Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
I don't understand!!
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by PolishGirl (U2840996) on Friday, 30th December 2005
I'm from Poland and I've heard different opinions about concentration camps in Poland. So I know that some representatives from Germany or Russia(for example) think that it was our initiative. It's very sad because at this concentration camps have died millions of Poles.Please tell me what do you tkink about this issue and how yours teachers were talking about it.Thanks.
-
Message 2
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 30th December 2005
Ive never heard anyone try to blame the Poles. Everyone in this country (UK) is taught at school that it was the fault of the Nazis.
-
Message 3
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Friday, 30th December 2005
Dear Polish Girl
I'd say that, generally speaking in England, the opinion is that the Polish were one of the main victims of both Nazi and Stalinist aggression. Poland's territorial integrity was, after all, the actual reason that Britain declared war on Nazi Germany on 3rd September l939 - Neville Chamberlin's famous 'I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received,' speech when he reports that the Germans refused the British ultimatum that unless Germany withdrew its troopsfrom Poland, a state of war would exist between Germany and Great Britain. They didn't, and it did.
We also know that many Poles came to the UK, and served in armed units against the Axis powers. The UK still has a notable Polish population, and I was at school in North London with quite a few girls whose surnames were pretty damn tricky to spell! There is a Polish War Memorial very prominent by the roadside at Northolt Airfield on the road into London. It's very often mentioned in traffic reports!
However, on the down side, I would say there is probably some acknowledgement in the UK that there was some anti-semitism inherent in Polish society. This was - and perhaps is - true of most (all?) European countries, including the UK of course. To the best of my knowledge, every country invaded by Germany at some point had some of their nationals involved in handing over 'undesirables' to the Nazis. I'm sure this would have happened in the UK, though, as I've said elswhere, hopefully it would have been less, as was the case in, I believe, Denmark, and, as another poster pointed out, Norway.
The one anti-semitic event I associate with Poland is a story I read a while ago about a Jewish village in which Poles attacked and killed the inhabitants, with great ferocity and brutality, and it's something that is not widely admitted in Poland. I read it in a newspaper somewhere, and know no more than that.
Other than that incident, as I say, I'd say most British feeling was very sympathetic to Poles as Nazi and Stalinist victims.
Hope this helps! (As a nation, it's never comfortable to be physically situated between two powerful countries, especially when those countries are - on the surface - diametrically opposed to each other such as Fascist Germany and Communist USSR)(note I say on the surface....)
Best wishes, Eliza. -
Message 4
Posted by Ijeomaodigwe (U2790958) on Friday, 30th December 2005
From what I can tell you there is no one can have an opinion on this matter. The sistuation is simple. Nazi Germany invaded Poland along with Russia in which both countries were wrong for doing. Then Germany made conentration camps. Bascally it was the rest of the world's fault. If the whole world simply combined powers to attck Germany and Japan from the begginning, none of this nonsesnse would have ever happened!
-
Message 5
Posted by PolishGirl (U2840996) on Friday, 30th December 2005
Thanks a lot Eliza.Your opinion is very important for me (really).
-
Message 6
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Friday, 30th December 2005
The Concentration camps in Poland were constructed, and operated, purely for the benefit of Nazi Germany.
In the early/mid 1930's, when Jews were being 'encouraged' to leave Germany, the British Government, as part of Chamberlain's policy to avoid a full blown confrontation, agreed to re-settle 100,000 jews to appease the messianic Chancellor who, in return, would do nothing but get Germany back on her feet, and get in step with the rest of Europe, if he could be seen to please the nation by removing their 'natural' enemy.
Britain took 'xxxx' number of jews, (instantly isolated as germanic jews) and the remainder were sent to Palestine.
The Arabic leaders of the time saw this as a serious threat to their own newly established borders, as it would be socially/politically/religiously impossible to assimilate Jewish culture into the uneasy equilibrium of the Arab peoples established during WW1 by the French, and the reknown Major T.E Lawrence.
When the newly acquired British lands and influence came under threat from an Arab uprising, the British Government who understandably realised they could lose influence over an economic goldmine, chose to snuggle up to USA and made a U-turn. When Herr Hitler asked Britain to ease the pressure on his fledgling nation by taking away more people affiliated to the jewish faith, he was told in no uncertain terms to find his own solution to the jewish 'problem'.
Concentration camps were a British invention, to remove undesirable peoples and potential threats by concentrating them into an area where they could be monitored and controlled. The Nazis eventually took it to unacceptable extreme.
The Polish people, in my opinion, have an absolutely clear collective conscience on the issue of concentration camps. How on earth could Poland benefit from such a policy??
Britain drew a clear line with Hitler when he was told an invasion of Poland would lead to war with Britain. At that stage, concentration camps were just prisons, only later when the Nazis were losing the War did they become extermination camps. The Nazis in 1942 knew they were losing the war, why kill millions of innocent civilians when there is absolutely no point??
We live in the shadow of those actions even today. The current leader of Iran asks why a jewish state could not have been established in Europe or even the USA.
Poland suffered horrifically during WW2 and its aftermath, and is one of the few nations that has a comparatively clear conscience.
I'm from Poland and I've heard different opinions about concentration camps in Poland. So I know that some representatives from Germany or Russia(for example) think that it was our initiative. It's very sad because at this concentration camps have died millions of Poles.Please tell me what do you tkink about this issue and how yours teachers were talking about it.Thanks.Ìý -
Message 7
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 30th December 2005
Re: message 6.
Daniel,
as an aside: there is an excellent book about the several evacuation plans for the Jews to other countries, especially in the context of Madagascar. I used the historybook yet several times for these boards. It is written by a professor of the VUB/ULB. When I am next time in the local library Bruges, I will give you the data. Unfortunately it is only in Dutch and in French. There is a summary/synopsis in English and German at the end. I think you will be able to read it in French? I suppose it is also available in a Brussels library. I will check that too.
Kind regards and Happy New Year,
Paul. -
Message 8
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Saturday, 31st December 2005
I don't much about the subject, but from what I understand, Irving and others argue that the surviving buildings at Auschwitz were built by the Poles after the war as part of a propaganda effort against the Nazis, as Poland was shunted westwards to take in large parts of Prussian Germany. It is not "taught" anywhere due to the wealth of film and other evidence.
Nevertheless, while WW2 is taught in a very simplistic Dubya style "good vs evil", it is a more complex than who invaded Poland. -
Message 9
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Sunday, 1st January 2006
I agree it's not that simplistic, but if ever there WAS a 'good vs evil' war then I think WWII has the best claim to it!
I mean, there's not really a lot one can say in defence of Nazi Germany is there?!! (OK, the trains ran on time - but they don't dare do anything else in Germany, do they??!!!)
Or wasn't that what you were saying?!
If, however, you're saying that the Allies might well have refrained from going to war with Nazi Germany is Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to keep invading other people's countries, thereby leaving Hitler in power in Germany to kill anyone he wanted, that means we can't claim the kudos of being totally 'good', then I agree.
However, rather sadly, and perhaps tellingly, look what happens when a war starts on the basis of getting rid of a sadistic dictator for 'the good of the people'??? Sometimes the people there don't want it and certainly don't say thank you....
Yes, I know the west has gone to war with Iraq cos we want their oil, BUT, there was still ostensible political justisfication on the grounds of deposing a sadistic dictator and liberating Iraquis. Hypocritical, possibly (I mean, do we despose of sadistic dictators when they're not sitting on oil fields etc!), but still....
Eliza. -
Message 10
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
Hi Polish Girl
I read your question with interest and along with the replies you have already received, I waited until my Professor in Modern Jewish History returned from a holiday and passed your question on to him, along with the replies you have received on this board.
He replied that it is possible that any reply will be inadequate and might fail to answer the question. It is a long and complex subject which is extremely difficult to deal with in an email.
Much has been written on the subject. He says that Plancenoit's reply is full of errors but that of Eliza7Beth is much better. The reason that most concentration camps were in Poland is because the majority of Jews lived there - about 3.3 million. Also due to its geographical location, Poland being in eastern Europe, it was a suitable location for transportation.
Also, due to its long history of anti-semitism, the Nazis knew there would be little resistance to their construction and existence. There were some camps in Germany, but by far the vast majority were in Poland (check out the defintive author on this subject - Martin Gilbert - whose books and maps on this matter are outstanding).
The Poles sadly had a long history of anti-semitism and the resistance to THIS Nazi policy was tiny, a fact of which the Nazis were aware which influenced their choice of Poland being the place to build the camps.
The Poles did suffer badly, but so did other nations.
I hope this is of some help, but we could write constantly for a week on this topic and still not cover it completely.
I had the opportunity to visit Auschwitz and Birkenau about 3 years ago and I have to say that our Polish guide was extremely knowledgeable and sensitive to the whole issue, which the whole of our Jewish group - about 200 of us - were very appreciative.
Kind regards and a very happy 2006
DaughterLeah -
Message 11
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
Nevertheless, while WW2 is taught in a very simplistic Dubya style "good vs evil", it is a more complex than who invaded Poland. Ìý
Even more complex if you consider WW2 did not begin with the invasion of Poland. It began with the invasion of China in the 1930s, where the killing of civilians was horrific. The Chinese estimate they lost 22 million -
Message 12
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
Yes, all too easy to forget what happened in the Far East. Especially if you're Japanese....
Eliza. -
Message 13
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
The Poles sadly had a long history of anti-semitism and the resistance to THIS Nazi policy was tiny, a fact of which the Nazis were aware which influenced their choice of Poland being the place to build the camps. Ìý
Hello DaughterLeah,
Your Jewish history professor is absolutely right to say that the camps where the Nazis exterminated Jews were located in a part of Europe where the majority of Jews lived. The first phase of Hitler’s genocidal plan was to clear the entire German Reich of Jews. It made far more sense to deport them east, where the majority lived, than west only to be shipped east again, across Germany, once the Final Solution started being realized.
Another reason for the location of Nazi camps in Poland is that they were also intended for other victims of Nazi genocidal policy. The Jews were initially concentrated in ghettos, whereas the very first exterminations, in accordance with the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, concerned Polish political, cultural and economic elites. In November 1939 all the Polish Krakow University professors were shipped off to Sachsenhausen. This was also the time of the Palmiry massacres, where among others, Polish Olympic athletes were murdered. And indeed, Auschwitz, the most famous of all Nazi concentration camps was founded in 1940 to primarily hold Polish ‘bandits’. Indeed the majority of inmates in the mother camp, the one where the museum is, almost throughout WWII were Poles. The primary purpose of the much larger Birkenau camp is of course another matter, but that came later. And it should be remembered that the Nazis conducted various mass extermination policies simultaneously, for instance the extermination of Polish men, women and children from the Zamoœæ region at Birkenau in the years 1942-1943. Of course here I’m not trying to say that the Jews weren’t being murdered on an even larger scale, but murder is murder and the rest is just statistics.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve never even heard of the above mentioned facts and I wouldn’t hold it against you. Suffice to say that logistics are enough to fully explain why there were so many concentration camps in Poland. What I do object to is the unfounded notion that Polish anti-Semitism had anything to do with the location of the camps. I’m not saying that Polish anti-Semitism did not exist; it most definitely did, just like Jewish anti-Polonism. But regrettable as it most certainly was it cannot in anyway be connected with the Nazi decisions to locate the camps where they did. For the Germans, unlike Denmark, Holland or France, Poland was ‘bandit country’. Indeed we had the largest and best organised resistance movement in the whole of occupied Europe. Partly to counter it the Nazis imposed the harshest repressions. Unlike in other countries, Poles faced the death penalty for harbouring Jews. In retaliation for partisan activities, hundreds of Polish villages were ‘pacified’ (i.e. the inhabitants were massacred). So it’s quite irrational and indicative of ill-will to connect Polish anti-Semitism with the Holocaust in such a way.
I’m not saying that Poland can have a clear conscience, no nation can claim that. There were people who betrayed Jews for money, the so-called ‘szmalnicy’. But such people existed in all societies throughout Europe. And there were also Poles (pre-war anti-Semites among them) who risked and not infrequently gave their lives to save Jews. It is an insult to their memory to cast such aspersions not founded on facts.
Cheers, Jozef
P.S. Sir Martin Gilbert is by no means the most authoritative Holocaust historian. His sloppy research and over-eagerness to make sources appear to support his interpretation of history have exposed him as an easy target for Holocaust deniers. -
Message 14
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
Perhaps another factor influencing the Nazis to cite so many death camps in Poland and the 'eastern' side of Germany was that they knew that the 'western' countries would find it harder to spot what was going on. Hitler was, after all, still trying to appear 'civilised' to countries like England and America. He didn't have to bother to want to appear civilised to anyone on Germany's eastern borders, as they were all Slav Untermenschen anyway....
And didn't the theory of Lebensraum mean that Germany wanted to 'colonise' its eastern frontiers (Drang nach Ostern etc), so it was therefore a good idea to 'cleanse' the area ready for good old Aryan resettlement?
I'm only speculating, and have no idea if this was or was not a factor.
Eliza. -
Message 15
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
Eliza,
I fully agree with both your points. And even if you say you are just speculating, I'm sure you must have read or heard about it from a good source. The 1942-3 ZamoϾ region deportations were in fact the first and, as far as I know, only practical implementation of Nazi Lebensraum policy. Over 700,000 villagers were evicted and many were sent to Birkenau, where they perished within weeks. The area was also to have been eventually settled by SS families and it was supposed to have formed part of a great wall protecting an expanded German Reich from the east.
Cheers Jozef -
Message 16
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
Hi Jozef - I will pass your comments on to my professor and very much appreciate the information you gave in your input.
Kind regards - DaughterLeah -
Message 17
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
Agree with the comment re: Martin Gilbert. For more authoritative work on the holocaust look at Christopher Browning, Mark Roseman and Peter Longerich are good on unravelling the decision making process behind it, younger German historians like Christian Gerlach have also carried out groundbreaking work in recent years (though most is only available in German). Saul Friedlander is also very good and for a perspective on Polish life under the Germans look at Richard Lukas "Forgotten Holocaust: the Poles under German Occupation 1939-44" which isnt easy to get in bookshops but you can get it off amazon.
cheers,
Paul -
Message 18
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Tuesday, 3rd January 2006
He replied that it is possible that any reply will be inadequate and might fail to answer the question. It is a long and complex subject which is extremely difficult to deal with in an email.
Much has been written on the subject. He says that Plancenoit's reply is full of errors but that of Eliza7Beth is much better. The reason that most concentration camps were in Poland is because the majority of Jews lived there - about 3.3 million. Also due to its geographical location, Poland being in eastern Europe, it was a suitable location for transportation.
¶Ù²¹³Ü²µ³ó³Ù±ð°ù³¢±ð²¹³óÌý
Agreed it's just a generalization of a very complex topic, ....but what exactly are the 'errors' you refer to??
I deliberately stuck to known historical fact so as not to offend on this very delicate subject. In fact, I could be accused of plagiarism in the sense that I have merely reiterated what has been presented by Prof Ian Kershaw as fact, and is widely accepted as being so.
Of course, nobody agrees 100% on such subjects when approached from different perspectives, but I would genuinely be interested to learn which of the statements in my previous posting was an error.
I accept totally it is impossible to edit such a subject into a brief reply to a question on these boards, but I was attempting to convey to the original poster, in as a brief a reply as I could, that Poland and Polish Jews suffered just as horrifically as other European nations during WWII, as a result of Nazi policy.
Poland, as previously stated, was geographically ideal for extermination/concentration camps when other options were closed, but I am of the opinion this is not the fault of Poland itself, and the underlying message of my post, as a reply to the question, was intended to portray this.
Kind regards to you, and all the best for the new year. -
Message 19
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Tuesday, 3rd January 2006
Re: message 6.
Daniel,
as an aside: there is an excellent book about the several evacuation plans for the Jews to other countries, especially in the context of Madagascar. I used the historybook yet several times for these boards. It is written by a professor of the VUB/ULB. When I am next time in the local library Bruges, I will give you the data. Unfortunately it is only in Dutch and in French. There is a summary/synopsis in English and German at the end. I think you will be able to read it in French? I suppose it is also available in a Brussels library. I will check that too.
Kind regards and Happy New Year,
±Ê²¹³Ü±ô.Ìý
Paul,
Thank you. I am not, by any means, an expert in this field but I would be interested to see the opinions of ULB Professor, I have a vested interested in that esteemed establishment!!
As you already know, my French/Dutch is far from good, but I would be willing to have a go.
All the best,
Daniel. -
Message 20
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Sunday, 8th January 2006
Reply to M.13 - Jozef
Sorry for the delay but I've not been well and am now feeling better. I am extremely grateful to my lecturer for taking time out of a busy schedule to respond further to this question. I cannot ask him to devote any more time to this question, so hope this response suffices.
"Another reason for the location of Nazi camps in Poland is that they were also intended for other victims of Nazi genocidal policy.†This is well known and Jozef's next comments are well intended but not correct as far as scholars are concerned.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve never even heard of the above mentioned facts and I wouldn’t hold it against you."
"What I do object to is the unfounded notion that Polish anti-Semitism had anything to do with the location of the camps.†Well this is a natural Polish response but there is a strong point that Polish antisemitism was more virulent than in other countries and made receptiveness to mass murder of the Jews more ‘acceptable’. This argument is put forward by members of the Polish Catholic Church on the road to reconciliation. Let us accept the unpalatable and move on.
“that the Jews weren’t being murdered on an even larger scale, but murder is murder and the rest is just statistics.†Murder may be murder, but 6 million is not just statistics. The Jews represented 10% of the Prewar Polish population. Such numbers define the attachment of the word Holocaust, and make it a unique event in the history of the world.
"Unlike in other countries, Poles faced the death penalty for harbouring Jewsâ€. This is the same as in other countries.
“P.S. Sir Martin Gilbert is by no means the most authoritative Holocaust historianâ€. True but he is also not to be dismissed in such a casual way.
Today we must learn from history, accept the reality of the past, review, consider, absorb, contemplate and move to a new world of reconciliation.
Kind regards - DaughterLeah -
Message 21
Posted by Alf-Ventress. (U2907150) on Sunday, 8th January 2006
It is allways a precaurious situation being a minority within a majority in times of unrest. People generally don't like markedly different people with markedly diffent customs living next to them. Now your response is that it is the people that is at fault, -yet this phenonomen is as human as humanity itself. I agree strongly with Jozef that it is very wrong to accuse the poles of anti-semitism, as if anti-semitism were illegal and not very common.
What we need is numbers. How many jews perished fighting resistance fights like many poles, how many when their villages were attacked (as were many polish), how many as a result of living in concentration camps, which as the name implies is a terrible place in cold, damp conditions without enough food, and when disease is abound. And finally how many died in nazi generated beastly extermination practicies. I think we will find that the latter acoounts for a minority of all the jewish victims in the war. Just as is the case with polish and russian civilians, most were caught out in the turmoil of war, allthough their villages probably also were deliberately attacked as a way to 'cleanse' this eastern gouvernement.
There might very well be a strong reason why jews are almost unanimous un-collaborative in efforts to cast light of what really happened; it will then in all probability turn out that the number of jews killed as a result of deliberately beastly nazi extermination techniques will be a minority compared to the ones that perished in the turmoils of war, when civilians allways are caught out, as were many poles and russians. -
Message 22
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Sunday, 8th January 2006
it will then in all probability turn out that the number of jews killed as a result of deliberately beastly nazi extermination techniques will be a minority compared to the ones that perished in the turmoils of war, when civilians allways are caught out, as were many poles and russians.Ìý
Alf,
no offence mate, but you've got your head up your arse if that is what you seriously think.
As you said yourself, go do the math and get back. The figures are out there. -
Message 23
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Sunday, 8th January 2006
AV - I think you have misunderstood or misinterpreted the response of my lecturer to Jozef.
"I agree strongly with Jozef that it is very wrong to accuse the poles of anti-semitism, as if anti-semitism were illegal and not very common."
You are 100% correct - antisemitism was not illegal and it was very common.
"And finally how many died in nazi generated beastly extermination practicies. I think we will find that the latter acoounts for a minority of all the jewish victims in the war. Just as is the case with polish and russian civilians, most were caught out in the turmoil of war,..."
" it will then in all probability turn out that the number of jews killed as a result of deliberately beastly nazi extermination techniques will be a minority compared to the ones that perished in the turmoils of war, when civilians allways are caught out, as were many poles and russians"
I'm not going to number-crunching here - it is too distasteful for words. But I do know that the estimate of 6m Jewish dead in the camps is now thought to be an under-estimate, not an over-estimate. The total number of all people whom the Nazis sent for extermination and perished in the camps is c. 12m, and could in fact be higher. It is thought that the total number of people who died as a result of the second world war is around 50m. These figures were confirmed by the (non-Jewish) Polish guide on our tour of Auschwitz-Birkenau 3 years ago. -
Message 24
Posted by Alf-Ventress. (U2907150) on Sunday, 8th January 2006
You wrote:
>But I do know that the estimate of 6m Jewish dead in the camps is now thought to be an under-estimate<
How can it be, when many died in resistance fight along with poles, or when their villages was destroyed. So you see the number who died in the camps has to be considerably lower than the 6 million figure, which is cited againand again as the total jewish loss.
In russia 2 million jews died , when german troops entered the former Pale of Settlement in 1941, where jews had been forced to live since 1791. Here you have a situation where the nazies enter a group of civilians they have little regard for, and if they want to harm them, as they did them and their russain neighbours, it is not rational for them to transfer them to any camps, but do the misdeed right there, as they did.
So you see, much less than 6 million died in camps. You and I can agree how important it is that more independent research is done as to what happened. Without proper scientific investigation myths are bound to flourish. And this goes for myths from both sides of the argument -
Message 25
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Sunday, 8th January 2006
'some representatives from Germany or Russia(for example) think that it was our initiative'..
As for 'representatives'(Zirinovsky,Rogozin&Co)from Russia I'm not surprised very much of what they 'think' about if we take in account their own GULAG in past+ racism and anti-Semitism into the modern Russia itself.
In general the vile racial politics of the Third Reich called for a brutal system of camps across the conquered lands( but not only in Poland) to 'process' the enemies of A.Hitler.And these have gone down in history as the true manifestations of hell on earth,for these were nothing more than the death factories where people were systematically gassed,shot,starven,beaten and worked to death for the purification of the empire that Hitler proclaimed would last a thousand years. -
Message 26
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Sunday, 8th January 2006
re: message 20
Hi Daughterleah,
You write: “Today we must learn from history, accept the reality of the past, review, consider, absorb, contemplate and move to a new world of reconciliation.â€
Firstly, let me say that I fully agree and that this all I want to do.
Secondly, I categorically disagree with Alf-Ventress’s claim that most Jews simply perished in the ‘turmoil of war’. The Nazis intended to wipe Jewry off the face of the earth and went a long way to realise this goal. Holocaust is very much the right word to describe it. The Nazis had other ethnic groups on their death list, but each group was treated differently, thus methods of extermination also varied and developed differently. For instance, in 1944 only the Jews underwent selections on the Birkenau ramp – i.e. an SS officer, a simple SS guard or an SS doctor (e.g. Mengele) would select a minority of a newly arrived transport of Jews who were young, fit and healthy to become slave workers in the camp, whereas the vast majority, especially mothers with children under the age of 15, the sick and the old, went straight to the gas chamber. That is how most of the Jews from Hungary and also from the £ódŸ Ghetto perished at Birkenau in 1944. The only other ethnic group that could be said to have been subjected to a holocaust (though they prefer to call it ‘Devouring’) were the Gypsies. There treatment was unique in that they were initially held at Birkenau in their own ‘Gypsy camp’ with their entire families and they weren’t actually forced to work. Doctor Mengele would take some of the twins for his ‘medical experiments’, but other than that they were generally left alone until the right moment came for the camp to be liquidated (i.e. they were all killed). On the other hand, political category prisoners (which included hundreds of thousands of Poles) were all first registered as prisoners. They were officially given three months to live, and, indeed, most died within that period of time on account of hunger, exhaustion and diseases, such as typhus. In the camp hospitals patients deemed unfit for work were selected (like on the Birkenau ramp) to be sent to the gas chamber.
Of course I’m only talking about one of the Nazi extermination camps, even if it was the largest. The procedure was different in Majdanek, Sobibor, Treblinka etc – or say in Bergen-Belsen, where they actually didn’t have gas chambers. However, Birkenau illustrates rather well the differences between the treatment of Poles and Jews. The Poles suffered greatly, were treated inhumanly, but they at least had a slim chance of survival. The vast majority of Gypsies and Jews had virtually no chance at all.
Thirdly, I certainly don’t claim to be a scholar, but from what I personally know and from what scholars other than the ones you know write, I would like to ask your Jewish History professor a few more questions. I know he’s busy, so there’s no hurry, whenever.
Now it is an undeniable fact that Germans applied different rules to different occupied countries. For instance, Poles in the General-Gouvernement received half the food rations the Czechs received in the Czech Protectorate. Likewise ‘Untermensche’ Polish teenagers could not attend secondary school and I don’t think this applied to other occupied countries in the west. It is an undeniable fact that helping Jews was punishable by death in the General-Gouvernement as there were countless instances of such punishments being meted out. But it is most certainly news to me that the same rule applied to, say, Denmark, Holland, occupied France or even Vichy France?! Could your professor please give me some concrete examples?
I am certainly not one to deny that war crimes against the Jews were also committed by Poles. Not only the RC Church but even the Institute of National Remembrance and the President of Poland publicly apologised for such crimes. Polish culpability in the Jedwabne massacre is undeniable. But sociologist Jan Gross’s book ‘Neighbours’ cannot be the last word on the subject because it takes the whole issue out of context. Likewise, your professor states that Polish anti-Semitism was ‘more virulent than in other countries’. Well, for a start, that’s just an opinion, not a statement of fact. Moreover, even as a fact it needs further definition. I mean, what could it stem from? Was it racist as in the case of the Nazis? Don’t think so, because there were and still are many assimilated Jews in Poland (i.e. they are even considered to be Polish patriots). Was it religious? Also don’t think so, as churches became secret sanctuaries for many Jews and few of the known wartime persecutors of Jews were of the religious sort. So perhaps this virulent hatred distinguishing us from other nations is in our genes? I’ll pass on that one, though I know that genetically we’re pretty thoroughly mixed. Or perhaps Polish anti-Semitism was part of a two-way thing; a mutual distrust stemming from the instances when some Jews chose to side with Poland’s enemies? I’m thinking about things that had happened long before the war, during the Partitions (e.g. during the 1905 Revolution) and also after the war, in Stalinist times. What has your professor to say about the triumphal arches set up to greet soviet troops when, as Hitler’s allies, they invaded Poland in 1939? And what does he know about the numerous cases of Jews denouncing Poles to the Stalinist police in those early years of the war.
On the other hand, does he know anything about the pre-war anti-Semite Zofia Kossak-Szczucka, or W³adys³aw Baroszewski, or Jan Karski? And does you professor know of any other occupied country that had an organisation like ¯egota?
History is always complicated and I hope I haven’t offended you in stating that Jews also committed war crimes. I’m certainly not implying that this in any way justified Polish war crimes. But I also hope you’ll agree with me that both Polish and Jewish failings are nothing compared to the failings of infinitely more powerful nations in that terrible war.
Cheers, Jozef -
Message 27
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Sunday, 8th January 2006
To Jozef - M. 20
I deeply appreciate your response - I really do, but I simply cannot pass any more questions on. It was a pleasure for him to answer one, and a favour to answer two, but it will be an imposition and very impolite for me to press a third time. He has been my lecturer for many years and I do not wish to disabuse his good nature. He receives, on average, 250-300 emails per day, and I cannot take it any further.
I hope you understand.
With every good wish - ATB
DaughterLeah -
Message 28
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Monday, 9th January 2006
'war crimes against the Jews were also committed by Poles.'
Josef,with such success any of professors can choose the reason to blame in anti-Semitism the Ukrainians ....and some of 'em did it already.
But many of Jews committed the Russian revolution in 1917.I mean that many of Jews entered the government,Chekas, and official positions in those times in Russia.So what?
'the reality of the past' says us that Chekistka-sadist Rebecca Platinina-Maisel killed over a hundred people,including the whole family of her ex-husband whom she crusified in an act of savage revenge.
'the reality of the past' says us also that
SS-sadist Ilsa Koch at Buchenvald liked to examine Jews,those with tattoos.Then these who were deemed to have the most artistically interesting specimens were killed by lethal injection.You know,it was important that the skin of the victims wasn't damaged,'cause it was needed for her own 'collection' of lampshades that been made from human skins.
Well,I want to say for the Ukrainians.Now it is true that the Jews were prominent in the Kyjiv and other Ukrainian city Chekas.But this fact was used as a pretext to take a bloody revenge against the Jewish population as a whole.The common people were not professors to realize to whom they should blame for such atrocities towards 'em.
Therefore now the only one thing I can state definitely:
IT WAS THE TROTSKYS WHO MADE THE REVOLUTION
BUT IT WAS THE BRONSTEINS WHO PAID THE BILLS.
None of professors would dare to say a word against that real fact from history.
But Hitler in his turn used the Russian revolution as a 'Jewish trick',which was very much in help for him, when he came to the power in Germany exploited the fears of common Germans before the Russian Bolshevism.
Without Russian 'revolution' Hitler wouldn't be come to the power in Germany at all.
It was a 'chain reaction' with a very sad outcomes for all nationalities-Jews and non-Jews. -
Message 29
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Monday, 9th January 2006
Alf is right in that the "6m Jewish dead in the camps" is a popular misunderstanding - justa s contrary to the rather biased telling of events, it was not only Kjews, who were involved. 6m is the total number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, by which they mean the whole process of war. The figure for the camps themselves is claimed to be about 4.5m. An additional 6m Slavs, gypsies, gays, political opponents and the like were killed in the same kind of processes, as opposed to the usual civilian casualties of war.
However, the modern point is ironically that the Jews in Israel have not learned the lesson and continue to maltreat the Palestinaisn under their illegal occupation. Hence the view in many parts, most recently Iran, that the telling of events is rather baised and much as Bush trots out "9/11" to justify mass killing and theft of resources in the Middle East, so Israel uses the Holocaust victims as a justification to maltreat others. -
Message 30
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Monday, 9th January 2006
The most recent example of this being the UK's Chief Rabbi, who claimed a tsunami (yes, he used that metaphor) of anti-Semitism was spreading roudn the world - just because Israel was being criticised.
Sharon it now seems will escape prosecution for war crimes in Lebanon (mas killing of minority groups), but his successor still must answer the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the wall - in another oriny, Iraq, Israel and the US are not signe dup to the International Criminal Court. -
Message 31
Posted by U2907000 (U2907000) on Monday, 9th January 2006
It is very interesting points you make OUNOPA. Your views about how Hitler used the russian revolution and the fear that the red peril shoould spread as ameans of gaining power is very close to my own view, and it is very thought provoking when you say that without the russian revolution Hitler would not have come to power. This view is mightely refreshing and really deserve a tread of its own, which I hope you will start.
I must say it is refreshing to have our view of history corrected in this way.For too long the jews have been able to portray their own sufferings at THE HOLOCAUST with capital letters, whereas there were many holocausts in that war.There can be absolutely no doubt that this has helped them in 1)getting a homeland , and 2) getting away with ethnic cleansings of their own, which they have done several times towards the palestinians. For this reason they detest any 'fiddling' with the numbers and the way they got killed. They realise too well that 6 million killed in gas-suffocation has more potential , than the truer picture (which gradually are being revealed) of the majority of them being caught up in the turmoils of war, and that among those who ended up in camps, a majority died of in-adequate food, clothing and diseases.
P:S: What do you mean with this:
>IT WAS THE TROTSKYS WHO MADE THE REVOLUTION
BUT IT WAS THE BRONSTEINS WHO PAID THE BILLS.<
Do you by trotskys mean the intellectual bourgois jews who were in charge of the politbureau and the secret police, and the bronsteins are this the innocent, ordinary jews (and russians)?, and why do you call them bronstein. David Davidovitch Braunstein was actually Trotskyjs name, so I think it is funny, will you please explain... -
Message 32
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 9th January 2006
Dave,
Sharon it now seems will escape prosecution for war crimes in Lebanon (mas killing of minority groups), but his successor still must answer the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the wall - in another oriny, Iraq, Israel and the US are not signe dup to the International Criminal Court.Ìý
Dave, Why should Sharon or any other Israeli be held accountable for Arab on Arab war crimes. I presume you are referring to Sabra and Shatila. These war crimes were committed by Lebanese Christian militias commanded by a Lebanese commander Elie Hobeika who would later go on to cabinet rank in the Lebanese government. There was not one Israeli inside either of those camps. This was Arab on Arab settling up old scores. You are correct about the US and Israel not being signatories to the international court as a fair trial would be impossible.
However, the modern point is ironically that the Jews in Israel have not learned the lesson and continue to maltreat the Palestinaisn under their illegal occupation. Hence the view in many parts, most recently Iran, that the telling of events is rather baised and much as Bush trots out "9/11" to justify mass killing and theft of resources in the Middle East, so Israel uses the Holocaust victims as a justification to maltreat others.Ìý
On the contrary, Israel has learned its lessons well. There will be no more quietly walking into gas chambers. Israel learned that lesson the hard way, and will defend its self. As for your reference to President Bush, and your comment about theft of resources and mass killings, quite frankly is reminisent of a quote from the British Daily worker or some other Brit tabloid. You're better than that Dave, get past your blind spots.
Cheerz. -
Message 33
Posted by U1969296 (U1969296) on Monday, 9th January 2006
Hi Guys
I have read this thread with a lot of interest
another fact that arises is that after the liberation of the concentration camps. Some of the returning Jews were murdered on their arrival to their homesteads now some of these atrocities were in Poland and some in Latvia Estonia ,and Lithuania.
My Grandfathers brother was amongst those. Very sad.
HAPPY AND HEALTHY NEW YEAR TO ALL
and -
Message 34
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Monday, 9th January 2006
Expat,
Re:
Lebanon, Sharon, refugee camps and Christian militia.
Sharon was in charge of the aforementioned area. Sharon's forces set off flares above the camps to provide illumination for the murderous work to take place. Israelis guarded the entries and exists.
I think Sharon's actions are horrible, but he has plenty of company in the annals of history. And, as far as I can tell, massacres are a Middle-eastern custom. -
Message 35
Posted by U2907000 (U2907000) on Monday, 9th January 2006
Expat wrote:
>here was not one Israeli inside either of those camps.<
According to Robert Fisk, who was the first on the spot, israelis controlled the gates to the camp and monitored anyone coming in and out. As you know it is the responsibility of an occupying power to secure the safety of the civlians.
There is indeed testimonys given to the (Kahan)commision that indicates the presence of some israeli soldiers inside the camp. It all started when Sharon told the phalangists that palestinians had killed their leader, because he knew they would then go berserk.
****
>Israel's Prime Minister was a ruthless military commander responsible for one of the most shocking war crimes of the 20th century, argues Robert Fisk. President George Bush acclaims Ariel Sharon as 'a man of peace', yet the blood that was shed at Sabra and Chatila remains a stain on the conscience of the Zionist nation.<
> Sharon it was who sent the Phalange into the camps on the night of 16 September - to hunt for "terrorists", so he claimed at the time.
The subsequent Israeli Kahan commission of enquiry into this atrocity provided absolute proof that Israeli soldiers saw the massacre taking place. The evidence of a Lieutenant Avi Grabovsky was crucial. He was an Israeli deputy tank commander and reported what he saw to his higher command. "Don't interfere," the senior officer said. Ever afterwards, Israeli embassies around the world would claim that the commission held Sharon only indirectly responsible for the massacre. It was untrue. The last page of the official Israeli report held Sharon "personally responsible". It was years later that the Israeli-trained Phalangist commander, Elie Hobeika, now working for the Syrians, agreed to turn state's evidence against Sharon - now the Israeli Prime Minister - at a Brussels court. The day after the Israeli attorney general declared Sharon's defence a "state" matter, Hobeika was killed by a massive car bomb in east Beirut. Israel denied responsibility. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Brussels and quietly threatened to withdraw Nato headquarters from Belgium if the country maintained its laws to punish war criminals from foreign nations. Within months, George W Bush had declared Sharon "a man of peace". It was all over.In the end, Sharon got away with it, even when it was proved that he had, the night before the Phalangists attacked the civilians of the camp, publicly blamed the Palestinians for the murder of their leader, President-elect Bashir Gemayel. Sharon told these ruthless men that the Palestinians had killed their beloved "chief". Then he sent them in among the civilian sheep - and claimed later he could never have imagined what they would do in Chatila. Only years later was it proved that hundreds of Palestinians who survived the original massacre were interrogated by the Israelis and then handed back to the murderers to be slaughtered over the coming weeks.
So it is as a war criminal that Sharon will be known forever in the Arab world, through much of the Western world, in fact - save, of course, for the craven men in the White House and the State Department and the Blair Cabinet - as well as many leftist Israelis. Sabra and Chatila was a crime against humanity. Its dead counted more than half the fatalities of the World Trade Centre attacks of 2001. But the man who was responsible was a "man of peace".<
***
***
Personally comment:
Note that the dead tolls was about 1500, not just the 850 in the 2 camps, as stated in the last paragraph quoted above - because the israelis was actively handing palestinians over to the phalangists!! -
Message 36
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 9th January 2006
Expat,
Re:
Lebanon, Sharon, refugee camps and Christian militia.
Sharon was in charge of the aforementioned area. Sharon's forces set off flares above the camps to provide illumination for the murderous work to take place. Israelis guarded the entries and exists.
I think Sharon's actions are horrible, but he has plenty of company in the annals of history. And, as far as I can tell, massacres are a Middle-eastern custom.Ìý
Hi jb,
In so much that Sharon was the area commander then of course he is ultimatly responsible. It can be colored any which way by the Palistinians, however it was plain and simple Arab on Arab murder. As you aluded to, its nothing new in that neighborhood.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 37
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 9th January 2006
Hi Alf,
It is not my intention to belittle your post, but Robert Fisk is hardly a reference that I would use. Any time anything at all happens the Arabs always say it’s the Israeli's that did it. They even said that it was Israel that committed the attack on 9/11.
Cheerz. -
Message 38
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Re: Message 19.
Daniel,
Did more than one hour research for the book. Have it now on hand. Hans Jansen "Het Madagascar Plan": Sdu Uitgevers, Den Haag 1996: ISBN 90 12 08148 3
It seems that there is only a German translation: Der Madagascarplan münchen 1997 and no French and English translation.
I promised already to someone once on these boards to give a phone call to the author to ask to translate it in English.
I searched in the libraries in Belgium to seek for the book. But seemingly you have no access to the University Libraries on the net . In the Flemish libraries you have on the first sight only access to the list of the Public Libraries of Flanders and in that list Brussels is not included.
On a site: Van Jodenhaat tot zelfmoordterrorisme (From Jews' hate till suicideterrorism) I found:
Prof. Dr. Hans Jansen was from 1990-2001 titularis of the James William Parker chair for history of Christian literature at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)
Since 2002 he is at the Simon Wiesenthal Instituut in Brussels. I did research for this institute but didn't find it. Only the Wiesenthal Center in Paris I found. So on the first sight not able to reach him.
Warm regards,
Paul.
PS. Have to leave immediately for a concert in Brussels some 60 miles from here. -
Message 39
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Dear Paul,
Always reliable, solid as a rock.
I might be able to manage the German translation, and I have noted the information you have given. Many thanks. There is a SWC (Simon Wiesenthal Centre) in Paris, but not in Brussels, although I believe they have interests or connections with some of the EU institutions here.
Enjoy your evening at 'La Monnaie', plenty of Mozart this year for obvious reasons. Perhaps I'll see you there sometime. As you are in town, you may as well pop in for a Jupiler and a good historical discussion.
All the best
Daniel Re: Message 19.
Daniel,
Did more than one hour research for the book. Have it now on hand. Hans Jansen "Het Madagascar Plan": Sdu Uitgevers, Den Haag 1996: ISBN 90 12 08148 3
It seems that there is only a German translation: Der Madagascarplan münchen 1997 and no French and English translation.
I promised already to someone once on these boards to give a phone call to the author to ask to translate it in English.
I searched in the libraries in Belgium to seek for the book. But seemingly you have no access to the University Libraries on the net . In the Flemish libraries you have on the first sight only access to the list of the Public Libraries of Flanders and in that list Brussels is not included.
On a site: Van Jodenhaat tot zelfmoordterrorisme (From Jews' hate till suicideterrorism) I found:
Prof. Dr. Hans Jansen was from 1990-2001 titularis of the James William Parker chair for history of Christian literature at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)
Since 2002 he is at the Simon Wiesenthal Instituut in Brussels. I did research for this institute but didn't find it. Only the Wiesenthal Center in Paris I found. So on the first sight not able to reach him.
Warm regards,
Paul.
PS. Have to leave immediately for a concert in Brussels some 60 miles from here.Ìý -
Message 40
Posted by Alf-Ventress. (U2907150) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Obviously, today Madagasgar seems just as untenable as a destination for the jews as Palestine have proven to be, if 4 wars,invasion into Libanon, 2 intifadas (with the planned annexation of East Jerusalem likely to produce a third), a terrorcampaign un-paralleled in scope from 1967 to 1986 when the palestinian leadership fled from the advancing israelis to the East Bank of the Jordan, where they in turn was thrown out by King Hussein in Sept. 1970 and ended up in Libanon, only to be send off to Tunis in 1983, only to return in 1993 Gaza and later the WestBank. Add to that the gravest economic setback since the 30'ties, when the arabs turned the taps in 1973 as retaliation for unanimous western support for Israel in the october war of that year, and it becomes apparent that the jewish homeland is very misplaced indeed.
Madagasger would have been a blatant insult to the indegenous population, just as it has been towards the indigenous in Palestine. The whole idea of going about creating homelands in someones elses should have been a dead idea after WW2, and indeed is prohibited in the UN charter, where all borders now is fixed, and nobody can take any others land. -
Message 41
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
'I' Alf-Ventress,
' and why do you call them bronstein. David Davidovitch Braunstein was actually Trotskyjs name, so I think it is funny, will you please explain...'
If frankly I always thought that the real name of Trotsky was Lev(or Leo)
Davidovitch Bronstein.Hmmm...The longer we live,the more we know really-sounds like an encouragement to learning....I'm talking about the Trotsky of whom Lenin(Ul'yanov) Vladimir Illitch wrote into his Testament that he 'was personally perhaps the most capable man in the present Central Committee,but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of work'.
Lenin didn't mention about that man-David Davidovitch Braunnstein.
'Do you by trotskys mean the intellectual bourgois jews who were in charge of the politbureau and the secret police, and the bronsteins are this the innocent'
-yes,I mean exactly that thing.
Later,when Lenin died, Trotsky was blamed in conducting the line of 'factionalism'by Stalin. On 26 October of 1924 at the Plenum of the Cenral Committee where Trotsky did his passionate speech in which he denied all of the allegations of 'Bonapartism' had been levelled against him.
And it was at this point that he raised the question of his Jewish roots.To prove that he lacked ambition Trotsky cited two occasions when he had turned down Lenin's offer of getting high position in office-once in October 1917(Commissar of the Interior) and once again in September 1922(Deputy Chairman of Sovnarkom)-on the grounds that it wouldn't be wise,given the problem of anti-Semitism,to have a Jew in such high post.Trotsky's thought was obvious-opposition to him in the party-and Lenin himself acknowledged this-stemmed partly from the fact that he was a Jew.It was a real tragic moment for Trotsky-not just as a politician but also a man-that at this turning point in his life ,standing condemned before the party,he should have to fall back on his Jewish roots.For a man who had never felt himself a Jew,it was a mark of how alone he was.
Kind regards,
Jack. -
Message 42
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 14th January 2006
Re: Message 39.
Dear Daniel,
excuse for the delay. See also my excuse just near this to lol.
Did again research for Hans Jansen. "My" Hans Jansen is Dr. J.G.B. Hans Jansen born 1931 and is now reformed theologue, before he was a Roman-Catholic priest and an authority on the history in the field of history of anti-semitism and christianity. It is not Dr J.J.G. Hans Jansen born 1942 Arabist in Leiden and extraordinary(? buitengewoon hoogleraar) professor at the Utrecht university.
I found the Belgian website with all the Jewish organisations in Belgium, but no Simon Wiesenthal Institute Brussels. But I found several phone numbers to call. Among others that of the Belgisch Israëlitish Weekblad. If I have time I do a phone call to try to solve the mystery. Perhaps they don't make that much publicity for safety reasons?
There were always indirect references to Dr. Hans Jansen, in mostly Dutch sites, but now I understand as he is now some Reformed Church...Perhaps he is now too much involved in for instance "Christenen voor Israël" (Christians for Israel)...
But I have the book in my hand and at the end a bibliography of 40 pages. About the Madagascarplan of Paul de Lagarde, that of Henry Hamilton Beamish and "The Britons", that of Egon van Winghene, that of Arnold Leese and Charles W.Gore of the "Imperial Fascist League".
The Polish Madagascarplan of the twenties, the French Madagascarplan of 1937, the second Polish Madagascarplan of 1937, the German Madagascarplans of dr. Hjalmar Schacht, that of Wohlthat to Rublee of 1939, that of the German Foreign Ministry during WWII, The British Madagascarplan during WWII, the Jewish Madagascarplan at the end of WWII, the British Madagascarplan after WWII.
Daniel, I can't control it all, but from the bibliography it "seems" honest. And I don't think the VUB (Free University Brussels) wouldn't allow someone in such a function if it wasn't an honest historian. Now being in his new post, he will perhaps not viewed that impartial anymore? by some?...
Daniel,
"De Munt" and Mozart? Already planned six months Mozart in our new (very expensive building and IMO ugly too) Concert-building of Bruges and notting else...Was waiting for Madame Butterfly, but perhaps for next year...
No, we delivered the grand-daughter and her niece under the influence of "James Blunt" with his "beautiful" girl. Afterwards they said that he had "looked them directly in the eyes"...He said also "Dank U wel" in Dutch, hearing from the grand-daughter's post-synchronisation it sounded as a French "wel", but it could also be an English "Dank Ju Well", in any case he did also his best to pronounce some French...And it seems that he is singing "on" his "socks"...??
As a "washed ashore" "new" Brusselaar/Bruxellois, you know perhaps the Place St. Denis/St. Denis Plein near Forest National/ Vorst Nationaal. In the meantime, while we where not that interested in James (and the price...smile), we tried to pass the time on the Place St Denis. Many cafés...first an on the first sight honest café, with "Spanish"? French speaking "patron", then an excellent Chinese restaurant with a Chinese from Thailand? and at the end, already 10 PM, only one café open anymore and some groups of "threatening?" "Morrocan?" youngsters on the otherwise quiet square, obstructing the road parking their cars three aside each other. Entered the café not for beer but for two coffees, an ugly patrone some Moroccan men in their fourties quarreled about some CD's and throw them around the café, some three whites didn't look to the quarrel but a tall one perhaps drunk started to tap the bar with his fists...We paid our coffee and fled quietly to a... Libanese restaurant to drink something else. And we talked about all the different factions in Libanon. And they said that they all spoke Arab but that they didn't understand the Morrocan Arab. By my study for these boards about the Arab Languages I said something about a common Arab language understandable for all. Yes, yes, said someone "l'Arabe literaire" (the literaly Arab)...Never underestimate the "common man"...
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 43
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Sunday, 15th January 2006
Some interesting and accurate comments about all this coming out of Iran - from the Â鶹ԼÅÄ news site:
Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said debate of the issue should not be off limits. "It is a strange world. It is possible to discuss everything except the Holocaust," he said.
"The foreign ministry plans to hold a conference on the scientific aspect of the issue to discuss and review its repercussions." -
Message 44
Posted by Ijeomaodigwe (U2790958) on Sunday, 15th January 2006
I have seen this too many time and have responded to it about 10 times will u ever stop asking this question. It was everyone's fault. If someone killed hitler and his staff from the begginning none of that would have happened.
-
Message 45
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Tuesday, 17th January 2006
Obviously, today Madagasgar seems just as untenable as a destination for the jews as Palestine have proven to be, if 4 wars,invasion into Libanon, 2 intifadas (with the planned annexation of East Jerusalem likely to produce a third), a terrorcampaign un-paralleled in scope from 1967 to 1986 when the palestinian leadership fled from the advancing israelis to the East Bank of the Jordan, where they in turn was thrown out by King Hussein in Sept. 1970 and ended up in Libanon, only to be send off to Tunis in 1983, only to return in 1993 Gaza and later the WestBank. Add to that the gravest economic setback since the 30'ties, when the arabs turned the taps in 1973 as retaliation for unanimous western support for Israel in the october war of that year, and it becomes apparent that the jewish homeland is very misplaced indeed.
Madagasger would have been a blatant insult to the indegenous population, just as it has been towards the indigenous in Palestine. The whole idea of going about creating homelands in someones elses should have been a dead idea after WW2, and indeed is prohibited in the UN charter, where all borders now is fixed, and nobody can take any others land.Ìý
It is unfortunate that a huge swath of Germany was not given for a Jewish homeland.Yes, I know that the Zionist movement wanted its ancesteral lands, but taking Germany's would have been very fair. And the Germans could have been sent to Poland! (I'm half-joking about that last part).
I am currently reading "Justice at Nuremberg."
It appears that the Nazi government had as one it's priorities, to exterminate Jews.
The Nazis murdered all they thought were its eneemies--I do not dispute that. But to say that the Jews died as a relult of the turmoil of war, is nonsense. Even though English and German civilians died from aerial bombings--where civilians were purposely targeted--it was not the plan of either the English or German governments to exterminate the other.
In the case of Jews, the Nazis gathered Jews for the purposes of killing them, whether it was on the outskirts of Russian towns, or in camps. The extermination of Europe's Jews, through shooting them, working and starving them to death, or gassing them (and sometimes allowing local people to kill them for sport) was a major part of Nazi goals.
The Jews may have been terrible people, just as Hitler and his thugs said they were--I don't know. I am just stating what I believe the historical record tells us.
To say that the Jews died as a result of the "turmoil of war" is comparable to saying that the American Indians were wiped out because they had no buffalo to eat. The buffalo were gone, because of an organized plan to eliminate the Indian food source. -
Message 46
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Wednesday, 18th January 2006
Re: Message 39.
Dear Daniel,
excuse for the delay. See also my excuse just near this to lol.
Did again research for Hans Jansen. "My" Hans Jansen is Dr. J.G.B. Hans Jansen born 1931 and is now reformed theologue, before he was a Roman-Catholic priest and an authority on the history in the field of history of anti-semitism and christianity. It is not Dr J.J.G. Hans Jansen born 1942 Arabist in Leiden and extraordinary(? buitengewoon hoogleraar) professor at the Utrecht university.
I found the Belgian website with all the Jewish organisations in Belgium, but no Simon Wiesenthal Institute Brussels. But I found several phone numbers to call. Among others that of the Belgisch Israëlitish Weekblad. If I have time I do a phone call to try to solve the mystery. Perhaps they don't make that much publicity for safety reasons?
There were always indirect references to Dr. Hans Jansen, in mostly Dutch sites, but now I understand as he is now some Reformed Church...Perhaps he is now too much involved in for instance "Christenen voor Israël" (Christians for Israel)...
But I have the book in my hand and at the end a bibliography of 40 pages. About the Madagascarplan of Paul de Lagarde, that of Henry Hamilton Beamish and "The Britons", that of Egon van Winghene, that of Arnold Leese and Charles W.Gore of the "Imperial Fascist League".
The Polish Madagascarplan of the twenties, the French Madagascarplan of 1937, the second Polish Madagascarplan of 1937, the German Madagascarplans of dr. Hjalmar Schacht, that of Wohlthat to Rublee of 1939, that of the German Foreign Ministry during WWII, The British Madagascarplan during WWII, the Jewish Madagascarplan at the end of WWII, the British Madagascarplan after WWII.
Daniel, I can't control it all, but from the bibliography it "seems" honest. And I don't think the VUB (Free University Brussels) wouldn't allow someone in such a function if it wasn't an honest historian. Now being in his new post, he will perhaps not viewed that impartial anymore? by some?...
Daniel,
"De Munt" and Mozart? Already planned six months Mozart in our new (very expensive building and IMO ugly too) Concert-building of Bruges and notting else...Was waiting for Madame Butterfly, but perhaps for next year...
No, we delivered the grand-daughter and her niece under the influence of "James Blunt" with his "beautiful" girl. Afterwards they said that he had "looked them directly in the eyes"...He said also "Dank U wel" in Dutch, hearing from the grand-daughter's post-synchronisation it sounded as a French "wel", but it could also be an English "Dank Ju Well", in any case he did also his best to pronounce some French...And it seems that he is singing "on" his "socks"...??
As a "washed ashore" "new" Brusselaar/Bruxellois, you know perhaps the Place St. Denis/St. Denis Plein near Forest National/ Vorst Nationaal. In the meantime, while we where not that interested in James (and the price...smile), we tried to pass the time on the Place St Denis. Many cafés...first an on the first sight honest café, with "Spanish"? French speaking "patron", then an excellent Chinese restaurant with a Chinese from Thailand? and at the end, already 10 PM, only one café open anymore and some groups of "threatening?" "Morrocan?" youngsters on the otherwise quiet square, obstructing the road parking their cars three aside each other. Entered the café not for beer but for two coffees, an ugly patrone some Moroccan men in their fourties quarreled about some CD's and throw them around the café, some three whites didn't look to the quarrel but a tall one perhaps drunk started to tap the bar with his fists...We paid our coffee and fled quietly to a... Libanese restaurant to drink something else. And we talked about all the different factions in Libanon. And they said that they all spoke Arab but that they didn't understand the Morrocan Arab. By my study for these boards about the Arab Languages I said something about a common Arab language understandable for all. Yes, yes, said someone "l'Arabe literaire" (the literaly Arab)...Never underestimate the "common man"...
Warm regards,
Paul.
Ìý
Paul,
My apologies, for not replying sooner. I spend so much time reading through the various threads on several boards that I sometimes lose track of ongoing topics.
I am sure that coming from VUB and the references you mention, your sources are almost certainly reliable. As for impartiality, that I suppose is another matter of opinion.
Going back to the original post I made, I still don't quite understand at what point the statements I made could be considered inaccurate. As I said before, I merely quoted what I accepted to be historical fact (albeit in basic, and perhaps very 'broad' terms), but nobody seems to have taken issue with any specific point. I went over to the Religion boards, but common sense tells me it would not be wise to get involved in a subject about which I do not have a great deal of knowledge, and could so easily cause offence or even distress to many people. Not the right place for such a discussion. I will follow some of your recommendations and learn a little more, as and when I find the time.
Can't say I'm a big fan of James Blunt but it sounds like an interesting evening. The diversity of peoples in Brussels really gives it some character, but your experience of a little 'rowdiness' in the cafe is not unique. I've had similar experiences and it can be very unpleasant. But to be fair, it's the kind of thing that can happen anywhere. Moving to Brussels has been a bit of a culture shock for me, but seeing so many different nationalities/cultures etc, living together and getting along relatively well, is a really positive thing. But of course, I am a foreigner too, and not really aware of any underlying problems that may exist.
I see you've already visited the 'bar', and it's quite sad expat is considering giving up. Why are people so disillusioned at the moment??
Best Regards
Daniel -
Message 47
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 20th January 2006
re: Message 46.
Daniel,
to start with the end. I think that Matt was disillusioned while Lisa called his thread irrelevant. I have to say that there are many threads on these boards, that I personally find more irrelevant. And Elistan's reply to Lisa, was also relevant that at the end all threads have sooner or later something to do with history. I learned already a lot on these boards how history in their particular corners of countries or corners of the world have influenced the views. I go even that far that the different opinions on toilets are history as there are historical related topics in it...My longtime friend Gilgamesh left the new boards because the Mods removed one of his messages for a non important swearword. I am sad for this. Very happy that another longtime friend: lol beeble sticks to the grounds and not leaves.
Yes, Daniel, you are right by rereading my "Place St. Denis" paragraph it seems a bit pointing to Brussels and that was not the intention. I was yet in other big cities as Detroit, New-York, San Francisco, Paris, Berlin, Johannesburg to call but some and they are the same. PS. I called only the first which came in mind, no one country pointed to...It seems that cities as Mexico city and Johannesburg are more dangerous at night...only Bejing walking at night "seemed" not dangerous? But for "me" cities are where "life" is, as opposed to the countryside, so I always opt for a citytrip...
Daniel, I reread the whole thread and indeed I saw no flaw in your message, as Daughterleah's lecturer remarked.
Perhaps he wanted to say that the Polish indeed were anti-Jew and were not fully against the camps. I think that Jozef's posts have cleared all the misconceptions and so has given you right about your message.
Although anti-semitism is a difficult story in Central-Europe and the Pale (I did some research about the "Pale" also for these boards).
I am reading: The Pity of it All: a portrait of Jews in Germany 1743-1933 it starts with the 14 year old Mendelssohn entering the Rosenthaler Tor the only gate for catlle and...Jews. It starst to depicture the special status and requirements for the Prussian state to allow Jews intra-muros. I hope to learn a bit about the attitudes of Middle Europe towards the Jews...
Reading in the Madagascarplan: 1926: due to the huge overpopulation of the rural Poland resulting in social-economic problems. 2.5 million Poles were outside the country. 10 million people were not Polish among who: 3 million Jews, 5 million Ukrainians and 1 million Germans. The Polish government consulted the French government if they couldn't allow Polish "hardened" peasants into Madagascar. The French warned of the difficult circumstances the peasants would have to work in. A year later in 1927 the Japanese asked the same for the same reasons.
In 1937 the French government had taken the lead to settle the persecuted Jews in French colonies. In the meantime there was a Polish plan. While there was less emigration possible for the Poles to other countries, while they didn't allow any big entries anymore, the Polish government was seeking for another solution. In 1935 lived 40% of the industrial population below the poverty limit. The circumstances on the rural part were also immens.
Have to stop. Nearing 1 o'clock in Belgium, midnight at the Â鶹ԼÅÄ London.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 48
Posted by jaycee56 (U3008889) on Friday, 20th January 2006
Hello,Polish girl,yes many people died in the concentration camps in Poland and it was definitely the fault of Hitler. Whatever initiatives were shown by the Poles was I'm sure because they were Anti-Semitic or were forced to collaborate with the Nazis and no doubt some of them were willing traitors too. Those who were openly defiant to Hitler and the whole Nazi regime were without doubt the brave ones. Also another cross-section of Polish young men came over here and joined our Armed Forces to fight against this fascism - for all the good it did because there was no country for them to come home to. Those German and Russian representatives you mention were trying to lay the blame on the Poles but their history books are written the way they want to remember things not how they were.
-
Message 49
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
Paul,
Just to let you know, in case you are interested, there is a meeting at the European School in Uccle on 27th January at 5pm, Holocaust Memorial Day. Speakers include Baron Paul Halter, President of the Auschwitz Foundation, and Anne Morelli, Professor of History at ULB, amongst others. They will be open to questions and it could be a good opportunity to hear some first hand accounts from survivors.
It's open to the general public, and I thought I should let you know.
Best regards,
Daniel -
Message 50
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
Re: Message 49.
Daniel,
read two hours about Anne Morelli and Baron Paul Halter.
Anne: interesting woman, she says about herself that she thinks far-left. I read a lot about her book about warpropaganda and the living together of Flemings and Walloons, and about 175 years Belgium. She seems to be in the same departement of the ULB as was Hans Jansen but that was on the VUB and that is a difference (big smile). She has "fresh" ideas about history (small smile).
About the Baron I didn't find that much: been in the camps, now 82 years old, described as an anti-Zionist Jew. There is also a crimi (policier) writer Paul Halter but I think there is no connection.
Thank you very much to have pointed them to me. I learned a lot about left wing French language speaking Belgians. BTW. I love Anne for her thought-provoking interviews and her children go to a Dutch speeking school...
have to stop...the deadline.
Very warm regards,
Paul.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.