Jewish women used in Wehrmacht brothels?

[Penn44]

Penn 44 wrote:

The impact of these Nazi biological myths on actual events often took bizarre forms. For example, when the Jews of Berlin were deported east, they had to leave their pets behind. Instead of giving these pets to Aryans (some of these animals were high quality, expensive animals), the Nazis chose to exterminate them instead because the Nazis feared that the animals had become "Jewish" animals from having lived in close proximity to their Jewish owners.

The above sounds like an urban myth to me. Could we have some evidence please?

The German authorities had no qualms about issuing to ethnic German refugees clothing that had previously been worn by Jews and had no doubt absorbed quite a bit of Jewish sweat and other bodily fluids.

"Urban myth?" Sort of like how you regard other aspects of the Holocaust?

Clothing can be laundered. Although you can wash a pet, and as far as your friends believed, if the Jewishness gets into the critter's blood, its lost to its animal race. I can no longer be an Aryan pet. You should know that Herr Mills. I am surprised that you didn't refer to these animals as "Jewish-Bolsheviks." You've revised many other aspects of the Holocaust, I don't suppose that there isn't any reason for you to deny this "Pet Holocaust."

The Nazis ordered banned German Jews from having pets on 15 May 1942. Jews were ordered to turn over these animals to the police.

Herr Mills asks for evidence. I recall reading of this account in an academic work several years ago, but I can't recall the title. However, here are some hits online that you can savor:

Jewish pets ordered destroyed.
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/affiliate ... uly99.html

A Jew kept bird despite law against having pets. Betrayal led to death at hands of police or at a concentration camp. 1943
http://german.vassar.edu/Berlin_1998/Lauren/sign3.html
and
http://www.pacificu.edu/academics/speci ... orial.html

The family cat, Muschel put to death by the Gestapo.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2943
and
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/03/klemperer.html

In May 1942, an order was issued to all Jews keeping animal pets to surrender these pets (Fürth, Germany).
http://home.t-online.de/home/RIJONUE/glaser4.htm

Shows a memorial sign of a kitty that memorizes the slaughtered pets.
http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Visual___Artist ... ller1.html

Hey, Mills, again, I ask you, were these Jewish-Bolshevik pets?


Penn44



.

[David E M]

Pen44, Is it really nessesary to be so agressive in your replies? are we not all gentlemen here?.
It maybe a cultural thing, but saying 'Hey Mills' I find offensive.
I hope politeness has not given way to PC.
cheers.

[Penn44]

Pen44, Is it really nessesary to be so agressive in your replies? are we not all gentlemen here?.
It maybe a cultural thing, but saying 'Hey Mills' I find offensive.
I hope politeness has not given way to PC.
cheers.

Although this is a personally directed remark of an non-topic nature, it is of matter of importance for greater cultural understanding, so I will take a moment to address it.

Any form of communication is "cultural" (which, of course, implies that it is historical as well, i.e., subject to change over time). Cultural misunderstandings happen frequently in this forum, and despite its occasional aggravations, these initial misunderstandings can, and often do lead to even greater knowledge and understanding, the very basis of why we are all here. Also, this median of Internet communication is more open to miscommunication than face-to-face communications. What you preceived as impoliteness or aggressiveness, may not have intended.

No, I would venture to say that we're not all "gentlemen" here, but the moderators require us to be, and so we should act accordingly. To be a true "gentleman," however, requires a certain parentage and cultivation. I am very dubious about the nature of the parentage of some of our posters.

"Hey Mills" is an example of a [sub]culturally-based expression. I have often called men with whom I am acquainted by their surnames since my early [American] football days.

I appreciate your concern.

Penn44


.

[R.M. Schultz]

This is a subject that has always baffled me.

Maybe I'm not normal, but I've only dated women that I would want to be the mother of my children. In fact, that's usually why I stopped dating girls; something turned up that I wouldn't want in my children (the girl was not as smart as I had supposed, had bad teeth, congenital illness, etc.). But race was never an issue. I never really cared if my kids looked like me, just so they were muscular, intelligent, and had good teeth. (My kids often tell me I should have added "tall" to the list, but, being tall, I guess I just took that for granted …) And so I married a woman who wasn't white, and my kids don't look like me, but they are smarter than hell and a lot more muscular than I was as a kid …

But what has always baffled me was race-mixing among racists. Take the American South. If slave-owners really regarded blacks as inferior, then why would they want a black woman to be the mother of their children? Yet it happened. Very frequently, judging from how much lighter complected American blacks are than Africans. Similarly, the most racist guys I went to school with in Virginia just raved about how "sexual" black girls were: but why would they sleep with black girls if they were so inferior?

The only thing I can figure is that racism is so irrational that it follows no logic.

[Witch-King of Angmar]

Maybe I'm not normal

This should have already been obvious

but I've only dated women that I would want to be the mother of my children. In fact, that's usually why I stopped dating girls; something turned up that I wouldn't want in my children

Both Christian and Communist doctrine preach that the first goal of sexuality is procreation. Some people's fidelity to the doctrine is funny.

Similarly, the most racist guys I went to school with in Virginia just raved about how "sexual" black girls were: but why would they sleep with black girls if they were so inferior?

Maybe they weren't so eager to impregnate them. I doubt a guard in a concentration camp was pleased when he impregnated a female prisoner, if ever.

The only thing I can figure is that racism is so irrational that it follows no logic.

Right. Nation of Islam comes to mind.

~The Witch-King of Angmar

[David E M]

I thank you for your reply, lets put it down to a cultural difference.
my dad once met feld-marschall Manstein in a railway station, the seargent accompaning him said please move aside, my dad said no f***ng way if i'd have seen this bastard a month ago I would have shot him.
Manstein said in English 'Its all right' and moved around my dad.
later the seargent came back and said 'you are quite right sir - but we are still gentlemen'.
My dad never forgot that.
cheers.

[David Thompson]

Everyone -- Please avoid personal remarks in posts, and let's get back on topic.

[michael mills]

Penn 44 wrote:

The Nazis ordered banned German Jews from having pets on 15 May 1942. Jews were ordered to turn over these animals to the police.

Herr Mills asks for evidence. I recall reading of this account in an academic work several years ago, but I can't recall the title. However, here are some hits online that you can savor:

I thank Penn 44 for posting the links.

However, it has to be said that he has seriously misrepresaented their content, as anyone who has bothered to read them will have noticed.

All of the links refer to the ban on Jewish ownership of pet animals (dogs, cats, birds), but only two of them refer to a pet being killed, and the pet was the same in both cases, Viktor Klemperer's pet cat, Muschel.

In fact, the only reference to killing of pets occurs in Klemperer's journal, and the two sites referring to that part of the journal give conflicting accounts, one saying that Muschel was killed by the Gestapo, the other, actually quoting Klemperer's own words, saying that Klemperer himself took Muschel to the vet to be destroyed, in other words it was his own decision.

The excerpt from Klemperer's journal gives the impression that he believed the pets of the Jews were all going to be destroyed, but no proof is adduced to show that such was indeed the case.

Most important of all, not a single one of the links provided by Penn 44 makes the claim that the pets of the Jews were killed because they had somehow been contaminated by their Jewish owners.

It may be that when the Jews surrendered their pets to the authorities in obedience to the decree issued in May 1942, large numbers of them were destroyed. But the most likely reason for that would be that it was impossible to find homes at such short notice for the large number of surrendered pets, and furthermore the keeping of pets would have been an extravagance in a wartime situation.

So Penn 44's absurd claim that pet animals formerly owned by Jews were destroyed because they were considered racially contaminated must be consigned to the dustbin where all such historical falsehoods belong.

Hey, Mills, again, I ask you, were these Jewish-Bolshevik pets?

The question is of course ridiculous, and not indicative of a serious frame of mind.

[Penn44]

However, it has to be said that he has seriously misrepresaented their content, as anyone who has bothered to read them will have noticed.

No, I did not.

So Penn 44's absurd claim that pet animals formerly owned by Jews were destroyed because they were considered racially contaminated must be consigned to the dustbin where all such historical falsehoods belong.

Thank you, Herr Mills for yet another one of your Revisionist suppositions. As I clearly stated previously, the source for that statement is in another book that I no longer have access to.

Hey, Mills, again, I ask you, were these Jewish-Bolshevik pets?

The question is of course ridiculous, and not indicative of a serious frame of mind.

And it is still awaiting one of your ridiculous answers from a your paranoid mind.


Penn44


.

[David Thompson]

Since the personal slurs and off-topic remarks about Judaeo-Bolshevik pets haven't stopped despite a warning, this thread is locked for 24 hours.

[von Tulloch]

Orthodox Jewish women will usually terminate their lives if they are certain that a rape is going to occur. However, if they don't, the resulting children are considered FULLY Jewish according to Jewish Law, and the mothers are USUALLY considered faultless. Even if the fathers are "Aryans..." I suppose this accounts for all of the blond-haired blue-eyed "Aryan-looking" Jews I've met in Germany...

However, I can tell you with no reservations that NO religious Jewish woman would allow herself to be used as a whore in a brothel by anti-semites. She would kill herself, first. That is a fact.

[Wolfensteiner]

Jewish women were used in brothels because I have read the diary of an SS man. I can provide more evidence if you really want.

[von Tulloch]

I believe you. However, many of the strictly Orthodox religious women would have done away with themselves rather than serve as whores.

Not all Jews are religious to that extent, and I should have stipulated that I was referring to the Chassidic and strictly Orthodox women of (mostly) Eastern Europe.

Techinically, the husband or father was responsible for slaying the females in his family if they were in danger of this sort of exploitation. This happened a lot during the middle-ages and Spanish Inquisition. However, I am unsure how often it occured during World War Two.

I've met lots of blond haired and blue eyed Jews while serving in the U.S. Army in Germany. A few of them would certainly have "passed" as Aryan. Those genes would have definitely had to come from somewhere, I guess... I've also met lots of Jewish looking "Aryans."

Taking advantage of any woman in such a way is odious. I wouldn't have thought the SS would have stooped to such a thing. What about the issue of "corruption" of both the Aryan and Jewish blood and spirit. Besides, I thought that sexual relations with a Jew was illegal according to the Nuremburg (sp?) laws. The contradictions are dizzying...

[David Thompson]

Aussie Tiger -- You said:

Jewish women were used in brothels because I have read the diary of an SS man. I can provide more evidence if you really want.

Please do provide more evidence. As you can see from the discussion on the first page of this thread, pursuant to sections 2, 5(1) and 5(2) of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor (September 15, 1935), sexual relations between a German citizen and a Jewish woman was a criminal act in Germany between 1935-1945.

[Wolfensteiner]

and every battle hardened soldier or frustrated SS man obeyed every single rule in this book?