Holocaust:True Or False ?

[winebeavis]

Trying my best to avoid hot topic threads these days.

Just thought I'd throw out a few books on the subject.

Everybody should read (if they haven't already done so) Night by Elie Wisel. A first had experience recount by a surviver. Not too many pages, can be ready in a few hours, pulls no punches. No bull shit.



If there is ever going to be a second must read book, the next most important might be by the historian Raul Hilberg. His 1961 book The Destruction of the European Jews is a must read. However, it's not a novel and probably doesn't read that easy. But his research is regarded as top notch and comprehensive and took around 15 years to complete. It's dry and dense reading. Like reading research. But Hilberg was said to have had unfettered access what was recovered.

I actually have an original 1961 Quadrangle published version of this book that I oddly bought from a public library book sale in 1991. I can only presume they picked up the three volume set that came out in the mid 1980s. The difference from what I've read is the type size. The original was 2 columns per page in a small font for 788 pages (through the index). The reissues were three volumes and 1300+ pages.

Check both books out if you're interested in the subject.

[c-cat]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

Yes, that's a sad story and not so publicly known as other stories.
The ships were mostly some kind of cargo ships or something between a cargo and passenger ships.
And diseases broke (bloody flux for example) out because of the hygienic conditions as you can imagine of the overloaded ships with refugees.

But one has to consider the time: no one of the US officials could imagine what was going on in Germany in reality. The refugees could be spies or worser. Where to put those people. And more ships were on the way! If they would have known, this war in Europe is going 6 years in Europe, they would found a solution, I think and send them back after the war was over. But they couldn't know at this time too.

But they could have improve the hygienic conditions, spend medicaments, the number of dead would have been reduced to a minimum.

There is a theory that Nazi Germany sent the St. Louis out knowing full well that they would be denied entrance by any country. The idea is that Germany could then say, "You see, no one wants them. What else do you expect us to do? Your apathy towards them and denial of their entrance is a complicit approval of our Final Solution."

The St. Louis actually tried to find port in a few Caribbean, Central and South American nations. Most of the nations wanted money in exchange for every refuge taken in but a deal would always fall through at the last minute.

What is most interesting is the Japanese reaction to Jewish refugees. Despite their alliance with Nazi Germany, Jews in Japan and China were afforded the full protection of the Japanese government. The Japanese consul in Russia, disobeyed strict orders not to issue visas to Jews and was signing and throwing them from the train window as he was being recalled. It was only in the past few years that he was recognized for his heroic actions.

There is also a great account of how a Rabbi convinced the Japanese military commanders to provide protection to the Jews. When asked why the Nazis hated the Jews, the rabbi replied that it was because the Jews were of Oriental descent, short, and dark haired.

[Zidon]

Originally Posted by navvet

Earlier in this thread (#42), I mentioned that George Lincoln Rockwell was one of the first holocaust "deniers" to go public. On youtube, I found a snippet of a radio interview with Rockwell, in which he elaborates on his warped ideas concerning blacks, Jews, and the holocaust. It's actually kind of sickening how he rationalizes his conclusions. The interview was recorded in the mid-1960s. It's a little over 6 minutes long and, if you want to know pure fear, please give it a listen. The fear I'm referring to comes from the fact that so many people have bought into his nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21BpgcT23Vs

Horrid and at the same time strangely interesting, thanks for this.

Check this out, on time 2:30 of the vid he uses the term "goy", and immediately takes it back and says gentile.

Goy is Hebrew or Yiddish for non-jew.

Slip of the tongue? How is it he uses the term so naturally? Very interesting…

Something else, if black Americans have current issues with jews, they should hear this vid...

[danton]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

As I recall, some of these refugee vessels were deliberately run aground on the Palestine coast if they successfully evaded the British naval security screen.

I was taught by a man who served in the army during this period. He told us he had been put on board one of the refugee ships off Palestine to guard the refugees but suffered from sea sickness. They would help him to the rail so he could vomit, obligingly holding his rifle and tin hat … I knew another who had the less than erotic experience of being greeted by naked women on one vessel. Confident for some reason that they would not be molested by British soldiers.

[deepsepia]

I will say this about "holocaust denial":

-- its certainly reasonable to look at historical events for accuracy and consistency. The details of the Holocaust are complex, and while the SS made efforts to keep these actions out of the histories, the Germans were good at keeping records, and there are abundant materials to consult

-- the domain of "holocaust denial", as opposed to historical inquiry about the Holocaust, typically is really about "Holocaust approval". That is, when you examine the motivations of the "denial" crowd, they're typically not at all neutral about Jews. What they really object to, I think, is that the Holocaust established once and for all that killing Jews or advocating same is a bad thing.

So while there's lots of scope for historical inquiry about genocides, one should steer clear of the shoals of hatred in doing so. That's not specific to Jews and the Holocaust; you can hear the "it really wasn't so bad" argument in any context where ill was done to one group and subsequently folks try to minimize it.

Sadly, human history has a lot of brutality, against individuals and against groups, and its pretty shocking but the response to this brutality ain't what we'd wish.

Looking to Asia, I find the fact that the Khmer Rouge got off more or less scot-free shocking, and in Japan, their own version of Josef Mengele, Ryoichi Naito not only never had to flee to Argentina, he ended up running a pharmaceutical company

What is unusual about the Holocaust is that the victims had a voice -- mostly because of the sizable population of Jews that was beyond Hitler's reach. But for other victims, the Roma, there was very little popular awareness until recently. With only a small overseas community, and very limited means of telling their own story, the term Porajmos is pretty much unknown.

The death toll of Roma is unknown, but current estimates are roughly one quarter of the one million pre war population . . .

[Zidon]

regarding anti-semitism and possible triggers of the holocaust, the main thing I see in this thread is rational thinking. which of course makes sense cause that's how most of us go through life, and I reckon the more intelligent and learned one is, the more he will rationalize (at least in western culture).

thing is, I think the basis for it all is the un-rational.

the question of hitler's possible negative experience with jews is IMO irrelevant…

say he got beat up by the jewish class bully, so? that would explain a final solution? or the matter of the money lending… that was centuries ago and died out, is there any other ethnic group that gets nailed by previous occupation?

so maybe the mother wouldn't want the daughter to marry an Italian from Chicago, but destroy all his family? besides I doubt many active anti-semits are even aware of this money-lending or specific Christian relation.

My unlearned and personal thought is that the source for anti-semitism lays in the potential for jews to be different.

I say potential, as in not an overall absolute defining characteristic for jews all over the world, and I say different without a quality peg of better/worse. just different.

does anyone know of any other ethnic group that originates back to ancient times? I think the jews are unique in this. the tendency was for ethnic groups to intermesh, Jews always retained something of their own, culture-religion-tradition.

and then there is the matter of why anti-semtism is most pronounced in Europe, less in U.S. Australia, and nill in Asian countries.

many of you know much more history and anthropology than myself and I've never read on the subject, but there is something about the forming of the countries and cultures in Europe. Jews had that potential for something that put some of them apart and wouldn't let them fully dissolve in the forming melting pot.

most kids, animals or even us, social creatures that we are, sense primal differences, often resent it, even if just in a subconscious level. and if that other one may also be perceived as being superior or not willing to play along, well things can get rougher.

U.S. & Australia are based on immigrants, no? so everyone started off fresh and there was more openness to multi-culture.

for Asians, I can presume all westerners are Gaijin anyways.

Then we come to the jewish state, Israel… why does it draw so much fire? and why so much from Europe? why is the UN always busy with Israel? Why do it's acts, whatever they may be or how bad they may be, get a negative magnifying factor?

In the middle-east thread there was mention of expectations, from Israel as a Jewish nation, or combined with Jews as a group. especially because what the Jews went through in the holocaust. I heard this in the past from people I respect.

I'm curious if any other ethnic group that was traumatized would fare same expectations?

anyways, if what I'm saying holds some truth, then the western world/Europe is not able to acknowledge it.

haroldeye summed it best:

Originally Posted by haroldeye

I would suggest that it is not a sickness but an integral part of the beast that is within us all...

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Zidon

the question of hitler's possible negative experience with jews is IMO irrelevant…

does anyone know of any other ethnic group that originates back to ancient times? I think the jews are unique in this. the tendency was for ethnic groups to intermesh, Jews always retained something of their own, culture-religion-tradition.

and then there is the matter of why anti-semtism is most pronounced in Europe, less in U.S. Australia,

U.S. & Australia are based on immigrants, no? so everyone started off fresh and there was more openness to multi-culture.

Then we come to the jewish state, Israel… why does it draw so much fire? and why so much from Europe? why is the UN always busy with Israel? Why do it's acts, whatever they may be or how bad they may be, get a negative magnifying factor?

I'm curious if any other ethnic group that was traumatized would fare same expectations?

Zidon you need to remember that Hitler never fit in the sane category.
You have isolated one reason the Jews were not liked. They stayed aloof and only married with in their own culture.
The reason Jews were so hated in old Europe is because they were the only ones who could lend money. Therefore the general populace hated them, even though only the merchants and above had the borrowing power.
Australia was first founded by felons and America seems to have come around to an anti-immigrant attitude at least among the general populace.
I believe Israel gets so much fire because they won't lay down when attacked, their responses are not all that limited, a lot of people world wide just don't like the Jew's and the fact that they stand up for themselves, IMO.
I know of no other ethnic group that has been persecuted as the Jews have been who have their own country. I believe that that is the answer there.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

You have isolated one reason the Jews were not liked. They stayed aloof and only married with in their own culture.
The reason Jews were so hated in old Europe is because they were the only ones who could lend money. Therefore the general populace hated them, even though only the merchants and above had the borrowing power.

Actually not true for Germany. You're describing some of the nastier more backward places in eastern Europe, but German Jews were very much integrated. They fought in World War One in the German Army, and generally thought of themselves as "Germans first".

There had been a nasty strain of anti-semitism, but people like Karl Luger, the mayor of Vienna, were thought pretty shabby by most Germans. German Jews were full citizens, and were proud of their country; and in World War One, Jews in both the old world and the New generally favored Imperial Germany.

As strange factoid, Hitler had not one, but two Jewish officers commanding him in WWI. One, Hugo Guttman, recommended Corporal Hitler for the Iron Cross; emigrated to the United States after the Nuremburg laws. The other Ernst Hess (Jewish mother, Protestant father for Nazi purposes, a Jew), was explicitly protected against persecution or deportation by an order from Hitler, though this order was later revoked (reasons unknown). Hess remained in Germany after the War and became head of the German Federal Railway Authority

By 1920, Jews were widely intermarried, held important State positions, and generally held in high esteem. Intermarriage rates in Germany circa 1920 were similar to those in the US today, indicative of a general lack of interest by both Jews and Gentiles in that distinction. Distinctions between Jews and Gentiles in Berlin and Vienna looked very different from places further East . . .
See: "The Pity of it All: A History of the Jews in Germany, 1743-1933"
http://www.amazon.com/The-Pity-It-Al.../dp/0805059644

You have to be wary of the historical trap of "over-determination" -- to take every anti-semitic incident and pamphlet as proof of an inevitable disaster. Goldhagen takes this tack in "Hitler's Willing Executioners", but I don't buy it. If you replay German history a dozen times, would you have gotten a dozen Holocausts? I doubt it. Were the Germans any more anti-Semitic than, say, the French (thinking of Dreyfus?) I don't think so. There was a germ of anti-semitism everywhere, just as you can find racism anywhere you care to look today . . . that doesn't mean it inevitably leads to genocide.

A few of the Nazis were bitter and committed anti-semites, but most of the others were just opportunists. Albert Speer, Goering -- they were just amoral, not committed nor even enthusiastic about evil. Gitta Sereny did an extraordinary set of interviews with the commandant of Treblinka, Fritz Stangl. He strikes me like Eichman, a mediocre and exceptionally ordinary man, a very dumb and brutal cop; it doesn't strike me that he had any great hatred of Jews, just that he was a shabby man in the company of other shabby men. No working conscience to be sure, but no real sign of hatred either. He started out life giving zither lessons, and became a cop because it was a job . . .

I think a key event is the assasination of Walter Rathenau, a founder of AEG, and the minister who negotiated the Rapallo treaty that some of the nationalists detested. Imagine a world in which the assassins miss. Rathenau's stature gives good evidence for just how integrated Jews were in Germany circa 1920. Imagine a world in which Hindenburg decides that the detestable jumped up corporal needs to be taught a lesson

I think those worlds would look much different.

There has recently been some interesting work detailing the contribution of White Russian aristocratic refugees to the growth of anti-semitism in Germany; Russia did have a tradition of venomous anti-semitism and pogroms, and with the Bolshevik Revolution, some of the folks fleeing brought with them their noxious views (and the fact that Jews were prominent in the Revolution made them even more venomous). See:
"The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917-1945"
http://www.amazon.com/The-Russian-Ro.../dp/0521845122

[SanteeFats]

Okay Deep then what do you think caused all the anti-Jewish and other ethnicities that ended up being slaughtered in Nazi Germany. I mean if so few of the upper echelon of the Nazi high command could care less why the camps and the butchering?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by danton

I was taught by a man who served in the army during this period. He told us he had been put on board one of the refugee ships off Palestine to guard the refugees but suffered from sea sickness. They would help him to the rail so he could vomit, obligingly holding his rifle and tin hat … I knew another who had the less than erotic experience of being greeted by naked women on one vessel. Confident for some reason that they would not be molested by British soldiers.

British policy in the inter-war period and into the war intself was to seek to prevent the establishment of a Zionist state called Israel. The British foresaw very accurately what might be the consequences if this Zionist state called Israel was established; though without yet knowing how much the presence of huge oil reserves in the middle east would complicate the matter even more. What the British didn't foresee in the 1930s was that a systematic and methodical attempt would be made to exterminate the bloodline of the entire Jewish people.

The British reasons for refusing to allow and for opposing the Zionist project were correct; at the time I myself would have taken the same line and would almost certainly have supported the use of force to prevent Jewish mass emigration to Palestine. But once it became necessary to rescue people from a concerted effort to wipe out their entire blood line, it was no longer ethical to oppose any movement of these people to anywhere beyond the reach of their would-be killers and I would have thrown in the towel and sucked it up; the establishment of Israel was quite inevitable as an effect of the holocaust.