. Poor Hitler was so scared for the safety of the German people...
The Jews were hunted down because the Nazi needed them as their scapegoats.Hunting the Jews was the cohesive factor for the Nazis.
As simple as that.