Nazi Concentration Camps

[Johnny Canuck3]

You're accusing me of "lack of ability", and yet you appear to have entirely missed the fact that post -WW2 (from 1946 in fact) EVERY officer whose nation-state was part of the UN was fully aware of their obligations under international law. That means that a politician ordering his armies to exterminate is likely to risk aggravating his military, especially the general staff. .

Generals usually depend on politicians for their jobs. Or the generals are the politicians.

The bit about officers conforming to international law is a good one. Was Iraq a member of the UN when they killed the Kurds?

Was Pakistan a member of the UN when their army committed atrocities in Bangladesh?

If we're talking post 1946, there's a big list of glaring exceptions to your statement.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So, given the historical context of what you're talking about, I'll repeat: Politicians' rhetoric.

Tell me: are you able to separate Bush's political rhetoric from the things he actually means or intends, when he's saying them?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Are you drunk?
I didn't say that Judaeophobia didn't exist (human nature is such that prejudice always exists), I said it didn't exist in the Arab countries as an "...all-embracing philosophy of Judaeophobia... to which they referred for guidance. As for the rest of your question, why does any politician take particular lines? For political reasons.

You said that the 'extermination' speeches, were political rhetoric, made for consumption by the populace back home.

Political rhetoric won't be well received, unless the topic of the rhetoric is something that the populace agrees with or endorses. Otherwise, the politician runs the risk of alienating the populace.

By the way, what you've written above is just verbal gymnastics performed to avoid admitting your error. An 'all embracing philosophy of judaeophobia'. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

If you mean that they hadn't held their own Wannsee conference, that's probably true, but so what?

Let's call it an 'ad hoc' call for extermination of the people living in Israel.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes you do, you said

"Jews lived and worked in Germany. They had stores, etc, and seemed to be doing fine, until Krystallnacht.

What a difference a day makes.

It's obviously disturbing to think that you can be living peacefully one day, then be murdered by your neighbors, the next. I think that's what Israel is all about. They'd been murdered by 'the neighbors' too many times. So in Israel, they'd have some say about who 'the neighbors' would be." (my emphases).

What's that if it isn't a supposition that there was a sudden transformation. chopped liver?

No it wasn't, it was a declaration of permission.

It had already been plainly obvious to Germany's Jewish citizens that they weren't safe since 1934..

You and I both know that the jews didn't want to believe that their neighbors were capable of implementing a plan of extermination against them. The jews, on the whole, believed in the civility, and civilization of society. That's part of the reason the holocaust could be carried of so efficiently.

If the majority of jews knew or firmly believed from 1934 that they, their wives and children would be killed, they would have resisted. They would have fought. Why not? They were dead anyway.

You may have gotten it right, calling Krystallnacht 'permission', however. Maybe by that point, it was too late anyway.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, it's a comment on the fact that until the 1930s by far the greatest degree of violent and murderous anti-Semitism was to be found in Russia, in the Ukraine, in Poland, in Lithuania.

So what. The Germans really stepped up to the plate after that, didn't they?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

. Basic history pretty much held as standard by anyone except right-revisionists.

I was thinking about this: if I'm revising the history of the holocaust, in which direction am I revising it - am I making it seem worse than it really was?

 

[Detroit City]

Detroit City, please provide proof, quotes, sources for your information.

me father lives in a wealthy jewish area of metro detroit, what more proof do i need? there are at least 10 synagogues within a mile of his home.....

you won't see any newspaper or tv stories about wealthy jews in michigan underwriting the mass immigration of eastern eurpopean jews to the area.....

 

[nino_savatte]

me father lives in a wealthy jewish area of metro detroit, what more proof do i need? there are at least 10 synagogues within a mile of his home.....

you won't see any newspaper or tv stories about wealthy jews in michigan underwriting the mass immigration of eastern eurpopean jews to the area.....

Which means that what you're saying is nonsense.

 

[nino_savatte]

Btw, you didn't answer an earlier question: did any of the palestinians leave their villages as a result of hysteria whipped up by their own leaders?

Since you're calling the abandonment of these villages by the palestinians 'ethnic cleansing', then any abandonment occasioned by palestinians themselves would be what: self-cleansing?

You can't get this guy to be honest; it's like pulling teeth.

 

[Spion]

[For anyone who's interested, the things I listed were Arab crimes and or atrocities committed during the same time period as Spion's list, but omitted from his list for some reason. To read his list, you'd think the whole thing was totally one-sided, which it wasn't.]


...........

I've given an answer regarding Arab anti-Jewish acts and I've argued my case as to why these were reactive and, unlike the Zionists activities, were not part of a systematic plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine.

Your inability to engage with my points is indicative of a lack of evidence for your argument.

At the end of the day the result is:

The Zionists ethnically cleansed 200 villages and several city quarters before any Arab armies set foot in Palestine in May 48

and

The Zionists systematically ethnically cleansed around 500 villages, more than 10 city quarters and several Bedu tribes by the end of 1948.

The Arabs committed anti-Jewish acts but did not cleanse one single Jewish settlement.

The difference is that the Zionists had a long standing desire to cleanse Palestine of Arabs and when the time came issued the military orders to do so. We have the evidence. You cannot provide anything equivalent for the Arab side, except post-facto crowd-pleasing rhetoric.


The desire for expulsion of the Arabs in the words of its architects

“The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.” Ben Gurion, diary, 12 July 1937

“Transfer does not serve only one aim – to reduce the Arab population. It also serves a second purpose by no means less important, which is: to evict land now cultivated by Arabs and to free it for Jewish settlement . . . The only solution is to transfer the Arabs from here to neighbouring countries. Not a single village or single tribe should be let off.” 1940, Yossef Weitz (member of Ben Gurion’s Consultancy, head of settlement dept of JNF and formerly involved in compiling the Village Files), My Diary, vol 2 , p181


The operational orders for the Haganah to carry it out - Plan D of 10 Mar 1948 (an excerpt).

"These operations can be carried out in the following manner: either by destroying villages (by setting fire to them, by blowing them up, and by planting mines in their debris) and especially of those populations centres which are difficult to control continuously; or by mounting combing and control operations according to the following guidellines: encirclement of the villages, conducting a search inside them. In case of resistance, the armed forces must be wiped out and the population expelled outside the borders of the state."

 

[Spion]

Btw, you didn't answer an earlier question: did any of the palestinians leave their villages as a result of hysteria whipped up by their own leaders?

Since you're calling the abandonment of these villages by the palestinians 'ethnic cleansing', then any abandonment occasioned by palestinians themselves would be what: self-cleansing?

Ah, this old and rotten chestnut. I fail to see how in a country the size of Wales and the context of villages and city quarters being violently cleared and massacres taking place that any flight by Palestinians could be called truly 'voluntary'.

NB: AFAIK there is not a shred of evidence for the voluntary flight thesis. It was disproved by the late 50s.

 

[ViolentPanda]

actually many Jews from the eastern european nation-states are coming to the US...and they when they arrive they already have a job, home, car, and pocket money waiting for them

Many?
Given the tiny Jewish populations in the central and eastern European states, even a mass exodus of every single Jew from those states couldn't be constituted by anyone who isn't a loony as "many".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Where do they get this mysterious help from? Are you saying they're different from other immigrants?

I bet it's that worldwide conspiracy of "international bankers".
Those international bankers" are right nasty bastards, always helping their own and being "rootless" and "cosmopolitan", the hook-nosed bastids!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Generals usually depend on politicians for their jobs. Or the generals are the politicians.

Really?
There was I thinking that a majority of countries rigidly maintained firewalls between political whim (rather than legislated policy) and military action, and that countries where serving members of the military were also politicians tended to be thin on the ground.

The bit about officers conforming to international law is a good one. Was Iraq a member of the UN when they killed the Kurds?

Precisely how many times do you need to be told that you can't extrapolate a trend from isolated incidents with disparate causes?
Please cut your flim-flam, it's cheap.

Was Pakistan a member of the UN when their army committed atrocities in Bangladesh?

Were Pakistan forced to punish members of their military?

If we're talking post 1946, there's a big list of glaring exceptions to your statement.

One dwarfed by the list of cases where my statement holds true.
But you wouldn't be wanting to think about those, would you?

 

[nino_savatte]

Duplicate post.

 

[nino_savatte]

Was Iraq a member of the UN when they killed the Kurds?

Iraq was a founding member of the League of Nations when, in 1933, the then Kurdish PM, Hikmat Suleyman ordered his troops to cut down 3,000 Assyrians who were fleeing persecution. Btw, all of the villages targeted by Bakr Sidqi and his troops were later populated by Kurds.

Your point please?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Tell me: are you able to separate Bush's political rhetoric from the things he actually means or intends, when he's saying them?

Are you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You said that the 'extermination' speeches, were political rhetoric, made for consumption by the populace back home.

Political rhetoric won't be well received, unless the topic of the rhetoric is something that the populace agrees with or endorses. Otherwise, the politician runs the risk of alienating the populace.

I'm sure you must be right, Johnny. After all, it's well known that politicians NEVER use rhetoric to attempt to develop a position.

By the way, what you've written above is just verbal gymnastics performed to avoid admitting your error. An 'all embracing philosophy of judaeophobia'. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

If you had any grasp at all of this subject, that you're always so very keen to pontificate on, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about.
Some nation-states, in fact most, have had and continue to have a problem with casual judaeophobia, in much the same way they have a problem with other casual "racisms" and manifestations of casual social prejudices. Some nation-states, on top of that, may have institutional prejudices against certain racial, ethnic or religious cultures. At the bottom of the shitheap are nation-states that have structural and/or judicial prejudices, like Malaysia, for example, where an "all embracing philosophy of judaeophobia' exists, and places legal bars in the way of Jews that it doesn't on other cultures.
Now, perhaps, you have a slight clue what the phrase means.

If you mean that they hadn't held their own Wannsee conference, that's probably true, but so what?

If you need to ask...

Let's call it an 'ad hoc' call for extermination of the people living in Israel.

You can call it whatever you like, and no doubt you will.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You and I both know that the jews didn't want to believe that their neighbors were capable of implementing a plan of extermination against them. The jews, on the whole, believed in the civility, and civilization of society. That's part of the reason the holocaust could be carried of so efficiently.

If the majority of jews knew or firmly believed from 1934 that they, their wives and children would be killed, they would have resisted. They would have fought. Why not? They were dead anyway.

By 1938 German Jews had already been submitted in 1936 to swingeing taxes on their savings and holdings, in the name of "reparations" for their perfidy. In 1935 they'd already seen Schacht, at Hitler's behest impose an exit tariff in hard foreign currency (bear in mind Germany's economic status at the time) on any Jew wishing to leave Germany. If you didn't have hard foreign currency you could, of course, exchange your reichsmarks at a ruinous rate, and if you did leave, your property(s) were ceded to the state, to dispose of to their own benefit. From 1934 onward the mechanism to deprive German Jews of their citizenship was in place.
The signs were there. That's why those who could escape, did so. The terrible sadness was that so few were able to.

You may have gotten it right, calling Krystallnacht 'permission', however. Maybe by that point, it was too late anyway.

It was too late as soon as Hitler went from being Reichskanzler to führer. As soon as he assumed dictatorial powers he was free to put in place everything he'd written about in Mein Kampf (widely read not only by members of the NSDAP, but by other, more rational members of society, including Jews) and in "the second book". Just as any reader would be informed s to his plans for the east, so they'd be cognisant of his plans for Jewry.
You mentioned Wannsee earlier, but confusing what went on in the 1930s with what happened post-Wannsee is a big mistake that doesn't take into account the economic fundamentals of Hitler's plans.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So what. The Germans really stepped up to the plate after that, didn't they?

I'm getting tired of repeating this word to you, but here it is again:

Context.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was thinking about this: if I'm revising the history of the holocaust, in which direction am I revising it - am I making it seem worse than it really was?

You're an academic historian, are you?

Get over yourself.

 

[Spion]

if you did leave, your property(s) were ceded to the state, to dispose of to their own benefit.

That's ringing some bells with me. Weren't there some other events in the decade after where this happened?

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's ringing some bells with me. Weren't there some other events in the decade after where this happened?

Yes, there were.
It was just as disgusting in the late 1940s as it was in the 1930s.

 

[goldenecitrone]

That's ringing some bells with me. Weren't there some other events in the decade after where this happened?

That's right. Millions of ethnic Germans were cleansed from their towns and villages throughout eastern Europe. Lots of shit happened after the war. Human are forever ethnically cleansing each other so it seems.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I've given an answer regarding Arab anti-Jewish acts and I've argued my case as to why these were reactive and, unlike the Zionists activities, were not part of a systematic plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine.

Your inability to engage with my points is indicative of a lack of evidence for your argument.

At the end of the day the result is:

The Zionists ethnically cleansed 200 villages and several city quarters before any Arab armies set foot in Palestine in May 48

and

The Zionists systematically ethnically cleansed around 500 villages, more than 10 city quarters and several Bedu tribes by the end of 1948.

The Arabs committed anti-Jewish acts but did not cleanse one single Jewish settlement.

The difference is that the Zionists had a long standing desire to cleanse Palestine of Arabs and when the time came issued the military orders to do so. We have the evidence. You cannot provide anything equivalent for the Arab side, except post-facto crowd-pleasing rhetoric.


The desire for expulsion of the Arabs in the words of its architects

“The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.” Ben Gurion, diary, 12 July 1937

“Transfer does not serve only one aim – to reduce the Arab population. It also serves a second purpose by no means less important, which is: to evict land now cultivated by Arabs and to free it for Jewish settlement . . . The only solution is to transfer the Arabs from here to neighbouring countries. Not a single village or single tribe should be let off.” 1940, Yossef Weitz (member of Ben Gurion’s Consultancy, head of settlement dept of JNF and formerly involved in compiling the Village Files), My Diary, vol 2 , p181


The operational orders for the Haganah to carry it out - Plan D of 10 Mar 1948 (an excerpt).

"These operations can be carried out in the following manner: either by destroying villages (by setting fire to them, by blowing them up, and by planting mines in their debris) and especially of those populations centres which are difficult to control continuously; or by mounting combing and control operations according to the following guidellines: encirclement of the villages, conducting a search inside them. In case of resistance, the armed forces must be wiped out and the population expelled outside the borders of the state."

The siege of Jerusalem was a complex series of military and terrorist events beginning on December 1, 1947 and lasting through January, 1949. The siege was initiated by local Palestinian Arab militias immediately after the United Nations adopted a resolution ordering partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The siege was continued by the Transjordan Arab Legion, assisted by British officers and by the Egyptian Army until the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

The intention of besieging forces was to isolate and destroy or disposess the 100,000 Jewish residents of the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1948)

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Ah, this old and rotten chestnut. I fail to see how in a country the size of Wales and the context of villages and city quarters being violently cleared and massacres taking place that any flight by Palestinians could be called truly 'voluntary'.

NB: AFAIK there is not a shred of evidence for the voluntary flight thesis. It was disproved by the late 50s.

Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled, but voluntary. After seven Arab nations declared war on Israel in 1948, many Arab leaders encouraged Palestinians to flee, in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state. This point, however, is a matter of some contention. Certain actions on the part of Jewish militias were considered to provoke Palestinians to leave Israel. Eye witness accounts from Ain al-Zeitoum and Er-Rama, for example, record that the Palmach assembled all of their residents following the villages' surrender. The Jewish militia then demanded that all Muslim residents depart for Lebanon, and leave their possessions behind, under pain of death.[66] Still, such cases were relatively rare, and the vast majority of Palestinians fled of their own accord.[67]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Really?
There was I thinking that a majority of countries rigidly maintained firewalls between political whim (rather than legislated policy) and military action,.

see: George W. Bush; Iraq; US Army.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Precisely how many times do you need to be told that you can't extrapolate a trend from isolated incidents with disparate causes?

What trend?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Are you?

You're the one claiming that often, the hyperbolic utterances of politicians are mere rhetoric, designed to curry favour or win votes, not to announce actual policy. You claim that this was what happened with the arab leaders.

I don't believe that it was mere rhetoric; you do.

Since you claim to be able to discern rhetoric from policy, I'm asking if you can tell when Bush is merely being rhetorical.

 

[Spion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

Like I said, not a shred of evidence. I've provided quotes from primary source documents as evidence - all you've done is c+p what someone said on Wikipedia decades after. No contest