Menachem Ussishkin

[James]

As ever, Walter, a very thoughtful piece.

Though you make only a passing reference to this idea, I too am troubled by the use some commentators (and I do NOT generally mean at this site) make of isolated quotes from persons who supposedly "represent" something called "World Jewry" or the like. As far as I can tell, there has been no such cohesive, monolithic group in post-Biblical times, notwithstanding the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or any other effort to sell the idea that those several million people spread out all over the world and all over a wide political and economic spectrum had or have any single or group of appointed spokesmen. Even a person who might be lucky enough to accurately capture prevalent thought among some large segment of Jews on one subject at one point in time might have been or become wildly inaccurate on the same topic at some other point in time--aging, for example, sometimes unfortunately does cause one to lose touch--or be inaccurate even at the same moment on some other topic of "Jewish thought."

Last but certainly not least, it is quite impossible to tell, particularly at the time, who does have his hands on the pulse of the people and who is wholly off the mark. There is a world of difference between theoretically being able to articulate what the prevalent thought among a group is, on the one hand, and dictating what must be thought and done to that same group, on the other. A Hitler or perhaps a Pope, to some extent, was able to do the latter; a Ussishkin could not.

A first cousin of this is the use by the same commentators of various and sundry signed and unsigned newspaper editorials, magazine stories, snippets of speeches and the like as representing major currents of thought among Jews all over the world. The difference here is that the authors of the statements are often either obscure or unknown, but because their supposed statements have found their way into print, they suddenly have greater currency and supposed import. Nonetheless, they too have little likelihood of capturing what is only illusory

[Erik]

The principal features of the exchange above have a strong sense of déjà-vu. Or : it echoes down the halls of history. Or :…?

Never mind.

Not only have the jews been “blamed” since Pharaoh time. They have also been destroyed, then, since then, and thereafter!

“…;the most considerable means that man could command have been pertinaciously applied to this object for the longer of recorded time”, wrote a famous Jew 150 years ago (see quote below).

Déjà-vu all over!

There were revolutions going on at that time, too.

Hitler – both as “reactionary” and exterminator – had predecessors.

AND so had Menachem Ussishkin, “Acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission”!!

Like the Earl of Beaconsfield:

From:
(”Lord George Bentinck : a Political Biography”. Kap XXIV, ”The Jewish Question”.)
http://www.gwb.com.au/2000/myers/100300.htm.

(From a Google search for “Lord George Bendinck”.)

<<The world has by this time discovered that it is impossible to destroy the Jews. 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. Egyptian pharaohs, Assyrian kings, Roman emperors, Scandinavian crusaders, Gothic princes, and holy inquisitors, have alike devoted their energies to the fulfilment of this common purpose. Expatriation, exile, captivity, confiscation, torture on the most ingenious and massacre on the most extensive scale, a curious system of degrading customs and debasing laws which would have broken the heart of any other people, have been tried, and in vain. The Jews, after all this havoc, are probably more numerous at this date than they were during the reign of Solomon the wise, are found in all lands, and unfortunately prospering in most. All which proves, that it is in vain for man to attempt to baffle the inexorable law of nature which has decreed that a superior race shall never be destroyed or absorbed by an inferior.>>

<<But existing society has chosen to persecute this race which should furnish its choice allies, and what have been the consequences?
They may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the mosaic or in the christian form, the natural equality of man and the abrogation of property, are proclaimed by the secret societies!! who form provisional governments, and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. the people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe! And all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.>>

Also the exchange above has predecessors, within “living memory”. On the Codoh BBS, Dr. Mathis took the quote to task for being used in an antisemitic context.

He quoted, emphasized and commented thus :

They may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or in the Christian form, the natural equality of man and the abrogation of property, are proclaimed by the secret societies which form provisional governments, and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe! And all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.
(Disraeli 497-98)
Thus Disraeli’s point is that maltreatment of Jews by “Christian” Europeans has led Jews to embrace radicalism. The remainder of the chapter is dedicated to explaining other periods in history that this happened, notably the Spanish Inquisition. Disraeli’s solution is to liberate the Jews and no longer oppress them. Communism, in Disraeli’s view, is not a “Jewish” phenomenon, but rather one to which oppressed Jews will adhere if “Christian” Europe does not afford them proper treatment.

From :CODOH Discussion Forum - Disraeli on Jews and Communism.htm [Apr-06-01, 12:44 PM (PST)]

By aemathisphd(Dr. Mathis)

Here Disraeli said in 1852 (probably written while “the Revolution of the intellectuals” 1848 was still going on) more or less what Ussishkin said in 1920.

[Talus]

I appreciate the contributions of varying points of view on this thread.

One of the things for which I feel indebted to revisionist sites is the provision of more context for some of the terrible events that took place. For example, according to some Polish commentators the brutal Soviet takeover of eastern Poland in 1939 was warmly welcomed by many Polish Jews in that region. Jews were overrepresented among the Soviet secret police, and some Polish Jews played prominent roles in denouncing non-Jewish Poles to the Soviets. This was some of the context for Polish coldness towards Jews during the Nazi occupation, and atrocities such as the massacre at Jedwabne.

Such things are not mentioned. The result is that the Holocaust feels as though it is not really part of history. It's outside of history - something unmotivated, inexplicable, black and disembodied that hovers over us. There is something unreal and, to me, incredible about this. I don't really buy it.

[Scott Smith]

4. THHP quote and translation

Diese Verpestung unseres Blutes, an der Hunderttausende unseres Volkes wie blind vorübergehen, wird aber vom Juden heute planmäßig betrieben. Planmäßig schänden diese schwarzen Völkerparasiten unsere unerfahrenen, jungen blonden Mädchen und zerstören dadurch etwas, was auf dieser Welt nicht mehr ersetzt werden kann.

This contamination of our blood, which hundreds of thousands of our people blindly ignore, is used by the Jew today according to plan. These black parasites of the peoples deliberately violate our inexperienced, young blond girls and thereby destroy something that cannot be replaced in this world.

And below the quote from Stormfront:

1939 Hurst and Blackett translation

VOLUME II

CHAPTER X
THE MASK OF FEDERALISM
http://www.stormfront.org/books/mein_ka ... 2ch10.html

Quote:
This pestilential adulteration of the blood, of which hundreds of thousands of our people take no account, is being systematically practised by the Jew to-day. Systematically these negroid parasites in our national body corrupt our innocent fair-haired girls and thus destroy something which can no longer be replaced in this world.

Schwarz is the German term for black, here used not for the Jews' color(they are White), but a a symbol of the Devil they were supposed to represent.

Neger is the German term for Black man.

Our dear friends Stormfront.org, based on the lack of German language knowledge among the Americans, had translated schwarz as "negroid", thus giving a brilliant example of unfairness.

~Ovidius

Well, Ovi, then you better tell them that they are staining the Führer's reputation. As this is certainly not their intention, they are even likely to be grateful for your advice.

However, I don't think the mistranslation is their fault. They tell us that the text they are featuring comes from the first English translation published by editors Hurst and Blackett Ltd. in 1939, and I see no reason why they should be lying about this.

The Hurst & Blackett, Ltd. (NY: 1939) version is correct as quoted above by Roberto. It sometimes reads somewhat better in English than the Reynal & Hitchcock (NY: 1941) version below:

"This infection of our blood, which hundreds of thousands of our people overlook as though blind, is, moreover, promoted systematically by the Jews today. Systematically these black parasites of the nations ravish our innocent young, blonde girls and thus destroy something that can never again be replaced in this world." Reynal & Hitchcock (NY: 1941), pp. 826-827. (Mein Kampf, vol. II, ch. X.)

"This pestilential adulteration of the blood, of which hundreds of thousands of our people take no account, is being systematically practised by the Jew to-day. Systematically these negroid parasites in our national body corrupt our innocent fair-haired girls and thus destroy something which can no longer be replaced in this world." Hurst & Blackett Ltd. (NY: 1939), p. 310.

Ovidius is correct that the original German version uses the word schwarzen instead of Neger, but when reading the entire context it is clear that Hitler is saying in this passage that the Jews promote race-mixing (as in southern Italy) and not merely immorality, although Hitler is clearly juxtaposing the two.

"Just as the Jew was once able to occupy public opinion with the struggle between federalism and centralization, and thus undermine it, while he sold out the national freedom and betrayed our fatherland to international high finance, so he was again able to loose a storm between the two German denominations, while the foundations of both were eaten away and undermined by international world Jewry.

Let the desolation which Jewish hybridization daily visits on our nation be clearly seen, this blood-poisoning that can be removed from our body national only after centuries or nevermore; let it be pondered, furhter, how racial decay drags down, indeed often annuls, the final Aryan values of our German nation, so that our force as a culture-bearing people is visibly more and more in retreat and we run the great danger of ending up, at least in our great cities, where southern Italy already is today. This infection of our blood, which hundreds of thousands of our people overlook as though blind, is, moreover, promoted systematically by the Jews today. Systematically these black parasites of the nations ravish our innocent blonde girls and thus destroy something that can never again be replaced in this world. Both, yes, both Christian denominations regard with indifference this desecration and annihilation of a noble and unique race to whom the earth was given by the grace of God. What is important for the earth's future is not whether Protestants vanquish Catholics or Catholics vanquish Protestants, but whether Aryan humanity maintains itself or dies out. Nevertheless, today the two denominations do not fight against the despoiler of this humanity, but strive to destroy one another. Precisely he who is folkishly oriented has the most sacred duty, each within his own denomination, to see to it that God's will is not simply talked about outwardly, but that God's will is also fulfilled and God's labor not ravished. (Emphasis Original.) Reynal & Hitchcock, pp. 826-827.

Both English versions read very different, especially when compared to the German original, which the THHP version cited above appears correct word-for-word in comparison to. One wonders, however, why the former Medorjurgen does not get his OWN original copy of Mein Kampf in Deutsch, given that he lays great emphasis on rhetoric. Perhaps this would be a violation of the law in Europe? Perhaps he would like me to supply the German quotations from my copy? Or perhaps he should trust the infallibility of The Holocaust History Project and Stormfront in reproducing Mein Kampf with semantical accuracy.

[Tarpon27]

Scott wrote:

Both English versions read very different, especially when compared to the German original, which the THHP version cited above appears correct word-for-word in comparison to.

And within 2 sentences, finishes with:

Scott wrote:

Or perhaps he should trust the infallibility of The Holocaust History Project and Stormfront in reproducing Mein Kampf with semantical accuracy.

Why shouldn't he trust THHP? You just confirmed its accuracy.

(Or is that "spam" Scott? LOL!)

If you are going to be sarcastic, perhaps you should consider NOT confirming the validity and use of your uniquely termed "spam" sites as being accurate before you take your shots on the second of your favorite whipping boys i.e., hate speech laws. Which, as you well know, Roberto has objected too countless times in the short period I have read this forum.

Mark

[Scott Smith]

I never said anything about Spam here.

That passage in German is correct because I checked it. I'm not going to check the whole thing, and even if I did, it could be changed in a blink of cut-and-paste by any Holo-webmeister, whereas a published book in a library cannot, barring some kind of Winstonian conspiracy.

And so is the English in the R & H version correct, which is nevertheless different, as Ovidius correctedly noted.

Mein Kampf is banned in some locales. But my point is why should one who makes such semantic quibbles trust Internet sites? He should get an original German copy. Period.

I've tried to explain to no avail the difference between Internet sites and printed versions in historiographical analysis. That is why, for example, a 1946 published copy of an IMT proclamation is better than from a neo-Nazi or Holo-site of partisan position.

Furthermore, an Internet site is only as good as its search engine. Roberto's attorney friend from Down Under that he loves to quote regarding my stupidity could not find the IMT reference to the Treblinka steam-murders until I provided the document number, and published it in full here, which came via me verbatim from the Red books published in 1946. Revisionist Greg Raven then followed with the same document from the Blue books of 1946. Roberto denied the steam-murder allegation with a bald face until confronted with it directly. I guess these inconvenient details sort of fell into the Memory Hole.

I'm sure that evaluation of primary, secondary, tertiary and plastic sources is too difficult to understand. Rather like whether a witness really saw what he is testifying about, for example.

Roberto has objected [to Thoughtcrimes laws] too countless times in the short period I have read this forum.

And I find that objection insincere. He cannot even accept that the Holo-publicists and the selfsame people who say there can be no debate on the Holocaust profit from those laws. And Roberto vociferously denies that they are even Thoughtcrimes laws but laws intended for public safety, another hypocritical assertion.

If Leuchter went to Germany he would go to Jail, and probably the same with Fritz Berg. And maybe me for the opinions that I have expressed on this message board, which have certainly never been racist or hateful, nor anti-Semitic, IMHO.

[Roberto]

Tell us something, Reverend, are you trying to making a constructive point or are you just venting your understandable frustration, fussing about because your’re raving mad at me?

Both English versions read very different, especially when compared to the German original, which the THHP version cited above appears correct word-for-word in comparison to. One wonders, however, why the former Medorjurgen does not get his OWN original copy of Mein Kampf in Deutsch, given that he lays great emphasis on rhetoric.

Two things wrong in the above passage. The first is that I don’t lay great emphasis on rhetoric, on the contrary. But I don’t consider Mein Kampf to have been mere rhetoric, and neither does the Führer himself seem to have. The second is that I see no reason to obtain a German copy of that boring screed because I know I can count on the Führer’s faithful followers to point out any translation error they may detect, to the extent that their mastery of German is sufficient to detect it at all. I am surprised, by the way, that a True Believer from Arizona who hasn’t even mastered the lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied is all of a sudden able to assess the accuracy of a translation from German. Has he got himself an effective walking dictionary over the last two weeks, or has he been too modest all this time in regard to his mastery of German, only to now reveal that he speaks and reads the language fluently?

Perhaps this would be a violation of the law in Europe?

The last thing I would care about if I were interested in the book, assuming that it’s really illegal to publish it in Germany. The Reverend knows well what I think of laws against hate speech.

Perhaps he would like me to supply the German quotations from my copy?

Why, does the Reverend have a German copy? And does he understand what is written in there? Surprise, surprise …

Or perhaps he should trust the infallibility of The Holocaust History Project

Any reason why I should suspect them of misquoting their sources?

and Stormfront in reproducing Mein Kampf with semantical accuracy.

Any reason why those True Believers should have jinxed the Hurst & Blackett edition, especially in such a way as to misrepresent their Führer’s hallowed words?

That passage in German is correct because I checked it.

Now the Reverend is able to check a translation from German. See above.

I'm not going to check the whole thing, and even if I did, it could be changed in a blink of cut-and-paste by any Holo-webmeister,

Know of any “Holo-webmeister” who ever did such a thing, Reverend?

whereas a published book in a library cannot, barring some kind of Winstonian conspiracy.

And I thought the Reverend didn’t believe in conspiracies. Blind rage seems to be prompting him to let more about himself out of the sack than he previously did.

Mein Kampf is banned in some locales. But my point is why should one who makes such semantic quibbles trust Internet sites?

Why not? Some Internet sites are bunk, for sure – especially the “Revisionist” ones that the Reverend looks up to - but those I usually refer to have so far given me no reason to doubt the reliability of their rendering of sources. (Can the Reverend show us one?)

He should get an original German copy. Period.

In due time I may do so. For now I know that I can count on the Reverend with his miraculously acquired knowledge of German and his original-language copy of Mein Kampf to howl out whenever he considers a translation to be inaccurate.

I've tried to explain to no avail the difference between Internet sites and printed versions in historiographical analysis.

The Reverend has tried. And as in so many of his other endeavors, he hasn’t succeeded.

That is why, for example, a 1946 published copy of an IMT proclamation is better than from a neo-Nazi or Holo-site of partisan position.

Even if that “neo-Nazi or Holo-site of partisan position” does nothing other than trancribe the original text, Reverend?

Furthermore, an Internet site is only as good as its search engine. Roberto's attorney friend from Down Under that he loves to quote regarding my stupidity

Not exactly your stupidity, Reverend. Your ideological blindness and intellectual dishonesty, which of course may be related to a stupidity of sorts. By attacking Stephen, who is not taking part in this discussion and hasn’t even been referred to so far, the Reverend is revealing one of those character traits of his that make me regard him with the utmost contempt, by the way. Careful, buddy, you ain’t making friends like that. Outside the camp of your fellow True Believers there seem to be few people still willing to put in a good word for you, so better watch your step.

could not find the IMT reference to the Treblinka steam-murders until I provided the document number, and published it in full here, which came via me verbatim from the Red books published in 1946. Revisionist Greg Raven then followed with the same document from the Blue books of 1946. Roberto denied the steam-murder allegation with a bald face until confronted with it directly. I guess these inconvenient details sort of fell into the Memory Hole.

Show me where I “denied the steam-murder allegation with a bald face” instead of pointing out the utter irrelevancy of an understandably inaccurate description of the killing method by far-away outside observers of the Treblinka camp to the essential findings of fact about the large-scale mass murder that went on there, Reverend. Or shall I add this contention to the list of the Reverend’s lies right away? Why, I even pointed out to the Reverend that he need not have run to the library or to Uncle Greg but could have found a transcription of the document he made such a pointless fuss about online, remember? Here is the link, once again:

http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb/ava ... -14-45.htm

I'm sure that evaluation of primary, secondary, tertiary and plastic sources is too difficult to understand.

It sure seems to be for you, Reverend. Or have we ever seen an evaluation of any source of evidence from you, Mr. Historian?

Rather like whether a witness really saw what he is testifying about, for example.

There are several ways to do that, such as comparing the statements made by the witness with those of other witnesses, defendants and/or what becomes apparent from the available documentary and/or physical evidence. Which is exacty the approach taken by criminal justice and historiography.

Tarpon wrote:

Roberto has objected [to Thoughtcrimes laws] too countless times in the short period I have read this forum.

And I find that objection insincere.

On what basis do you doubt my sincerity, Reverend? As I could doubt the sincerity of your howling on the basis of your unwillingness to do anything against those "Thoughtcrimes laws" other than howl about them on a discussion forum, better be careful with such crap.

He cannot even accept that the Holo-publicists and the selfsame people who say there can be no debate on the Holocaust profit from those laws.

If that’s what you got as proof of my “insincerity”, poor show. Tell us, Reverend, in what way would Holocaust researchers and publicists profit from laws banning the nonsense that gives them the splendid job of taking it apart? Just one example: Would we ever have heard much of Deborah Lipstadt if it had not been for David Irving and other enlightened spirits she exposes in Denying the Holocaust?

And Roberto vociferously denies that they are even Thoughtcrimes laws but laws intended for public safety, another hypocritical assertion.

No, my dear Sir, an assertion based on a realistic assessment of real politics, as opposed to “Revisionist” paranoia. Governments that apply laws against hate speech do so because they are concerned with something. What is that more likely to be, safeguarding a given version of history or keeping discontented segments of the population, especially the unemployed, from being taken in by extremist propaganda and causing disturbances of the public order and inter-ethnic violence? Try to take off the ideological blinders and use your brain just once, Reverend.

If Leuchter went to Germany he would go to Jail, and probably the same with Fritz Berg.

That’s the wrong thing to do, but it doesn’t make the nonsense those freaks have produced any less nonsensical.

And maybe me for the opinions that I have expressed on this message board, which have certainly never been racist or hateful, nor anti-Semitic, IMHO.

I doubt that anyone in Germany can legally bother the Reverend for opinions uttered on an international discussion forum. As to his opinons not having been “racist or hateful, nor anti-Semitic”, I’ll leave it to our audience to decide whether the denial of proven facts related to the Nazi mass murder of Jews, defamating for the victims and those related to them and apologetic for the murderers, does not betray an obsessive and irrational hatred of Jews. Especially when coming from someone who obviously sees himself as a poor Gentile whom those bad, bad Jews are trying to do wrong with their “accusations”, and who seems to have little else on his plate.

[Roberto]

I appreciate the contributions of varying points of view on this thread.

One of the things for which I feel indebted to revisionist sites is the provision of more context for some of the terrible events that took place. For example, according to some Polish commentators the brutal Soviet takeover of eastern Poland in 1939 was warmly welcomed by many Polish Jews in that region. Jews were overrepresented among the Soviet secret police, and some Polish Jews played prominent roles in denouncing non-Jewish Poles to the Soviets. This was some of the context for Polish coldness towards Jews during the Nazi occupation, and atrocities such as the massacre at Jedwabne.

Such things are not mentioned. The result is that the Holocaust feels as though it is not really part of history. It's outside of history - something unmotivated, inexplicable, black and disembodied that hovers over us. There is something unreal and, to me, incredible about this. I don't really buy it.

Neither do I, nor do historians. I don't think we need "Revisionist" hoaxers to put events into "context". There is German historian Christian Gerlach, for instance, who has done pioneering research into the connections between Nazi occupation and food supply policies and their killing programs, which by no means targeted only Jews. Gerlach's books
Krieg, Ernährung, Völkermord and Kalkulierte Morde are, in my opinion, must reads if you want to understand the Nazis' motivations for doing the things they did, especially the former.

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3 ... 28-1536802

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3 ... 28-1536802



As to the connection between perceived Jewish participation in Soviet atrocities in Eastern Poland and the subsequent indifference of the non-Jewish population towards the Nazi massacre of the Jews or even active participation therein, there is the book ' Konterrevolutionäre Elemente sind zu erschießen', by Polish historian Bogdan Musial:

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3 ... 28-1536802



Gerlach and Musial can be considered revisionists in the proper sense of the term - exactly what the propagandists who call themselves "Revisionists" are not.

[Scott Smith]

Tell us something, Reverend, are you trying to making a constructive point or are you just venting your understandable frustration, fussing about because your’re raving mad at me?

Actually Roberto, I was just trying to be helpful and even reluctantly taking your side against Ovidius, but then your erstwhile defender Tarp stepped in to help... Sorry.

Now, we've had this conversation before and I feel that rather than relying on neo-Nazi or Holo-sites you should get your own copy of Mein Kampf, as you lay such emphasis on rhetorical semantics, even written a generation before WWII.

I didn't say that I was translating the German correctly for you. I merely checked and the THHP quote that you gave in German was correct, verbatim to my own original copy. I also found two different English versions.

So, in this case Ovidius is correct about the word "black" but, IMHO, looking at the context he was wrong; the passage was about the "Jewish evils of race-mixing." I do think that Ovidus is correct in that neo-Nazis lay greater emphasis on racism than Hitler did, however.

Now, have a good evening, Roberto.


Beep Beep

[michael mills]

Walter kaschner wrote:

in my admittedly general reading I can not recall even a mention of Ussishkin

With respect, I suggest that that is more indicative of a gap in your knowledge than of a lack of significance of Ussishkin. I suggest you read the history of Zionism by Walter Laqueur, or any other history of Zionism. You might also read a book called "polin", which has a chapter on the activity of Lucien Wolf at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919; that chapter gives a lot of information on Ussishkin's role as the leader of the Jewish Delegation to the Conference.

Ussishkin was abn important man. He was the main representative of East European Jewry to the outside world immediately after the First World War, and was also one of the Zionist leaders. I would suggest he was in a position to enunciate the position of the Jewish ruling classes toward the Russian Revolution.

(Incidentally, I have read Pipes' book and can not concur with your view that he attributes the rise of anti-Semitism, as demonstrated by the White pogroms during the Russian Civil War, to fear of the Jews.)

Pipes wrote that the experience of the Russian Revolution CHANGED THE NATURE of anti-Jewish prejudice. Until that time, such prejudice was based on contempt for the Jew. The Russian Revolution CHANGED that feeling into one of FEAR, which had not existed before. It seemed to give credence to theories that Jews were plotting to take control of the world by subversion, theories which had been expressed in such works as "The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion", but which had not been really taken seriously. Now, after observing the carnage in Russia caused by the revolution, even people such as Winston Churchill started to believe that there really was a Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy.

If you still do not believe me, I will go to the trouble (eventually) of looking up Pipes' book again and quoting the precise passages.

The anti-Semitism that existed prior to the Russian Revolution was not sufficiently intense to lead to slaughter on a massive scale. At most it led to minor discrimination. There were pogroms in Russia in 1881, and again in 1904, but they were a facet of popular uprisings occurring at those times, and blew over very quickly. The number of people killed was very small, although they made an impression at the time.

By contrast, the pogroms that occurred in Ukraine in 1919 were a direct reaction to the Russian Revolution, and were on a much larger scale. Furthermore, they were now carried out by counter-revolutionary troops rather than by mobs. The mass-killings carried out by German forces in 1941 replicated the slaughter of 1919, but on a much larger scale.

Frankly, I think the support for your above assumption is simply too flimsy to stand.

I respect your opinion, ill-informed though it may be. There are even many jewish historians who realise that the rise of anti-Semitism was not a result of blind prejudice but was caused by objective factors, including actions by Jews themselves.

My second problem with your posts deals with your notion that Hitler's "Second Book" is probably a spurious forgery

It cannot be definitively proved that the so-called "Second Book" is a forgery. Neither can it be definitively proved that it is genuine. It is extremely odd that absolutely none of the Nazi leadership seemed to know anything about it. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Hitler could have composed by himself, and simply dictated it to Amann, without any assistance, particularly when "Mein Kampf" shows all the signs of having drawn on a number of sources, and of having been drafted by different people.

The "Second Book" appears a lot more "rational" than "Mein Kampf", and shows all the signs of having been drafted by a Nazi sympathiser who wanted to systematise the haphazard mishmash of ideas that appears in "mein Kampf" and in Hitler's various speeches. One example of systematisation is the theory of the competition between races, with the Jews having to compete in a subversive way because of their lack of a territorial base.

That same theory, and the same attempts at systematisation, occur in the so-called "Political Testament" published by Genoud. I suspect that there is some connection between the "Second Book" and the "Political Testament", due to the similarity of ideas (the "Political Testament" also attempts to justify the alliance with Italy), and I suspect that they are both the work of the same forger, perhaps the Nazi sympathiser Genoud himself, although that cannot be proved.

It should be borne in mind tha Hitler had no interest in systematic ideology, being concerned only with practical action. He had nothing but contempt for Rosenberg, the ideologist of National Socialism, although he borrowed his ideas about Jewish Bolshevism. Hitler was a doer, not a thinker. Unlike Stalin, he had no desire to be thought of as a great theoretician.

The fact that some historians have endorsed the "second Book" cuts no ice with me. Trevor-Roper endorsed the "Political Testament", despite its dubious origin, and also the "Hitler Diaries", which were a proved forgery. (It is noteworthy that the story about the supposed transmission of the "diaries" was very similar to the story of the transmission of the "political testament").

[Roberto]

Actually Roberto, I was just trying to be helpful and even reluctantly taking your side against Ovidius, but then your erstwhile defender Tarp stepped in to help... Sorry.

Bullshit.

Now, we've had this conversation before and I feel that rather than relying on neo-Nazi or Holo-sites you should get your own copy of Mein Kampf, as you lay such emphasis on rhetorical semantics, even written a generation before WWII.

I see no reason to assume that the neo-Nazi sites would misrepresent the Führer’s hallowed words, or that the “Holo-sites” I usually refer to don’t render their sources accurately. The Reverend obviously can show me no such reason either. And his beloved Führer had a talent for getting his message through independently of semantics, so simple and clear-cut it was. Anyway, if the Reverend can tell me where I can get the original German text of the screed, on or off the web, I’ll have a look at it on one of those very rare occasions when I really have nothing better to do.

I didn't say that I was translating the German correctly for you. I merely checked and the THHP quote that you gave in German was correct, verbatim to my own original copy.

So the original copy of Mein Kampf is not for reading, just a relic and something to show off to like-minded folks. I see. Let me test your knowledge of German, old pal:

Manchmal könnte man meinen, der Prediger sei personengleich mit dem armseligen Armleuchter, dessen wirre Theorien er dem Publikum dieses Forums laufend anzudrehen versucht.

What did I write, Reverend?

Beep Beep

Why, buddy, you look more like this fellow to me:

[Scott Smith]

So the original copy of Mein Kampf is not for reading, just a relic and something to show off to like-minded folks. I see.

I know you don't like books, but this one will not make you revert to your neo-Nazi adolescence when you cabbage from it.

Let me test your knowledge of German, old pal:

Manchmal könnte man meinen, der Prediger sei personengleich mit dem armseligen Armleuchter, dessen wirre Theorien er dem Publikum dieses Forums laufend anzudrehen versucht.

What did I write, Reverend?

"Don't hide your light under a bushel, Reverend."

Gee, thanks, Mr. Believer.

[Roberto]

So the original copy of Mein Kampf is not for reading, just a relic and something to show off to like-minded folks. I see.

I know you don't like books,

A lot more than the Reverend does, I dare say. Except for toilet paper such as The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, of course.

but this one will not make you revert to your neo-Nazi adolescence when you cabbage from it.

Anyway, if the Reverend can tell me where I can get the original German text of the screed, on or off the web, I’ll have a look at it on one of those very rare occasions when I really have nothing better to do.

This I wrote in my last post. How about some useful directions instead of all that beaten cattle manure?

Let me test your knowledge of German, old pal:

Manchmal könnte man meinen, der Prediger sei personengleich mit dem armseligen Armleuchter, dessen wirre Theorien er dem Publikum dieses Forums laufend anzudrehen versucht.

What did I write, Reverend?

"Don't hide your light under a bushel, Reverend."

Unless you're doing just that, your German is rather lousy.




Now what do we have here? An allegory to "Revisionist" Faith and the Reverend's throwing his brains into the fire at the feet of it?

Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war.

“Hoaxbuster” Friedrich Paul Berg on the Codoh discussion forum.
http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/143.html#10

[Scott Smith]

I never said that I spoke German, Roberto. In fact, I believe I said that I didn't. And I don't know where you can get an original copy of Mein Kampf in Portugal or what laws you would be breaking if you did. That's your problem. I'm not really inclined to help. I merely pointed out the limitations in using Internet sources, especially for one who makes such semantical quibbles of rhetoric, which I can see goes way above some heads.

Keep the Faith, Mr. Believer!

[Roberto]

I never said that I spoke German, Roberto. In fact, I believe I said that I didn't. And I don't know where you can get an original copy of Mein Kampf in Portugal or what laws you would be breaking if you did. That's your problem. I'm not really inclined to help.

The poor sleepless Reverend is mad at me again. He should be aware, however, that I didn't ask him any favor. I just made clear what the degree of my interest in the Reverend's bible is.

I merely pointed out the limitations in using Internet sources, especially for one who makes such semantical quibbles of rhetoric, which I can see goes way above some heads.

What limitations did you point out, Reverend? Unless I missed something, you didn't point out any mistake on the sites you made a fuss about.

Keep the Faith, Mr. Believer!

I neither have nor need any. Faith I leave to the Reverend and his ilk.

Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war.

“Hoaxbuster” Friedrich Paul Berg on the Codoh discussion forum.
http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/143.html#10